The Prince
For History class a few days ago, we came in having read a reading called the prince. It was a mans speech about what makes a good prince and a good leader. He brought up many different facts about the way people think and I thought those views were very interesting to think about.
In this speech by Machiavelli, the idea that a good ruler has to be mean was brought up a lot. We talked about this in class quite a bit too. Here are two examples of different types of rulers. One will be very nice to the people and give them things like money or no taxes. But eventually this ruler needs money so he stops giving it away and starts charging taxes on the people. This makes the people very angry because the ruler just switched on them so they begin to resent the ruler and actually start to hate him. Back then, the people hating their ruler could end in them killer him. The other type of ruler is the kind that starts out mean so that the people are scared of him and they don't really feel like he owes them anything, they haven't lost anything. They may resent things that this ruler does but at least they don't hate this ruler. So, according to this person, it is better to be a ruler that starts out mean from the very start, then a ruler that is nice but as the possibility to need something later on. I don't really think that this is the morale thing to do or the most virtuous of rulers but it is the way to be an effective ruler and have the people follow you.
I think that this way of rulering is the total opposite of Confucianism because Confucianism promotes the notion that a nice ruler will be a good example to make the people good too. Machiavelli's idea about good leaders is closer to Han Fei-Tzu's idea of a good leader, they both think that good leaders should be more on the mean and harsh side. But the difference between these two people's ideas is that Machiavelli thinks that if you are mean the people won't do anything that is bad, Han Fei-Tzu thinks that if the people will be bad regardless, so you need the punish them in return and this is the best way to teach them their lesson. So Machiavelli's way of leading thrives off of fear while Han Fei-Tzu's way is based off of learning lessons. So out of these two, to me Han Fei-Tzu's way is more moral them Machiavelli's way. I think this because at least with Han Fei-Tzu's way, the people doing the bad are learning a lesson and the leader doesn't have to be unnecessarily mean to the innocent people. So out of all of these way, I can see the reasoning behind all of them but I have to say that I think the one least likely to work is the Confucianism way because it is taking to big of a risk, what if the people are bad regardless? Then what would happen, the leader just say the same and keeps being nice to the people? That would only mean that the people would think that they could just do whatever they want because that is what the other people did and they got away with it. I can understand how the other two ways would work a lot more. I think that Machiavelli's way is also probably unlikely to work because it too is very risky because there is always going to be the people that aren't afraid to stand up against a mean ruler, people will get fed up eventually. So, I think that the best way is Han Fei-Tzu's way because it doesn't really leave any loopholes open.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
PAPER for Confucianism Reading and Han Fei- Tzu Reading
In history class last week, we came in having read a reading about Confucius and Han Fei- Tzu. These reading were basically the views these two regarding government and how to be the best governor. They both had very different views, Confucius with more of a "for the people" type of government and Han Fei- Tzu with more of a "government for the government" type. Using a method that we learned in class called "Paper" we analyzed these primary sources with partners, mine being Ariel.
PAPER for Confucius Reading:
Purpose: The purpose is to explain how to govern in a way that is best for the people that will, in turn be best for the entire government. It also explains what a "good government" is.
Argument: Confucius is arguing that people should be able to have faith in their ruler and the ruler should be reasonable. This basically means that if the people are left to make their own decisions without restrictions, they will do the right thing because they won't need to rebel.
Presuppositions: Confucius is in the position of a teacher because he is pretty much telling people how to be a good governor. And also he knows that people reading and following his teachings believe him and what he says.
Epistemology: This document is probably somewhat true. Although, since it was a long time ago when these ideas developed and where taught, things could have changed. And also this is not a concrete document we have to rely on it being true.
Relate: This relates to Han Fei- Tzu's document about government because they both talk about government and ways to be a good governor.
PAPER for Han Fei- Tzu Reading:
Purpose: Han Fei- Tzu's purpose in this document is to tell people about his ideas about legalism and to deny Confucianism. Also, like Confucius, to teach people about his views on government.
Argument: His argument is saying that a good government should have full control of their people. This is an example of a "government for the government" not a "government for the people". Also, Han Fei-Tzu's version of a good government calls Confucianism naive.
Presuppositions: Han Fei-Tzu is in the upper-class ruling section and Confucius denies all that he believes, so people are starting to follow Confucius and that worries Han Fei-Tzu.
