Michael Sabetta
13 Dec. 2011
FD5
The Solution to Eliminating Hate Crime: Decriminalize the Hate
While the concept of crime has been around for thousands of years, hate crime is a relatively new concept. According to one of our class readings, it is defined as “violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with” (Hate). Virtually every rational person would agree that crime, especially violent crime, is wrong. Similarly, most would agree that it is wrong to have hateful thoughts towards someone based on their social group. However, there is some disagreement on whether criminals should be prosecuted based on their thoughts or whether they should be prosecuted based on their actions. For many, the idea that our government will decide which thoughts are considered acceptable, during the commission of a crime, is a worrisome development. [THESIS] If we really want to eliminate hate crime from our society, there is a simple solution, decriminalize the hate and concentrate on punishing the crime, not the thoughts of the criminal. [THESIS]
I realize that this solution may sound overly simplistic to some, but we need to consider the long-term goals of hate crime legislation. One of which would be to reduce the number of incidents that are occurring. The best way to do that is to use increased punishment as a deterrent, and base that punishment on the severity of the act committed. If a potential criminal knows that he will have the book thrown at him, he will be less likely to commit the crime. If he knows that he will get off relatively easy, as long as he does not utter a racial slur, then he might be deterred from saying prohibited words, but not from committing the crime.
Another of the long-term goals of hate crime legislation is to reduce the overall amount of racism in our society. As an observer of human behavior, and given the unbending nature of people who hate, I worry that the means being employed could be completely antithetical to achieving that goal. Take, for example, a closet racist who is overheard making a racially insensitive comment at his place of work. The supervisor finds out about it and decides to send this individual to a sensitivity course on multicultural awareness. After being forced to undergo the humiliation of attending that course, in the end, he will probably say that he has seen the light and is better now. In reality, the only thing that will have been accomplished is that the level of hate this person feels will have been multiplied.
This same scenario can be discussed in regard to hate crimes. Somebody who is a racist and a criminal hears that he will suffer a harsher punishment for committing a racially motivated crime. Considering human nature, the chances are that this information will cause his racist feelings to grow stronger, not weaker. He then commits the crime, and in the process, accidentally lets a racial slur slip out. While he is stewing in prison, because of the harsher punishment that he received, his racism grows even more intense. More than likely, when he gets out, he will be even angrier and more driven to engage in racially motivated crime.
One of the readings for our course, titled “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes” mentions “…a recent spate of hate-related incidents around the country…” (Knickerbocker). I think that those who study these types of things should take a serious look at the correlation between an increased discussion of hate crimes legislation and the increase in actual hate crimes. As I stated earlier, given the obstinate nature of the racist mindset, the perceived threat inherent in this discussion will be treated as a provocation, not a deterrent. The article goes on to state that “A bill in the house would add protection based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability to existing federal hate-crimes legislation addressing violent crimes” (Knickerbocker). I understand the idea behind this legislation and I am sure that the proponents think that they are helping to solve the problem. However, as feel-good as this bill might be, I doubt that it will do anything to reduce crime on the groups that it is seeking to protect. In fact, for reasons already discussed, it could actually make the situation worse.
To protect the members of these groups, and everyone else for that matter, we should increase punishment for all violent crimes, regardless of the motivation. We do not need useless legislation that only provokes the worst among us, and we do not need the thought police determining which thoughts are acceptable. Hate is an ugly word and a sad way of life. It is, however, not a crime.
Works Cited
“Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress.” APA Online 1998. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/#top].
Knickerbocker, Brad. “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes.” csmonitor.com. 3 June 2005. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0603/p03s01-ussc.html].
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
Michael Sabetta
8 Dec. 2011
FD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]Free speech is essential to a free society, and if our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian future where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four, or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of those voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture or offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. I can still remember the palpable anger that I felt, upon first hearing Churchill’s comments regarding 9-11. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their emotionally hurtful tactics, no matter how much psychological damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings or emotional trauma.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people like Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, and I agree that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future, I think that Mala is overlooking the greater danger. Rather than worrying about our youth being unwittingly influenced by hate-mongers, I am more worried about living in a world where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Apparently looking for a middle ground, another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, made a comment that illustrates the fine line that separates “allowable” speech from censorship: “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says” (Kurozumi). I generally admire Dean’s insightful writing. However, this quote is a classic example of trying to take both sides of an issue. In reality, the difference between denying speech and restricting speech is one of semantics. Furthermore, I believe that restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006.]
Chappell, Bill. “Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Church on Funeral Protests.” NPR. National Public Radio, 2 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. < http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests>
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003.]
