Doomsday prediction or proof that expanding in arts and sciences is a negative act?

http://www.livescience.com/52399-doomsday-revised-world-will-end-october-7.html

The above article discusses how on October 7, 2015 the world is (was) supposed to end. The ending of the world was a prediction made by now deceased preacher Harold Camping followers. Harold Camping originally predicted the world would end on October 21, 2011. However, some of his followers have recalculated his findings and conclude that the end of the word should've happened on October 7, 2015. Camping and his followers are not the first to predict the end of the world. A lot of religious groups have come up with different dates and years as to when the world was going to end or when God was going to come back and save the saved and banish to bad people to hell.

As I recall some of the other groups that have predicted a doomsday I couldn't help but think of Rousseau's claim that the arts and sciences are or have had negative effects on us. I also couldn't help but think of his idea that simple man is selfish and morally corrupt. To me, it seems like the expansion of science and discovery of artifacts such as the Mayan calendar as well as religion has created this whole idea of doomsday. However, the intent behind announcing a doomsday always seems to spread religious beliefs as well which makes me question whether or not the sciences have made people morally corrupt as far as spreading their belief and for personal gain. Also, I was reading another article where supposedly  man has brought an HIV/AIDS medicine company and has raised the price to about $700 per a pill. Small things like these I wonder how Rousseau would feel about them. What do you guys think about people taking modern da advances in arts and sciences and twisting them for their own advantage?

Freedom Post - Erika

Do School Shootings Show Our Freedom or Lack There of?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-day-another-tragic-school-shooting/2015/10/09/62f5077c-6eb5-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

The article above discusses the high frequency of school shootings. We hear about these multiple times a year, the article says that there have been 52 school shootings just this year. This number keeps rising, as seen by there being 149 school shootings since 2013. Meaning that just this year alone we have had 1/3 of all the school shootings in the past 2 years. We discussed the government taking away freedoms while ensuring others. This article takes a political stance saying asking when will the government start caring about the lives lost over how many assault weapons they want. I think that the protection of the country as a whole should be the top priority of the government, but right now all I see every time I turn on or read the news is another fatal shooting, sometimes with the caption 'only one person was fatally shot' why is one person dying a good thing?

In today's society there is a lot of controversy over certain freedoms. We discussed in class about whether the government gives us freedoms or limits them. The bill of rights was brought up, saying that these were the freedoms that the US government isn't allowed to take away from us. However they have been interpreted differently throughout the history of the country. Now I know that the second amendment gives us the freedom to own a gun, but as discussed in class in regards to speed limits 'we have the freedom to not die'. If these are both true then why are so many people dying because of guns?  I think that one freedom should not compromise another yet here we are at what feels like a paradox, no one wants to give up their machine guns or die. Like Rousseau thought technology ruins us, unfortunately we have never realize it before it's to late. I think that in light of school shootings Rousseau was right.

Freedom Post- Sammy

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/09/how-should-the-news-media-cover-mass-shooters/taking-a-different-ethical-approach-in-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shooters

This debate article by Mark Follman discusses whether or not media outlets should publicly report the names of mass shooters after a shooting. The author argues that although these news outlets have every right to do so, there is forensic evidence that mass shooters of today will try and act in a similar manner to other famous mass shooters in the past, and by withholding information about these shooters, it is possible that we can reduce the number of mass shootings in the future. Publishing many of these shooters manifestos online for anyone to read can be a dangerous thing. Although the majority of people will read them and be disgusted, it is possible that it could inspire one person to be the next killer.

The issue of restricting media reminded me of Rousseau's thoughts on the general will and how much freedom the media and the public should have in scenarios like this, especially with the high amount of mass shootings that occur in the Unites States each year. The public may demand to know information about the shooter, but is it in their best interest if it may put them in danger in the future? Follman admits that it is likely impossible that the media will restrict all information about these mass shooters, but this still raises the question of whether or not freedom of press will be jeopardized if the media chooses to withhold information. People may demand that the media give us more information on the shooters, but I believe that this is an example where the common interest of the community is more important that the rights of the individual. If shifting focus away from the names and manifestos of mass shooters could prevent killings in the future, I think it is worth it.

