There are several quite disparate aspects to the concept of justice, but there are a few basic ideas at its core that separate it from revenge.
Justice can be defined in terms of its effects. The just response to a crime is an action that will end the conflict at hand, while revenge will only perpetuate it. Therefore, a just punishment has to be severe enough that the wrongdoer will not continue to commit the crime, but lenient enough that the wrongdoer will not feel like they have to take their own revenge in response.
Justice is always the more beneficial option because it prevents further wrongdoing. For example, if Event A occurs that prompts one of the two responses, justice will bring an end to the cycle at Event B, whereas revenge will continue the cycle indefinitely.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Justice...or Revenge?
In his article "Justice Must be Done," President of the Daniel Pearl Foundation and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl argues that Steven Spielberg's film "Munich" succumbs to moral relativism in its portrayal of Middle Eastern terrorism and fails to impart the message that killing of the innocent is wrong.
I find this evaluation wrong on several bases. The conflict of the movie is an internal one within the hero as he struggles with the notion of assassinating the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the murders of nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. He calls the morality of his actions into question, and by doing so, displays a problem with killing. The fact that Mr. Pearl finds offense with is that the hero is not unequivocally in favor of killing those who have killed.
He goes on to frame the argument this way: Since the hero has this internal battle, the film justifies terrorism. He makes this leap of logic based on the assumption that the only proper resolution of a murder is to have the murderer murdered. He never considers that there are other ways of handling the person; he puts forth that the murder of the innocent is wrong, but the murder of the guilty is the only RIGHT thing. Since the hero is not completely committed to this resolution, he finds no fault with the actions taken by the Palestinians, and therefore tacitly condones it.
In the very next paragraph, Mr. Pearl states that "The killers do not interest me. I would rather seek effective ways of lessening the hatred that took Danny's life." Pursuing the murder of the those who beheaded Danny Pearl (the course of action he implies is right through his evaluation of the film) would certainly NOT lessen that hatred, nor does this view support at all the statement that the killers do not interest him.
I submit that the taking of a human life is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Everyone possesses the right to life, even if they have disregarded this right in others. The view taken by Mr. Pearl is not one of justice, it is of revenge. Justice, a word which he attempts to monopolize in his article, does not advocate the taking of any life. The view that some lives should be taken, even if it's only those of the most guilty, means that not everyone is entitled to theirs, and this is exactly the view taken by the terrorists whom Mr. Pearl condemns.
I find this evaluation wrong on several bases. The conflict of the movie is an internal one within the hero as he struggles with the notion of assassinating the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the murders of nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. He calls the morality of his actions into question, and by doing so, displays a problem with killing. The fact that Mr. Pearl finds offense with is that the hero is not unequivocally in favor of killing those who have killed.
He goes on to frame the argument this way: Since the hero has this internal battle, the film justifies terrorism. He makes this leap of logic based on the assumption that the only proper resolution of a murder is to have the murderer murdered. He never considers that there are other ways of handling the person; he puts forth that the murder of the innocent is wrong, but the murder of the guilty is the only RIGHT thing. Since the hero is not completely committed to this resolution, he finds no fault with the actions taken by the Palestinians, and therefore tacitly condones it.
In the very next paragraph, Mr. Pearl states that "The killers do not interest me. I would rather seek effective ways of lessening the hatred that took Danny's life." Pursuing the murder of the those who beheaded Danny Pearl (the course of action he implies is right through his evaluation of the film) would certainly NOT lessen that hatred, nor does this view support at all the statement that the killers do not interest him.
I submit that the taking of a human life is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Everyone possesses the right to life, even if they have disregarded this right in others. The view taken by Mr. Pearl is not one of justice, it is of revenge. Justice, a word which he attempts to monopolize in his article, does not advocate the taking of any life. The view that some lives should be taken, even if it's only those of the most guilty, means that not everyone is entitled to theirs, and this is exactly the view taken by the terrorists whom Mr. Pearl condemns.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Museum of National Intelligence
If I were to build a museum, I would build one to the history of National Intelligence in the U.S. It would inform a misinformed or uninformed public about the CIA and its predecessors, and it would pique interest in this very crucial subject to today's world. It would illustrate the differences intelligence gathering has made on policy and diplomacy around the world in relation to us.