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Log of Completed Activities
_X__ Nov. 9- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 14- Complete readings for paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 18- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 23- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 28- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 5- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 8-12- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
8 Dec. 2011
FD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]Free speech is essential to a free society, and if our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian future where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four, or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of those voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture or offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. I can still remember the palpable anger that I felt, upon first hearing Churchill’s comments regarding 9-11. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their emotionally hurtful tactics, no matter how much psychological damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings or emotional trauma.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people like Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, and I agree that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future, I think that Mala is overlooking the greater danger. Rather than worrying about our youth being unwittingly influenced by hate-mongers, I am more worried about living in a world where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Apparently looking for a middle ground, another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, made a comment that illustrates the fine line that separates “allowable” speech from censorship: “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says” (Kurozumi). I generally admire Dean’s insightful writing. However, this quote is a classic example of trying to take both sides of an issue. In reality, the difference between denying speech and restricting speech is one of semantics. Furthermore, I believe that restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006
Chappell, Bill. “Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Church on Funeral Protests.” NPR. National Public Radio, 2 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. < http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests>
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Log of Completed Activities
_X__ Nov. 9- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 14- Complete readings for paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 18- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 23- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 28- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 5- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 8-12- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
Michael Sabetta
28 Nov. 2011
RD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]If our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian society where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of these voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture of offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their hurtful tactics, no matter how much emotional damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people lik Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, I find myself disagreeing with her conclusion. It is true that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future. However, the world that I find truly scary is one where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, takes an approach that may sound fairly mild but is also playing with fire, “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says (Kurozumi). Restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes. Most importantly, we must give thanks that the framers of our Constitution were wise enough to ensure that Americans will always be able to speak their minds, no matter how disagreeable that speech may be perceived, as long as we protect and defend those rights laid out in our Constitution.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006.]
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003.]
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
28 Nov. 2011
RD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]If our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian society where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of these voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture of offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their hurtful tactics, no matter how much emotional damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people lik Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, I find myself disagreeing with her conclusion. It is true that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future. However, the world that I find truly scary is one where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, takes an approach that may sound fairly mild but is also playing with fire, “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says (Kurozumi). Restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes. Most importantly, we must give thanks that the framers of our Constitution were wise enough to ensure that Americans will always be able to speak their minds, no matter how disagreeable that speech may be perceived, as long as we protect and defend those rights laid out in our Constitution.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Consequentialism: Making the Case for Ethical Dishonesty
Michael Sabetta
8 Nov. 2011
FD3
Consequentialism: Making the Case for Ethical Dishonesty
Good evening, my fellow students. Tonight, I have come here to talk to you about the concept of honesty. While most of you are accustomed to hearing that honesty is always the best policy, I prefer to take a more nuanced approach. There is no doubt that honesty can be an important factor in building long-term personal and working relationships. However, the efficacy of honesty does have its limits. [THESIS] Through the many experiences that life has sought fit to offer me, I have come to the conclusion that honesty, in certain instances, can actually do a great deal of damage to one’s relationships, and as surprising as it may sound, the withholding or bending of the truth can often prove to be the wisest course of action. [THESIS]
I can see from the shocked look on your faces that the subject of my speech is probably not what you were expecting. But please, before you start hurling rotten tomatoes, hear me out. The advice that I will impart to you this evening will undoubtedly prove its worth, as you embark on your careers and as you enter into personal relationships, many of which will last an entire lifetime. There is a school of thought that holds that one’s conduct should be judged, not on the conduct itself, but on the end result, or the consequence, of that conduct. This theory, known as consequentialism, will be the underlying basis for my speech here tonight.
The selective use of honesty is, understandably, a topic that can stir up strong feelings. Most of us have personal experiences that we can look back on, where honesty has had a major impact, either positive or negative, on the important relationships of our lives. As I was reading some of the online posts by my fellow English class students, there was one in particular that brought back some painful memories and can help to illustrate the validity of my message. It was written by Carmen Lee, and had to do with personal relationships and lying by omission. Carmen states that “…it is not acceptable to remain silent, if you have the answer in mind” (Lee) This statement appears to take the moral high road and sounds fairly non-problematic. In reality, however, it is fraught with peril. As proof of the inherent risk involved in following this path, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I had many years ago.
