Socrates: Should He Stay or Should He Go

In class, we recently learned about the philosophy of Socrates. I think that is it really interesting that Socrates thought that true knowledge was the understanding that you really don't know anything. So basically he is saying that you need to accept the fact that nobody can know everything because thinking that you know everything is actually quite arrogant.
Also, I thought that it was interesting that he went around talking to different people to see who was smart and who was pretend smart. He would ask people different questions and see if they end up contradicting themselves or if they can actually articulate their thoughts and know what they really mean. Because isn't that the most important thing when answering a question? To know what you mean? I think that it is pretty important when explaining something. Apparently, Socrates thought so too. He found that a lot of people actually could not properly answer his questions so in the end he was knew more than them. This, I think, is just part of his pursuit of power because what philosopher doesn't want power?

So, should Socrates stay or should he go? This is the question we were asked to answer about wether he should stay in jail even though he had the opportunity to escape, or should he go by taking that opportunity. I was put into a group that had to argue why Socrates should stay in jail. My group said that Socrates should stay out of respect for the law because if he leaves then basically he is saying that he is above the law and that would not be right. He also probably did not want others to follow in his example and break the law too. It would also be unfair for him to take his opportunity to escape because not everyone is given that opportunity. Personally, if I wasn't assigned anything, I would say that he should leave jail. I am pretty sure that, when given the opportunity, most people would try to escape from jail and potential (in his case, certain) death. Also, all he was doing was spreading teachings so, if you believe in human rights, arresting him would be taking away his human right to freedom of speech. I just personally believe that people can't be arrested for talking, not because it is a human right, but because people don't ahem the right to arrest you for that reason.

Comparing Hammurabi and Mosaic Codes

Now, comparing Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic's Code:

Something that is, however, similar between the two set of laws is the overarching message. Hammurabi's Code takes on a more strict sense of law while Mosaic's code is not nearly as strict and allows you to actually live when you do something bad. It think that that facts tell you something about the culture of Mosaic's Code. The code seems to be a more religion oriented set of laws so maybe that is where the mercy plays a role. That tells you that the culture was more religious and tolerant. The culture of Hammurabi's code was probably not as religion oriented because religious is barely (if not, not at all) incorporated into the laws. Moral justice (or their view of it) was more important then gods word (if they all even believed in god very much) or the teaching of god. 

Like I said before, despite all of the minor differences in these two set of laws, there are actually some huge similarities. Mainly, the overall theme. Aside from the obvious, they are both a set of laws, but they also address mainly the same things. Or that was how it was with the laws that we read. If something does not fly in one of the Codes, then is probably won't for the other set of laws. 

So, what was the author of each trying to get across? Well, for Hammurabi's Code, it almost felt like a threat. Well actually, it was a threat telling people that is they did this or didn't do this then they are going to be killed. It was more straight forward and strict then harsh though. But I still do think that some of the punishments were rather harsh. And with the simple language, it was making it easier for everyone to understand and to follow. Almost like there could be no excuses for misunderstanding a law because with simple language like that, you couldn't use that excuse. For Mosaic's Code, it almost seemed like the laws were being written just so that there could be laws. Not saying that they are stupid laws or anything, but they do tend to be semi-repetetive but very planned out. The tone was less controlling and more just to maintain order. Hammurabi's code seemed to want control more then just order among people. 

Contrasting Hammurabi and Mosaic Codes

In class, we discussed the Hammurabi's Code and Mosaic's Code and compared and contrasted the two. We were asked to look and think about the tone, the punishment, theme, topics and language for each code of laws. We made a Venn diagram to make our comparisons, here are some of the things that we came up with.

For Mosaic's code, when a law is broken there isn't always a specific punishment for each situation. The punishment is determined by a judge, which is more similar to the modern day judicial system. For Hammurabi's code, the punishment is all basically set in stone no matter what you have to say. You can't defend yourself at all. So, in short, the judicial system and how punishments are determined are different between these two law systems.