The museum would be divided into 5 sections, arranged chronologically. First would be an introduction to Intelligence that would give the history of intelligence gathering before the U.S. came into being. Second would give the history of National Intelligence from Revolution to Reconstruction. Next would come the section on the age of America's rise to global power, from 1876 to 1947, when the CIA was founded. The fourth section would detail Intelligence in the Cold War, 1947 to 1991. The final section would be about the present era, and how National Intelligence continues to play a huge role in our lives.
The museum would be divided into 5 sections, arranged chronologically. First would be an introduction to Intelligence that would give the history of intelligence gathering before the U.S. came into being. Second would give the history of National Intelligence from Revolution to Reconstruction. Next would come the section on the age of America's rise to global power, from 1876 to 1947, when the CIA was founded. The fourth section would detail Intelligence in the Cold War, 1947 to 1991. The final section would be about the present era, and how National Intelligence continues to play a huge role in our lives.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Museum-at-a-Glance: The California ScienCenter
To get to know museums a little better, I visited the Air and Space Exhibit at the California ScienCenter, conveniently located right across Exposition Boulevard from USC.
Right from the start, the visitor is given a sense of awe by the early Boeing 707 parked out front. Walking in through the unimposing entrance, one can catch a glimpse of the exhibits inside, a sort of teaser intended to pique interest. The museum is divided into sections: One for military aircraft, one for satellites, one for manned spacecraft, one for the history of flight, and one devoted to aerodynamics.
The museum offers an informative combination of short videos, diagrams, hands-on demonstrations, scale models, and historical artifacts (the one I found most striking was the actual Gemini 11 capsule displayed on the ground floor). These take the visitor to a distant star or show them how air flows over a wing, or show them how flight has developed over time.
Personally, I have always been fascinated with flight and space exploration, so this is the kind of museum that I wouldn't need much prompting to visit. The museum is good at attracting all sorts of different crowds even without being advertised very heavily; it has points of interest to all age groups and is free, so cost is not a restriction, and operates bilingually. The only drawback to the museum is its size -- if it were bigger, it might take longer than the 90 minutes I took (and I toured at a rather slow pace, I thought) to visit everything and appreciate the details.
Right from the start, the visitor is given a sense of awe by the early Boeing 707 parked out front. Walking in through the unimposing entrance, one can catch a glimpse of the exhibits inside, a sort of teaser intended to pique interest. The museum is divided into sections: One for military aircraft, one for satellites, one for manned spacecraft, one for the history of flight, and one devoted to aerodynamics.
The museum offers an informative combination of short videos, diagrams, hands-on demonstrations, scale models, and historical artifacts (the one I found most striking was the actual Gemini 11 capsule displayed on the ground floor). These take the visitor to a distant star or show them how air flows over a wing, or show them how flight has developed over time.
Personally, I have always been fascinated with flight and space exploration, so this is the kind of museum that I wouldn't need much prompting to visit. The museum is good at attracting all sorts of different crowds even without being advertised very heavily; it has points of interest to all age groups and is free, so cost is not a restriction, and operates bilingually. The only drawback to the museum is its size -- if it were bigger, it might take longer than the 90 minutes I took (and I toured at a rather slow pace, I thought) to visit everything and appreciate the details.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
A Public Space: University Village
Today I visited USC's University Village, located across Jefferson St. from campus. The Village is modeled on a quaint, old European village, but with thoroughly modern American shops and stores.
A great variety of goods and services are offered, but the Village caters mainly to the stable lower class, not to the derelict homeless, nor to anybody approaching the upper class. There are fifty-four shops in five categories, and many that offer low-cost products.
Consequently, there are a great variety of people that were there. I observed people of all the predominant ethnicities in this part of California. Group structure was also varied: I observed people there alone, as couples, in large, non-family groups, and as families. They were mostly walking around functionally instead of recreationally, although there were a few exceptions.
The Village is designed to be an accessible oasis of cleanliness and relaxation in the middle of a city, and to serve college students. In terms of cleanliness, it far outstrips its surroundings; the only noticeable urbanity about it was the graffiti in the bathroom. The flora are well tended and trash cans and ashtrays are provided plentifully. There are numerous places for people to congregate and socialize. Finally, there are many entrances from four different streets, so accessibility is not a problem.
A great variety of goods and services are offered, but the Village caters mainly to the stable lower class, not to the derelict homeless, nor to anybody approaching the upper class. There are fifty-four shops in five categories, and many that offer low-cost products.