I was dating a girl and things were getting pretty serious. One day, as we were discussing the amazing future that we were destined to share, she asked me to be honest and tell her something that she could change about herself, to make me love her even more. I asked her if she was sure about this, as I did not want to say anything that might damage our relationship. She told me not to worry and to be completely honest. I hesitated, pondering the consequences of what I was about to say. After gathering my courage, I took a deep breath, looked deep into her eyes, and uttered these fateful words, “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, but I would really like it if you would lose ten pounds.” She looked at me with disbelief. Her face became contorted as her eyes filled with tears. Her lips moved, but she was unable to speak. She began sobbing hysterically, yet at the same time she was somehow able to regain her composure enough to scream, over and over again, “I never want to see you again! I never want to see you again!” Needless to say, that was the end of a very promising relationship.
The abrupt and unhappy ending to this love story should serve as a warning to those who believe that complete and absolute honesty always triumphs. If I had been less than completely honest, and withheld the truth, something like: “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, and there isn’t a thing about you that I would want to change”, then we would probably be happily married, right now, with two or three kids and maybe even a dog.
One of the readings from my English class had a memorable line in it that does a great job of explaining when it is OK to lie. I would urge all of you to take a look at this online article. The title is All Lies are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying. It was written by Patrice Taddonio, and the line I am referring to is a quote from biology professor, Sheldon Krimsky. He states that “Lying is sometimes acceptable, excusable, and even desirable, especially when it involves human feelings” (Taddonio). That one line offers a great summary of the message that I’m trying to get across to you here this evening. It answers the question of how best to apply honesty or, when preferable, dishonesty to our personal relationships. So far, I think most of you would agree that the points I have sought to make are fairly noncontroversial. Well, all that is about to change.
As you have heard, it is not hard to make a case for the occasional and targeted use of dishonesty in our personal relationships. What I would like to do now is steer the conversation in a different direction and discuss the appropriateness of dishonesty in our working or business relationships. Believe it or not, there are instances when untruthfulness can prove beneficial in these types of relationships, just as it can in our personal lives.
Once again, I would like to recommend to you an excellent online source. This one delves deep into the matters of honesty and ethics. It is from the Josephson Institute, and the name of the article is Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character. If I could share one quote with you that struck me as particularly profound and highly relevant to the discussion we are having, it would be this: “Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest” (Josephson). This phrase could be broken down further by simply stating that “Dishonesty is not necessarily unethical.”
The examples given in the article are a policeman who lies in the course of an undercover operation or one who lies to a terrorist, in order to save lives. I would take these examples one step further and say that anytime you lie to promote the greater good, dishonesty can be considered ethical. This brings up an important question that must be considered: Just what is the greater good? Say, for example, someone misrepresents their qualifications on a job application, in order to get the job and be able to provide for his or her family. I would consider that to be the greater good. When you put both sides of that example on a scale to determine which has greater weight or value, there is no question, at least in my mind, that providing for one’s family trumps misrepresentation on a job application.
Let’s look at another example. Say you got the job and your family is well-provided for. Now, you are seeking a promotion so that you can move your family to a nicer area, buy a bigger house, and allow your kids to attend better schools. In applying for the promotion, once again, you misrepresent yourself, and rationalize your dishonesty by convincing yourself that it is for the greater good. This gets in to some dicey territory. In this instance, the greater good is not so clear cut. It becomes a subjective decision, and each individual needs to fully consider the ethics that are involved.
I know that I have gone on a little long here, and I can see you all starting to fidget, so let me wrap this up with some simple advice. Graduating from college is a big step forward. You are going to be faced with some difficult decisions in the years ahead. In making these decisions, ethics and honesty will oftentimes be at odds with each other. When this occurs, follow your judgment, focus on the consequences of your actions, and always use the greater good as a guidepost.
Works Cited
Lee, Carmen. “Lying via Omission/Sportsmanship.” Online Posting. 20 Oct. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Josephson, Michael. “Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character.” Josephson Institute. Josephson Institute, 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-2sixpillars.html]
Taddonio, Patrice. "All Lies Are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying." Tuftsdaily.com [Tufts University] 19 Mar. 2004. We. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://www.tuftsdaily.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=3615]
Log of Completed Activities
__X_ Oct. 13- Intro to Paper #3. Read the Guidelines for Paper #3.
__X_ Oct. 17- Complete readings for paper #3 for paper #3.
__X_ Oct. 21- Laulima Discussion #1
__X_ Oct. 28- Laulima Discussion #2
__X_ Oct. 31- Submit RD3 [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
__X_ Nov. 4- Submit three RD3 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
__X_ Nov. 8- Submit FD3 [125 pts] Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 13- Intro to Paper #3. Read the Guidelines for Paper #3.