Another difference is between just the overall tone. Hammurabi's Code is much more concise and even though, when we first read this document, I thought that it was actually really too specific. But after reading some of the Mosaic's code, I realized that it wasn't nearly as specific as things can get. Mosaic's code was extremely specific and every law that was written used so many more words then any average Hammurabi's Code law. It just seemed like it took a lot longer to describe what the law was actually for, for Mosaic's Code laws. It is kind of interesting that for Hammurabi's code, the punishment is much more specific and the law is not as specific, while for Mosaic's Code, the law is extremely specific but the punishment is not specific at all.

Code of Hammurabi: Response Class Discussion

Today in class we read, annotated and discussed a set of rules or laws. These laws were created by Hammurabi and he made a ton extremely specific laws but we read 24 of them. Something that I thought was kind of strange about them was how specific they were. It almost made it easier for people to find loop holes between different laws because maybe the law talked about something specifically and the incident wasn't exactly like the law. When we had our discussion in class, a common point was brought up time and time again. The point was basically just relating this to modern laws and talking about the differences and similarities. Obviously laws now would be more accurately written and made so that there are no loop hole type things because we have had more practice with making laws. But something that I was thinking about during the discussion was that these set of laws are more different then they are alike to modern laws. I know we only read 24 laws but the consequence for every single law was you are either put to death or you have to pay. Just two set things, no trial to determine your years or you punishment. And no in-between. If someone stole something from a store, they would probably be put in jail or fined. The consequence would be determined by a trial and the outcome would be based on how much you stole. In Hammurabi's laws, there is not jail, no "in between" which leads me to say it is a more extreme way. They probably made it that extreme because they wanted to keep control over people. Thats what it is always about anyway.

Also (side note), because this wasn't written in modern day, it helps my point from an earlier blog about Human Rights. Because it was so extreme to put people to death for rather minor (compared to some things) crimes. This just shows that people idea's of human right may have shifted since the time that Hammurabi's Code was written and now.

But back to the main topic at hand, Hammurabi's code put a lot of emphasis on slaves. In laws 15, 16, 17,18 and 19 they all talk about slaves giving specific examples of different situation. Back then, it must have been very important for slaves to be kept in order and in control. Again, another example of how people need to have control. Maybe I am just too cynical of a person, or maybe I am the only one seeing things clearly.

The Ever Changing Concept of Justice

My View on Human Right

I my opinion, human rights aren't an actual thing, the don't exist. I just don't think that they are a valid thing and then you think about it, they don't make sense. Because unless you are really religion (because that is a whole other thing), your idea of human rights might be different then someone else's ideas of human rights. They contradict themselves to much with the positive and negative rights. For example, you can say that you have the right to buy a cat but people have the right to tell you that you can't buy a cat. So you either end up a with a cat or you don't in which case one of the rights is no honored.

Yet again, religion is used as an excuse. In this case religion is used as an excuse because people say the god said that people should not kill or should not steal or any of that kind of stuff. All they are really doing is saying that god said that in order to defend themselves. I am not saying that not killing people is a bad thing but it is just a way that religion is used as an excuse for the well being of people. Again, not that the cause is a bad thing.

After we finished the movie and had a week break, we came back and were asked, what are some examples of human rights being violated in the movie. And even though now I am convinced human right don't exist, I was able to give several examples. Like confining people in certain areas, or lying about the way people died, or killing people for publicly protesting. The list goes on and on but really, those aren't human rights, they are just examples of people doing really cruel things. Like, I would never go and shoot someone, but not because it is a violation of human rights, because it is just not a morally right thing to do.

Also, another reason why human right are illegitament, is that peoples' idea of human rights have changed over the years. This is only assuming that people think human rights are just embedded in yourself when you are born. In the prehistoric era, people then were much more barbaric then people are now. So wouldn't that mean that that way or action follows human rights the most. And that not killing people is not humane? It is kind of confusing what I am saying but it makes sense if you think about it. Because people are changing and their ideas of human rights are changing. So if human rights are real then they are not a specific thing, just notion that people can develop for themselves.

Cruelty In the Movie

Today in class, we finished the movie, "Cry Freedom". We have been watching this movie all week in class and it is about the struggles from the Apartheid in South Africa. I think the movie is was really interesting because i knew very little about what was happening in South Africa (see previous post titled apartheid).