Epistemology: The ideas of Han Fei-Tzu are probably to the views of legalists in that era.
Relate: This relates to Pericles because the Athenian government was based a lot on fairness and equality but then cared more about making decisions in a way that was most efficient, not necessarily taking time to make the best decision for the people.
PAPER for Confucius Reading:
Purpose: The purpose is to explain how to govern in a way that is best for the people that will, in turn be best for the entire government. It also explains what a "good government" is.
Argument: Confucius is arguing that people should be able to have faith in their ruler and the ruler should be reasonable. This basically means that if the people are left to make their own decisions without restrictions, they will do the right thing because they won't need to rebel.
Presuppositions: Confucius is in the position of a teacher because he is pretty much telling people how to be a good governor. And also he knows that people reading and following his teachings believe him and what he says.
Epistemology: This document is probably somewhat true. Although, since it was a long time ago when these ideas developed and where taught, things could have changed. And also this is not a concrete document we have to rely on it being true.
Relate: This relates to Han Fei- Tzu's document about government because they both talk about government and ways to be a good governor.
PAPER for Han Fei- Tzu Reading:
Purpose: Han Fei- Tzu's purpose in this document is to tell people about his ideas about legalism and to deny Confucianism. Also, like Confucius, to teach people about his views on government.
Argument: His argument is saying that a good government should have full control of their people. This is an example of a "government for the government" not a "government for the people". Also, Han Fei-Tzu's version of a good government calls Confucianism naive.
Presuppositions: Han Fei-Tzu is in the upper-class ruling section and Confucius denies all that he believes, so people are starting to follow Confucius and that worries Han Fei-Tzu.
Epistemology: The ideas of Han Fei-Tzu are probably to the views of legalists in that era.
Relate: This relates to Pericles because the Athenian government was based a lot on fairness and equality but then cared more about making decisions in a way that was most efficient, not necessarily taking time to make the best decision for the people.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Questions From Class About Movie
In class on Friday, after we finished the movie about the Stasi, we were all put into groups and were given six questions to answer about the movie. The questions weren't facts about the movie but more just things that we can respond to regarding the movie. My group members were Ana and Danielle. The questions were as follows:
1.) Why do you believe the East German government felt the need to spy on the authors and play writes What problems did that create for the main characters in the film (Dreyman, Hauser…)?
We thought that the government was concerned that more cultured people who had more oppourtunities to express themselves, would expose negative beliefs about East Germany and the government. Also the government was insecure about itself, therefor they they needed to make sure that people weren't saying bad things about it. They people of the government were afraid that they would be overthrown because they didn't always make the right decisions that everyone in the country believed.
2.) Early in the film, one member of the Stasi refers to the group as the “shield and sword of the communist party.” What do you think this means? Does a government need a “shield and sword of the communist party?
My group thought that the shield stood for the government's defense while the sword is the government's attack weapon. The shield might be the Stasi agents and the surveillance systems that were installed in different people's houses. The sword could be the punishment or the jail that the people would go to if they were caught doing things against the government. SInce the communist party is not favored among all, the leaders of the government felt the need to have a "sword and shield" ready to protect their government.
3.) What rights does the government have to monitor its own people? Do you believe there are situations in which the government has the right to spy on its own citizens?
The government should only have the right to monitor it's people when many lives are in danger, they should not have the right to monitor its people to save themselves. That would not be in the best interest of the people, but the best interest for the government and that is not (or shouldn't be) what government is all about.
My group thought that the least ethical character was Minister Hemf, he completely completely destroyed Christa- Maria's career which lead to her death. If it weren't for him, the Stasi wouldn't have had something against Christa- Maria to try and get out of her where the type writer was hidden. Weisler was probably the most ethical person (towards the end) because after learning about Dreyman's life he realized that these people who disagree with the government aren't bad people, they just have different views on things. Weisler saved Dreyman and his reputation.
5.) In what ways does the Stasi strengthen the East German government? Weaken it?
The Stasi weakens the government because it is not always good in the eyes of the people. The just see that they are not trusted and it gives them more of a reason to rebel and hate the government. The Stasi strengthens the government because it catches all the people that could potentially expose the government's flaws.
6.) Was the East German government an “effective government” ? What do you believe it means to be “an effective government”?
