Blog 5

Blog 5:

1. How might Aristotle have responded to the painting by Howard Chandler Christy of the signing of the Constitution of the United States (p. 57)?

Aristotle would've thought positively of the painting by Howard Chandler. Aristotle believed the government had power over the states. A fair government and just was what he supported and believed in. Aristotle favored a government more like a democracy, everyone had a say so.  

2. How many different "elements" of society are represented in this painting?

George Washington is one who is standing up in the front. He's the president, so he's the center of attention and the main point of the picture. The people who are next closest to him are the other founding fathers. And as the people get further away not to say they're less important but less important. 

3. Would Aristotle have assumed that the government being formed was a democracy or an oligarchy? Why or Why not?

Aristotle would've assumed the government being formed was a democracy rather than an Oligarchy. He doesn't ever talk about supporting a type of government like an oligarchy. Aristotle liked forms of government where one group of people determined where all the power went. 

4. Research the men who signed the Constitution. How well did they represent the elements of the society of the newly formed country?

The people who signed the constitution, for the most part, were these heroic people until after signing the constitution. America wanted representation, but all the British did were tax them without a say so in the political government. 

5.  Read Tocqueville, “Government by Democracy in America,”. Compare this reading to that of Aristotle's reading.

They had separate views on things which lead to them having totally different outlooks on their morals and how a society should function. 

Martin Luther King Jr & Henry David Thoreau

Martin Luther King Jr.

Henry David Thoreau

Audio of Martin Luther King Jr. 

Letter from Birmingham

https://youtu.be/ATPSht6318o

1. In Martin Luther King, Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail:  

King sites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. How close is his position to that of Henry David Thoreau? Do you think that King had read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" as an important document regarding morality and immorality? Compare and contrast the positions of these two writers.

Martin Luther King Jr was immense on laws being just. If something was unjust, he believed in defying them till things were right. Being defiant came with its consequences as MLK ended up in the Birmingham Jail, in 1963. There, he wrote the well-known "Letter from Birmingham". Dr. King said it best "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I believe this correlates to Henry Davids Thoreau and his work "Civil Obedience".  Henry David Thoreau was very firm on moral values and thought people should do what their conscience tells them, and not to follow unjust laws. 

There's a considerable possibility Dr. King had read Thoreaus' "Civil Obiendence" regarding mortality and immortality. In his letter, Dr. King said " Lamentably, it is a historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." This is very parallel with Thoreau's thoughts, as  he said in "Civil Obidence"" After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the majority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide wrong, but conscience?"

Even though Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau had similar ideas, their writing had differences as well. They had different views on determining what was just and what wasn't. Dr. King thought anything that didn't follow God's rules or Ten commandments it wasn't just. Thoreau believed things weren't just depending on your own conscience, it was more of self-governing. 

Thoreau Civil Obedience

Henry David Thoreau

1. Examine quotations from Thoreau that focus on the individual and the question of justice and ethical treatment of the individual by government. What are the values of the government that Thoreau describes and how might that government see its moral obligations to the governed? How would it treat mattes of justice, ethics, and morality? To what extent does the government of Thoreau's time resemble the government of our time?

"The best government is the best which governs least"

Thoreau said governments that govern the least are the best forms of government. He doesn't believe in a large government where the majority have all the power in making decisions. With his type of government they would want to insure freedom to the people. Modern government is ran by people who are legislatures, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office holders. "They serve the state with their heads and rarely make any moral distinctions." With Thoreau's thought of government there would be an entire new government. A government of Thoreau's time wouldn't resemble a government of our time. Our current government is too unjust and unpractical. 

2. Do some research on the Mexican War and decide whether or not there were any significant concerns that warranted Thoreau's reaction. Who's was fighting? Who started the war? What were President's Polk's intentions and were those intentions ethical?

The Mexican War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The war started after President James Knox Polk, pressured congress for an immediate declaration of war on Mexico. Polk wanted to push Mexico into negotiating with the United States, and he was willing to push things to the limit to get what he wanted. He didn't want an actual war, but if it happened he planned for it to be a small and quick war. If Polk had tried to negotiate again but in a different approach things might have worked out and been more ethical. 

James Knox Polk

Roussea

1. Rousseau argued that a government is supposed to protect liberty, freedom, and help people get along and work together. I say the closest form of government Rousseau would approve of today would be a democracy.  I think the only problem would be not everyone would get their way, because not everyone would agree on every situation. He would confine to a government where things are close to fair as possible. I think a ruler Rousseau would approve of would be one who would be like a father to their people.They would let their people have a say, but also guide them in the right direction.

2. The authors of The Declaration of Independence insisted that "whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new government." I say the declaration justifies the right to revolt against a government if the government won't guarantee a mans natural rights. But The Declaration of Independence isn't focused on the aspect of rebellion. I feel the end of independence would justify the means of rebellion involving war, civil disorder, and death. I say Jefferson ends he had in mind didn't justify those particular means. On one hand Jefferson was about people having freedom and their own rights, on the other hand Machiavelli thought the people shouldn't have as much control and not to be given power. I say Jefferson and Machiavelli's views would completely contradict each other.