This movie was filled with different things that were kind of shocking. The scene that got to me the most was a scene where the black africans are protesting because they don't want to learn Afrikaans instead of English, that is what the South African government is trying to make then do. They are having a pretty peaceful protest, there was never any violence involved on their side. When they reached the place where the police where, the main police officer told all of the other police officers to shoot. They were relentless and brutal, shooting everyone from grown men to little babies. It was really sad to watch and I almost couldn't believe that people could be so heartless, especially toward children. It is said that 400- 600 school age children were killed that day. That is just unfathomable.  It is worse then segregation was here and almost as bad as the Holocaust. Some could say that is was just as bad as the Holocaust because just like the Holocaust, people were being outcasted because of something that the could not control. And then they were contained and terminated because of it.

Donald Woods: Cry Freedom

A person that I would like to bring up is Donald Woods. He was the editor of South Africa's Daily Dispatch news paper and he had a lot of impact on the turn out of Modern South Africa. What I find kind of interesting is that the reason that he even got involved with the civil rights movement of South Africa was because he published something in his news paper about Steve Biko that was incorrect. Steve Biko was another major contributor to helping black africans get their rights. But anyway, Woods said something negative about Biko and a woman that is friends with Biko came and confronted him about it. She said that the only way to actually know Biko and be able to publish truth about him is if you actually meet him. So that is what Donald Woods did and that is how me became involved with racial equality in South Africa. But Donald Wood went to great lengths to help the black africans. He got banned and basically was put on house arrest for five years. He could only talk with family members or one person that is not a family member at a time. And he could not leave his house without guards. How was he supposed to support his family if he doesn't have a job? The reason that he got banned was because he took photos of the dead Steve Biko so that he could publish them and show the world that the police killed him. The police were saying that Biko went on a hunger strike in jail and that is how he died but the photos proved otherwise. But another thing that he did was escape South Africa so that he could publish a book about what really happened to Biko and what was happening in South Africa. The Apartheid and South Africa wasn't getting very much international attention and this book helped to bring awareness. I can't imagine leaving my house and country to go to England just to publish  a book. It just shows that Donald Woods was a very dedicated person and had a very good sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Apartheid

 Before talking the movie and talking about it in class, I didn't know very much about Apartheid and what was going on in South Africa. I feel like the issue in South Africa with the Apartheid and all is not really taught  in school as much as american civil rights and that sort of thing. Maybe it is because the civil rights movement actually happened in america so it has more relevancy to us then something that happened in South Africa would. But really, what was going on in South Africa was a much bigger issue then Jim Crowe Laws and racial injustice here were. And that fact that it lasted for so long is kind of astounding to me. I am pretty sure the civil rights movement in America did not last for nearly as long as the Apartheid did. It's funny (not really though) that people here made and are making such a huge deal of racial inequality here when what was going on in South Africa was ten times worse and lasted much longer. Watching the movie about this has been really eye opening because, like I said, I knew very little about the Apartheid. But, to be honest, I was not really surprised by what I saw because I have learned about pretty much the same thing, with different levels of severity, time and time again. I really hate to say that, and i am not saying it isn't bad I am just saying it is semi-common. Civil Rights Movement, Holocaust, Women during the Witch trials in Europe, and many more that was just to name a few. So all of this leads me to wonder, is it a matter of human nature? Or coincidence, I think not. I am not saying the history repeats it's self, because actually it doesn't (and I technically can't really say that in this blog) so that is why it is human nature. I hate to say that it is because I am human so maybe it should be called only-some-humans-nature. But seriously, when people have power they tend to want more power and want to stay in power. And by controlling a major group of people, like the blacks in South Africa, it allows the white people to stay in power and even gain more power. They can basically do whatever they want, it's as if rules don't apply to them, because they kind of don't. It is kind of like that mean girl in seventh grade that had the whole group of followers and then the people that she made fun of. Its because she was insecure with herself so she puts other people down so she can feel better about herself. The Apartheid is kind of like that except blown up times a billion with so many more dimensions.