Quote from Crito

“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonourable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us?” (pg 49) I chose this quote because I felt it related to me in a way that could help me in the future. Even though many will say what you are doing is wrong, good may come of it. So you should stand up for what you believe in.

Dialogues of Plato Quote

"...and they [charges] were made by them in the days when you were more impressible than you are now--in childhood, or it may have been in youth--and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer." I found that this quote relates to me because when I was younger I believed and thought that what adults and people I looked up to told me was 100% true. Kids will believe anything you tell them and can't think for themselves and what they will choose to believe or not to believe until they develop those skills.

Reflection

When looking back on this year so far, I think that my favorite part was in the beginning of the year when we discussed Lord of the Flies and White Fang. I know if I would have read those books on my own I would not have thought about the connection of man and evil. I really enjoyed discussing whether man is inherently evil or is man's behavior based on society. Senior Social really makes me think about the books or packets we are reading and see the deeper meaning. I also like reading Inherit the Wind. I like talking about the symbolism we see in the book compared with life. I never liked symbolism before this class, but now that I can understand what is going on I really like it. Even though the packets are sometimes hard to read, I have liked those too. The Law and Justice packet really made me think of whether they are separate or together and I never thought of it like that. I have enjoyed all of the topics we've done so far in this class.

Law and Justice

"Are we not more obligated to achieve justice than to obey the law?" This quote best represented my opinion of law and justice because I believe that not all laws are justifiable. During swim season last year, my ipod and twenty dollars were stolen from me, but the girl was caught red-handed right then and there as she was stealing. I never got any money back or my ipod, yet I filed a police report. Even though this girl was a minor, I think she should have had to pay back or give back what she stole. Stealing is against the law, yet how is it justifiable at all that she didn't get any punishment for that? I know this has happened to many people at the high school and in this situation justice is not achieved. As it also said in this packet many laws are good because they protect us against wrongdoing, but laws also make people do things they don't want to and protect some people but not others. However, I think that both laws and justice are a need in the world because a world without laws would turn to chaos and a world without justice would not be worth living in.

Intelligent Design

The definition of intelligent design is certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The intelligent design theory is not just based on faith. It can be found in Plato's and Aristotle's teachings. The debate between the two sides is that people don't want any aspect of religion taught in biology class. I don't see the problem with it being taught in science classes because most schools teach evolution in only a few days and the intelligent design part does not particularly have to have anything said about God. I think that Matzke is correct with his view on teaching in schools. To require students to understand something but there is a difference about learning and believing and that the students should retain complete freedom of conscience. I think that students should be taught both because they need to be taught everything that is available for them to learn. It will prepare them for something that may possibly come out in science in the future.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?

I agree with both Siegle and Wittes. Siegle makes a good point in that democracies tend not to fight one another and are friendly, politically and economically. Also, if the ultimate goal of the government is to provide safety for citizens and high standards of living, it is in the best interest for countries to be democratic. In the most democratized countries, they promote their government by providing every aspect of their institutions(freedom, civil workers, etc.). An example in the packet was that in one country, they got more free press, and it cut down the amount of graft (corrupt policemen) because it was exposed publicly. Siegle argues that democratized countries have developed faster than those that are not, and there are facts to prove it as in the last sentence. However, in some instances the US has not insisted on democracy and it is a good thing. Because of the politics of oil, we have not forced democracy on the Arab countries. The Western economies would be severely damaged because they might cut off our oil. Hardly anybody would be able to drive because of the explosive gas prices. Even though it is proven that countries with high levels of democracy in all aspects have higher growth rates, many countries that aren't democratic want to stay the way they are. Otherwise, we will have to pay the consequences. That is why we must pick our fights wisely on which countries to press our democratic ways on.

Is it justifiable to put suspected terrorists under great physical duress?

I can see both sides of this question. Both authors make good points on whether torture is right or wrong. I don't think I could ever be the person to torture another person because it would be morally wrong in my beliefs. Hypothetically, if we capture a person who has information on a threat that is going to happen in the next 24 hours, are we just going to let them sit there or are we going to try and get it out of them? Everybody would agree we should try to get the information out of that person, but I don't think that getting it out of them should amount to torture. On the other side, if we were to torture someone, couldn't they just tell the interrogator a lie to stop the torture?
I do think that Krauthammer made a better point in his argument, but I don't think torture to a certain extent is okay. We are supposed to be a land of the free, but President Bush declared that the Geneva Convention, signed years ago, applies to detainees, but not to unlawful combatants and the use of justified interrogating techniques are able to be used. Krauthammer said that only the prisoners that should be tortured are terrorists and those with information about pending terrorist events. I agree with Krauthammer that torture should only be used in a dire situation.
Andrew Sullivan does not support torture and says that the information the terrorists give us is unreliable and thus unlikely to save lives. I agree with this. He states that "to reduce them to a subhuman level is to exonerate them of their acts of terrorism and mass murder-just as animals are not deemed morally responsible for killing." We shouldn't lower our morale just to try and get information out of them because they still did something terrible.
I don't believe that so many people should be tortured, but under dire circumstances we should get the information we need. I am glad to live in the United States because I know we are protected from that kind of treatment as long as we are law-abiding citizens. Though I am disgraced by the government because they are corrupt in dealing with other countries and some of the things going on in our country. I could not believe that they bring suspects to other countries to torture them. I hope someday our government and country is a true symbol of freedom and justice.