Consequently, there are a great variety of people that were there. I observed people of all the predominant ethnicities in this part of California. Group structure was also varied: I observed people there alone, as couples, in large, non-family groups, and as families. They were mostly walking around functionally instead of recreationally, although there were a few exceptions.
The Village is designed to be an accessible oasis of cleanliness and relaxation in the middle of a city, and to serve college students. In terms of cleanliness, it far outstrips its surroundings; the only noticeable urbanity about it was the graffiti in the bathroom. The flora are well tended and trash cans and ashtrays are provided plentifully. There are numerous places for people to congregate and socialize. Finally, there are many entrances from four different streets, so accessibility is not a problem.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Public and Exclusive Space
Public space - what is it? Quite simply, it is space open to the general public, without restrictions, and without any sort of price attached to it. Public spaces include parks and roads, neither of which are owned by a person or corporation. Exclusive space, on the other hand, is space into which only certain people may enter, whether it be by affiliation with the space or through some kind of special permission. This may be an office building, a government laboratory, or a house. Naturally, these two types of space often come into conflict with each other because of people's interests or simply because there isn't enough room in the world for enough of both. The trend in recent years has been for exclusive space to win out over public space. Why is this, and should it be reversed?
One of the benefits exclusive space has over public space is that it usually makes someone a profit. In America, a capitalist nation, this is of tantamount importance, and of course quite legal. As corporations expand or individuals accumulate more wealth, they seek to branch out in several ways, one of these being the physical expansion of their domain. It is, perhaps, in our instincts to conquer as much as possible and to show our might to our peers and to the world. Whatever the reason, exclusive space is proliferating.
Public space, just as exclusive space, has its benefits, the most important of these being the sense of community it harbors. People gather in parks and chat with each other, they hold events, and they enjoy the company and the feeling of being outdoors. Public space also plays off of the feeling that ownership of exclusive space gives - it makes a person feel better, somehow, to know that there is a range of places available to them, and they can overlook the fact that it is available to everyone.
Both of these kinds of spaces have their merits, and they should both be considered as more and more land (and, as is just beginning to happen now, outer space) is devoted to one side or the other. Certainly private ownership and public use of spaces can coexist; it is up to those responsible to find the right balance.
One of the benefits exclusive space has over public space is that it usually makes someone a profit. In America, a capitalist nation, this is of tantamount importance, and of course quite legal. As corporations expand or individuals accumulate more wealth, they seek to branch out in several ways, one of these being the physical expansion of their domain. It is, perhaps, in our instincts to conquer as much as possible and to show our might to our peers and to the world. Whatever the reason, exclusive space is proliferating.
Public space, just as exclusive space, has its benefits, the most important of these being the sense of community it harbors. People gather in parks and chat with each other, they hold events, and they enjoy the company and the feeling of being outdoors. Public space also plays off of the feeling that ownership of exclusive space gives - it makes a person feel better, somehow, to know that there is a range of places available to them, and they can overlook the fact that it is available to everyone.
Both of these kinds of spaces have their merits, and they should both be considered as more and more land (and, as is just beginning to happen now, outer space) is devoted to one side or the other. Certainly private ownership and public use of spaces can coexist; it is up to those responsible to find the right balance.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The Evolution of an Idea
When I set out to write my paper on college's purpose, I had a vague idea that I felt more in touch with the belief that college should be to broaden one's intellectual perspectives. Over the course of writing the paper, my idea crystallized and was focused from some of the examples I worked with. I looked at my own experience and the experiences of several others, and read the insight of some experts. I also thought logically, and fleshed out this idea with some common sense.
At paper's end, my idea was a bit changed; qualified in some ways. This was good, because specificity in a paper is a good thing. I cited some of the examples I looked at in my paper and these also helped to qualify my point. I also added the "why?" aspect to my paper. Having a thesis that you can defend is one thing, but answering the question of "why?" is just as, if not more, important to the impact that it has on the reader.
At paper's end, my idea was a bit changed; qualified in some ways. This was good, because specificity in a paper is a good thing. I cited some of the examples I looked at in my paper and these also helped to qualify my point. I also added the "why?" aspect to my paper. Having a thesis that you can defend is one thing, but answering the question of "why?" is just as, if not more, important to the impact that it has on the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)