Freedom post- Hyla

http://o.canada.com/news/video-american-inequality-explained-with-lego

This video I watched in my social analysis class, demonstrates the income inequality/opportunity in America and the major income disparity between the rich and the poor. In an equal society the wealth in America would be divided equally between the 5 classes in America- lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class. However, that is not at all what our wealth distribution looks like. Instead the upper class has 52% of the wealth, the upper middle class has 20%, the middle class has 14%, the lower middle has 10%, and the lower class has 5% of the wealth. This, although uneven, makes sense that the upper class would have more wealth than the lower classes. What is not fair, however, is how hard upward mobility is in our society. In a perfect world, it would not matter which social class you were born into; you would have the same chance of making it to the upper class as anyone else. This is not the society we live in. instead, only 1 in 10 born into the lower class have a chance of making it into the upper class. The video goes on to explain how certain factors make it even more difficult to obtain social mobility.  I really recommend watching this video so you can see it all visually displayed.

This video remained me of our discussion of Locke’s views on property. I immediately thought of the quote by him that property is “for the industrious and rational, not the quarrelsome and contentious.” If you work hard you will have a lot of property and possessions, so if you are poor that just means you are lazy. I think this is the way a lot of people think. Many come to America for the “American Dream” and believe if you put in the hard work you will have a good, financially successful life. While that once may have been the case, it is not in today’s society. As that video demonstrated the upper class have a monopoly on the wealth in America. Someone who works a 40-hour workweek, but is only making minimum wage still may be living in poverty. Although they may spend most of their day working they still may not even be able to afford a roof over their head. They also have only a 1 in 10 chance of moving upward in class. How would John Lock feel about today’s unfair wealth distribution and the fact that someone may work as hard as they can, but still be living be below the poverty line and struggling to survive?

Freedom and Social Contract

Anchal Kannambadi 

Article: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/ontario-teacher-fired-over-racist-tweets-204659364.html

The article above talks about how a Richmond Hill teacher was fired for tweeting racist slurs, and anti-Muslim statements, and how that teacher was required to follow an “unwritten social contract” that prohibited the inappropriate use of language and offensive materials. The article goes on to say that there is a higher standard that teachers are held to, and that they are responsible for teaching and influencing other students. That being said, this teacher violated the trust that comes along with being a teacher, and they were fired as a result of that.

This relates to what we talked about in class on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his idea of a Social Contract. Teachers are influential on students, and therefore they have to keep their opinions strictly objective, otherwise they are considered unprofessional. When you join a society, you are giving up a certain freedom, because you are adapting to the rules. This teacher violated both the social contract, and the liberties and requirements that a role model has in society. In class we discussed the idea that there is a general will or common interest in a community. In this situation the common interest is not being partial or ignorant towards anyone. One question I would like to ask is if you believe that there is a limit to freedom of speech, or should there be a restriction for certain members of a community. 

Freedom Post- Devon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pharrell-freedom-video_55b11623e4b08f57d5d3d9f1

The link above is a very short article from the Huffington Post that briefly talks about singer Pharrell's music video for his new single "Freedom". The video shows many powerful clips of injustices and restrictions on freedom that occur all around the world. Some of the most powerful images include women working in sweatshops, men working in mining fields, and extreme poverty stricken neighborhoods. The clips are mixed with images of animals in the wild and nature functioning by itself without human involvement.

Immediately after and even during my viewing of this music video the first thing that came to mind was Rousseau's idea of freedom and his belief of man's dominance in his primitive state. Specifically Rousseau's assertion that the natural man will always win and how man that exists in society is a corrupted form of man. By entering into a society with government it results in destructive products like sweatshops and slave labor that are the product of "the most powerful...having made their strength or their needs a sort of right to another's goods" (Rousseau, 101). This means that the one's in power, or in the one's who have property, take freedom away from those who don't have power/property and take advantage of them. Once men enter into a society that is ruled by property and law it results in a "weak voice of justice, made men greedy, ambitious, and evil" (Rousseau, 101) and ultimately destroys man. Pharell's use of nature and animals in their wild habitats reinforces Rousseau's beliefs that natural man is the only form where man is actually free because he is not restricted.