The East German government was effective because as in it arrested and caught people while keeping the government clean and it is a government that does what it wants to get done. But it wasn't effective in the eyes of the people. The government didn't always want that best interest for the people, but for themselves and some could argue that this makes them an ineffective government. So I guess that is was and it wasn't and effective government.
1.) Why do you believe the East German government felt the need to spy on the authors and play writes What problems did that create for the main characters in the film (Dreyman, Hauser…)?
We thought that the government was concerned that more cultured people who had more oppourtunities to express themselves, would expose negative beliefs about East Germany and the government. Also the government was insecure about itself, therefor they they needed to make sure that people weren't saying bad things about it. They people of the government were afraid that they would be overthrown because they didn't always make the right decisions that everyone in the country believed.
2.) Early in the film, one member of the Stasi refers to the group as the “shield and sword of the communist party.” What do you think this means? Does a government need a “shield and sword of the communist party?
My group thought that the shield stood for the government's defense while the sword is the government's attack weapon. The shield might be the Stasi agents and the surveillance systems that were installed in different people's houses. The sword could be the punishment or the jail that the people would go to if they were caught doing things against the government. SInce the communist party is not favored among all, the leaders of the government felt the need to have a "sword and shield" ready to protect their government.
3.) What rights does the government have to monitor its own people? Do you believe there are situations in which the government has the right to spy on its own citizens?
The government should only have the right to monitor it's people when many lives are in danger, they should not have the right to monitor its people to save themselves. That would not be in the best interest of the people, but the best interest for the government and that is not (or shouldn't be) what government is all about.
4.) Which character is the most ethically/moral? Which character do you feel is
the least ethical/moral? Why?
5.) In what ways does the Stasi strengthen the East German government? Weaken it?
The Stasi weakens the government because it is not always good in the eyes of the people. The just see that they are not trusted and it gives them more of a reason to rebel and hate the government. The Stasi strengthens the government because it catches all the people that could potentially expose the government's flaws.
6.) Was the East German government an “effective government” ? What do you believe it means to be “an effective government”?
The East German government was effective because as in it arrested and caught people while keeping the government clean and it is a government that does what it wants to get done. But it wasn't effective in the eyes of the people. The government didn't always want that best interest for the people, but for themselves and some could argue that this makes them an ineffective government. So I guess that is was and it wasn't and effective government.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Das Leben der Anderen
Das Leben der Anderen or The Lives of Others (as it is called titled in English), is a movie that we have been watching in History class for the past three days. It is a movie about East Germany in 1984 but more specifically about the Stasi and a German writer. In East Germany during this time period the Stasi spied on people, specifically artists and writers, to make sure that they are loyal to the state. Writer and artists were the ones usually watched because they are able to make public statements through their art or literature and the Stasi don't want that so if the artists and writers do something they don't like they arrest them.
I thought this movie was very interesting because I didn't know very much about this and East Germany in the '80s. I didn't know anything about the Stasi so it was very fascinating learning about something I had no idea even existed. I want to work for the CIA when I grow up and by a secret agent but after seeing this movie I saw how what these spies were doing really effected people's lives in a huge way and how corrupt the government can be. I don't want to work for a corrupt government and I don't think that our government is bad but neither did the people who became part of the Stasi. When man, Wiesler, who was the one who spied on the writer, was just doing his job and what he thought was right but he was still made to look like the bad guy (although not at the end). Government and power can really fog your vision on your own morals and what is right and wrong. I also think that it was a good introduction to our government unit. The movie shows one form of government that I didn't know a lot about. I actually don't know very much about a lot of things that have to do with the government in foreign countries so I am very excited to start this unit.
I thought this movie was very interesting because I didn't know very much about this and East Germany in the '80s. I didn't know anything about the Stasi so it was very fascinating learning about something I had no idea even existed. I want to work for the CIA when I grow up and by a secret agent but after seeing this movie I saw how what these spies were doing really effected people's lives in a huge way and how corrupt the government can be. I don't want to work for a corrupt government and I don't think that our government is bad but neither did the people who became part of the Stasi. When man, Wiesler, who was the one who spied on the writer, was just doing his job and what he thought was right but he was still made to look like the bad guy (although not at the end). Government and power can really fog your vision on your own morals and what is right and wrong. I also think that it was a good introduction to our government unit. The movie shows one form of government that I didn't know a lot about. I actually don't know very much about a lot of things that have to do with the government in foreign countries so I am very excited to start this unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)