__X_ Oct. 17- Complete readings for paper #3 for paper #3.
__X_ Oct. 21- Laulima Discussion #1
__X_ Oct. 28- Laulima Discussion #2
__X_ Oct. 31- Submit RD3 [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
__X_ Nov. 4- Submit three RD3 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
__X_ Nov. 8- Submit FD3 [125 pts] Review the guidelines.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Ethical Dishonesty
Michael Sabetta
31 Oct. 2011
RD3
Ethical Dishonesty
Good evening, my fellow students. Today, I have come here to talk to you about the concept of honesty. While most of you are accustomed to hearing that honesty is always the best policy, I prefer to take a more nuanced approach. There is no doubt that honesty can be an important factor in building long-term personal and working relationships. However, the efficacy of honesty does have its limits. [THESIS] Through the many experiences that life has sought fit to offer me, I have come to the conclusion that honesty, in certain instances, can actually do a great deal of damage to one’s relationships, and as surprising as it may sound, the withholding or bending of the truth can often prove to be the wisest course of action. [THESIS]
I can see from the shocked look on your faces that the subject of my speech is probably not what you were expecting. But please, before you start hurling rotten tomatoes, hear me out. The advice that I will impart to you this evening, will undoubtedly prove its worth, as you embark on your careers and as you enter into personal relationships, many of which will last an entire lifetime.
As I was reading some of the online posts by my fellow English class students, there was one in particular that brought back some painful memories. It was written by Carmen Lee, and had to do with personal relationships and lying by omission. Carmen stated that “…it is not acceptable to remain silent, if you have the answer in mind” (Lee) While this statement makes a lot of sense, in reality, it is fraught with peril. As proof of the inherent risk involved in following this advice, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I had, many years ago.
I was dating a girl, and things were getting pretty serious. One day, as we were discussing the amazing future that we would share, she asked me to be honest and tell her something that she could change about herself, to make me love her even more. I asked her if she was sure about this, because I did not want to say anything that might damage our relationship. She told me not to worry, and to be completely honest. I hesitated, pondering the consequences of what I was about to say. After gathering my courage, I took a deep breath, looked deep into her eyes and uttered these fateful words, “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, but I would really like it if you would lose ten pounds.”
She looked at me with disbelief. Her face became contorted as her eyes filled with tears. Her lips moved, but she was unable to speak. She began sobbing hysterically, yet at the same time she was somehow able to scream over and over again, “I never want to see you again! I never want to see you again!” Needless to say, that was the end of a very promising relationship.
The abrupt and unhappy ending to this love story should serve as a warning to those who believe that complete and absolute honesty always triumphs. If I had been less than completely honest, and withheld the truth, something like: “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, and there isn’t a thing about you that I would want to change”, then we would probably be happily married, right now, with two or three kids.
One of the readings from my English class had a memorable line in it that does a great job of explaining when it is OK to lie. I would urge all of you to read this online article. The title is All Lies are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying. It was written by Patrice Taddonio, and the line she quotes is from a biology professor named Sheldon Krimsky. He states that “Lying is sometimes acceptable, excusable, and even desirable, especially when it involves human feelings” (Taddonio).
That one line offers a great summary of the message that I’m trying to get across here this evening. It answers the question of how to best apply honesty or, when required, dishonesty to our personal relationships. So far, I think most of you would agree that the points I have sought to make are fairly noncontroversial. Well, all that is about to change.
I would now like to discuss the consequences of complete honesty in our working relationships. Believe it or not, there are instances when untruthfulness can prove beneficial in these types of relationships, just as it can in our personal lives.
Once again, I would like to recommend to you an excellent online source. This one delves deep into the matters of honesty and ethics. It is from the Josephson Institute, and the name of the article is Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character. If I could share one quote with you that struck me as particularly profound and particularly relevant to the discussion we are having, this would be it: “Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest” (Josephson). This phrase could be further simplified by simply stating that “Dishonesty is not necessarily unethical.”
The examples given in the article are a policeman who lies in the course of an undercover operation or one who lies to a terrorist, in order to save lives. I would take these examples one step further and say that anytime you lie to promote the greater good, dishonesty can be considered ethical. This brings up an important question that must be considered: Just what is the greater good? Say, for example, someone misrepresents their qualifications on a job application, in order to get the job and be able to provide for his or her family. I would consider that to be the greater good. When you put both sides of that example on a scale to determine which has greater weight or value, there is no question, at least in my mind, that providing for one’s family trumps misrepresentation on a job application.
Let’s look at another example. You got the job and you family is well-provided for. Now, you are seeking a promotion so that you can move your family to a nicer area, and your kids can attend better schools. In applying for the promotion, once again, you misrepresent yourself, and rationalize your dishonesty by convincing yourself that it is for the greater good. This gets in to some dicey territory. In this instance, the greater good is not so clear cut. It becomes a subjective decision, and each individual needs to fully consider the ethics that are involved.
