Justice post

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/18/kyrgyzstan-s-anti-gay-law-will-likely-pass-next-month-but-has-already-led-to-violence.html

This article is about how the country Kyrgyzstan will likely soon pass and anti-gay law. In Kyrgyzstan a bill must go through three rounds before it is passed. The anti-gay bill has already gone through two rounds. Its first round it was voted 79 to 7 and its second round it was 90 to 2 in favor of passing the bill. It seems the majority of the parliament is in favor of passing this bill. This bill would “ban the existence of LGBT organizations, shutter gay clubs, and most notably, could result in one-year prison sentences for those found guilty of propagating non-traditional sexual relations.” Violence against the LGBT community in Kyrgyzstan is already a major issue and the passing of this bill will only make it worse.

This article reminded me of our discussion of Locke on Friday. It seems like a lot of the class agreed with what Lock had to say. However, the one issue I have with Locke is his focus on majority rule. This article is an example on where majority rule might have negative consequences. In this case, the majority of the Kyrgyzstan government is in favor of passing the anti-gay law. By passing this law this would severely harm the rights of the LGBT minority in Kyrgyzstan and put them in danger. I found this to be a big flaw in Locke’s ideas. I know sometimes this is also an issue in our government where minorities’ rights may not be represented. Do you guys think we should just go along with what the majority rules because it is the majority? Or should there be a focus on minority rights as well?

Justice Blog Post- Devon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chelsea-manning-long-hair_55fd76eee4b0fde8b0ce7c8e?utm_hp_ref=crime&ir=Crime&section=crime

The article I chose discusses the controversy of the military denying Chelsea Manning to grow her hair to the women's grooming standard. Manning is a transgender military whistleblower who is in the process of transitioning and is serving prison time for releasing sensitive US documents concerning the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The main controversy in this case lives in the military's inconsistency of power. They have allowed Manning to receive necessary hormone treatments, speech therapy, and cosmetics but refuse to let her grow her hair to the women's grooming standard. There is also controversy about how she is being treated in a men's correctional facility.

I thought this controversy would be an interesting to apply to Hobbes' idea of justice because I think Hobbes could see this controversy as both just and unjust. In chapter 15 of Hobbes, he qualifies justice as following the social contract of the state you enter into, so, whatever the state says goes. Hobbes also describes the sovereign or the ruler's power as incontestable. So, even though it doesn't seem fair that the authorities are giving Manning some rights but not others she just has to accept what she can get because she entered this social contract and to go against that social contract would be unjust. Also, morality is not involved in Hobbes' justice so just because it is unfair that Manning is given some rights and not others is invalid. However, the state has already provided Manning with multiple other rights regarding her transition so to deny her something they have already given her would be unjust. It is not just to decide to bestow rights on a person but then decide that only a couple of those rights are actually applicable. Also, they have been treating Manning as a woman in every other aspect so it would be unjust to stop treating her like a woman in this one aspect. I agree with the argument that this is unjust. It is not just to give Manning only a portion of the rights she is entitled to for arbitrary reasons or "because I said so". If the state has agreed to give her the right to pursue all these other treatments for her transition then there is no reason allowing her to grow her hair to the women's grooming standard should be an issue.

Anchal's Blog, Blog 1 Cuba and USA's Relationship

Anchal Kannambadi

September 19th, 2015

Article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-16/us-rolls-out-new-measures-on-cuba-trade-and-travel/6020284

In the article above we discuss Cuba and USA’s measures to expand our trade, as well as travel within each other’s borders. Obama has started to “loosen” the hostility between Cuba and USA, and along with the Treasury, and Commerce Departments, he has issued new rules that allow trade, agriculture, etc. with Cuba. This decision has been implemented to help fix relations between the two. The idea is to promote political and economic situations in Cuba. Americans would be able to travel to Cuba without getting a license from the US government, for a number of visits/reasons. The new rules would help the political economy in Cuba, and the US would be able to provide mobile devices, and internet services to Cuba.

This article relates to what we were talking about in class on why government is important. We read that governments help to avoid wars, and provide stability within the people. Although for many cases that has not been true, for this situation Obama’s decision will help our relationship with Cuba. I think that with the new rules that regulate our relationship with Cuba, we will be able to mend (slowly) our problems with Cuba. Having this new found freedom for Cubans is going to help the economy because more business opportunities will present themselves, and rather that regressing, Cubans will be able to move forward. It’s also good that our relationship with Cuba is getting mended, because although Cuba is a communist country, being exposed to the US and our society might help them improve their lifestyle. One statement that I found to be interesting in the article was “United States companies will continue to be used as bait, but now the Republic of Cuba will need to reciprocate or risk a lessening of interest by the United States business community," why would America lose interest in Cuba, and how will Cuba keep our interest?

Briona's Blog 1-Kim Davis controversy proves just how relative justice is

Briona Hawkins

September 13, 2015


link to articel: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-anti-gay-marriage-clerk-kim-davis-back-square-one-n426656



The article I chose discusses the whole Kim Davis situation that has taken the world by storm. For those of you who may not be as knowledgeable about the situation here is a brief explanation of the situation. Kim Davis is a Kentucky marriage clerk who since the legalization of gay marriage has been denying to sign gay couples marriage licenses. She has stated that signing the licenses goes against her christian beliefs. Because of this action, she has went to federal court. The federal court arrested her for being in contempt of the law even after she had been warned of what not signing the marriage licenses would result in for her. After five days in jail, she was released and huge crowds of supporters welcomed her and played " Eye of the Tiger." Because she has a government job and cannot be fired, there is question as to whether she will resign or continue working and still deny marriage licenses to gay couples which will result in jail time.

While reading this article I couldn't help but relate this to our question on whether justice is relative. In class most people believed that it was and I think that this article is an example of why. Throughout this whole Kim Davis controversy there has been many mixed views. Some believe that the system is being unjust to Kim Davis because it is violating her religious freedom while others belief that the gay couples whose marriage licenses are being denied are the victims of injustice since it is now legal to marry as a gay couple and when Kim Davis signed her oath to office she vowed to sign for any marriage that was seen as legal in the state of Kentucky. This article also brings up the idea of whether or not people should be bound to the state.  In my opinion starting with the first question on whether justice is relative I can without a doubt say yes. People have different views and these different views make people form different ideas on what is right and wrong morally. This is seen in the article as some people believe that religious freedom is more important than the actual law. However when it comes to the second question as to whether or not people should be bound by the state i guess I can say yes and no. In this case with Kim Davis, I think that she needs to be bound by the law. In my opinion religious freedom has to deal with someone being able to freely practice their religious beliefs without being jailed. Religious freedom has nothing to do with signing under oath that you will sign for marriages that are legal and not doing so. Kim Davis was jailed not for being a christian but for not following the rules of her job which she understood when she took them. I also believe her forcing her religious beliefs on other's marriages is a form of injustice as well. However, I also recognize that sometimes the law can be unjust and under these circumstances I believe no one should be bound by an unjust law. This idea is sketchy though being that justice is relative. What do you guys think?

Sammy's Blog Post #1

 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/03/sports/tennis/tennis-courts.html?ref=sports         

           This New York Times article is a compilation of interviews about famous tennis stars and how they began playing when they were younger. The newspaper interviewed their close family and friends to find out how they started out, what the conditions of the courts were like, and the challenges they experienced as they started playing. For some, the conditions were much better than others. Roger Federer grew up playing on well-made courts that have barely needed repairs today, while Sania Mirza played on courts made with cow dung when she was younger.

            The article reminded me of our discussions in class on Tuesday and Friday as well as certain elements from Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle wrote that some people are naturally born to fill certain roles in society, and that the most fulfilling life they can live is directly related to how well they perform these roles. Since many of the social roles Aristotle discussed are now obsolete, such as master vs. slave, we can apply his words to other scenarios that are more relevant today such as rich vs. poor. In class we discussed whether or not being born into a certain socioeconomic status dictates how the rest of your life will play out. In the case of this article, it seems that these athletes fulfilled the role of professional tennis player regardless of the challenges they faced and were able to realize their full potential no matter what their background was.

Justice is the advantage of the stronger seen thourgh elections in Russia

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/09/13/world/europe/ap-eu-russia-elections.html?_r=0

     In Russia there were elections for local legislators and governors. The problem was that there was only one region, Kostroma, were candidates that opposed Putin were allowed to run. This is a clear example of Justice being the advantage of the stronger or of those in power. The article also says that even in Moscow where people are generally more westernized the anti-Putin’s have been beaten back significantly. The region where the Putin opposers were allowed to run is very economically depressed, which means that Putin does not see it as a threat and therefore does not really care what they do or say. Putin does what he wants when he wants, this is shown in the article by the fact that most people see no alternative to Putin and his supporters. This also speaks to the fact that many who aggressively speak out against Putin end up in jail. This shows justice being the advantage of the stronger, because Putin is using his strength to create his own justice that ultimately helps only him.

    This connects to The Republic of Plato where Thrasymacus believes that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Putin being in charge and not allowing most opposition against him to run shows this in a modern context. He let one region have a candidate that is not pro-Putin run, this was really just for show so he could say that it was a fair election and to say that he is just. Justice being the advantage of the stronger means that the ‘weak’, those not in power, have to follow the rules laid down by those in charge. Generally those in charge are the strongest or else they would have been kicked out. Thrasymacus thinks that those in charge are only looking to better themselves and not to better their subjects. This is shown in the article by there being very little opposition of Putin allowed to run. Putin wants to make sure he can not only stay in charge, but do it without anyone stating the other side of the story or saying something is wrong and should not happen or should be overturned.