I know that I have gone a little long here, and I can see you all starting to fidget, so let me wrap this up with some simple advice. Graduating from college is a big step forward. You are going to be faced with some difficult decisions in the years ahead. In making these decisions, ethics and honesty need to be considered at every point along the way. Follow your judgment, and always use the greater good as a guidepost.
Works Cited
Lee, Carmen. “Lying via Omission/Sportsmanship.” Online Posting. 20 Oct. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Josephson, Michael. “Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character.” Josephson Institute. Josephson Institute, 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-2sixpillars.html]
Taddonio, Patrice. "All Lies Are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying." Tuftsdaily.com [Tufts University] 19 Mar. 2004. We. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://www.tuftsdaily.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=3615]
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
FD2 / The Legacy of Advertisements
Michael Sabetta
11 Oct. 2011
FD2
The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy
Advertisements have been a part of human life since time immemorial. Long before the advent of television, radio, or even newspaper, advertisements have sought to influence the way that people utilize their resources. After thousands of years of trial and error, manufacturers and service providers have succeeded in honing their persuasive skills to a fine point. In light of this, I believe that the time has come to examine the overall effect that advertising is having on our society and the lives of our fellow human beings. The primary goal of the majority of advertisements has been to increase consumer spending on certain products or services. Advertisers have been very successful in achieving this goal, to the point where many consumers place their desire for these products and services ahead of making responsible financial decisions. [THESIS] When one considers the irrational purchases, the high levels of consumer debt, and the correspondingly high levels of personal bankruptcy that are so prevalent in this day and age, it becomes clear that advertising has been extremely detrimental, not only on people’s lives, but also on our nation’s economy. [THESIS].
I had always considered advertising to be fairly modern practice. However, after doing a little research, I was amazed to discover that advertisements have been traced all the way back to 4,000 B.C. According to an online article titled History of Advertising, “Wall paintings depicting sales and commerce messages…[were] the very first advertisements of humankind” (Anderson). It would be interesting to know what percentage of those sales were for irrational or unnecessary purchases. Logic would seem to dictate that people living thousands of years ago did not have such modern marvels as The Clapper, Chia Pet, or the Slice-O-Matic enticing them to part with their hard-earned money. While it is possible that there existed similarly worthless items available to consumers, the half-hour infomercial was still several millennia away, and I would venture to say that most people probably limited their purchases to the basic necessities of life.
Convincing consumers that the necessities of life include things that are not really necessary has become job number one for many advertisers. They do this by employing a variety of logical fallacies to persuade the unsuspecting consumer that he or she simply cannot get by without making the purchase. A prime example of this was highlighted in a post by Lisa Rodrigues, one of my English 215 classmates. She discusses a Sony commercial that tries to get people to purchase a big screen TV, by “Using a professional athlete to catch the attention of the sports fanatic and capture the younger generation by using Justin Timberlake” (Rodrigues). The commercial begins with a young family in an electronics store, trying to decide which TV to buy. “I don’t know, these all look the same” says the father. The wall opens, and Peyton Manning is shown, playing ping pong with Justin Timberlake. While not missing a beat, they tell the man that the Sony Bravia is better than the other TVs. The logical fallacy here would be the faulty use of authority. While I have no doubt that both of these individuals are highly authoritative in their respective realms, neither one of them has the expertise or authority to tell the shopper why he should purchase this particular television. Notwithstanding that fact, their appeal to certain segments of the population, based on their football and entertainment fame, will probably be sufficient to sell a good number of televisions. English 215 student, Robert Gornichec, did a good job summing up the reason why advertisers tend to not be bothered about finding an actual authority on the product they are pitching, “…the fact that the major spokespersons for this product are major television stars gives the impression that this is a worthy product” (Gornichec).
Another logical fallacy frequently utilized by unscrupulous advertisers is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This refers to a cause and effect relationship that can be deemed questionable, at best. Lisa Ancog, in her Laulima post, offers a great example of the use of this logical fallacy in a commercial for Axe body spray. The ad shows thousands of bikini-clad women determinedly running through the forest, while pushing and shoving each other out of the way. Finally, they converge on one man, alone on the beach, who is profusely spraying himself with Axe body spray. The message is that if you use Axe, women will be fighting to get their hands on your body. While this image probably resonates with millions of sex-deprived men everywhere, a little common sense should reveal the fallacy of this advertisement.
Alas, common sense seems to be in short supply, when it comes to consumer reactions to cleverly designed advertisements. Compounding the problem is the abundance of easy credit available to many consumers. When coercive advertisements are combined with readily available credit, the resulting concoction should probably be accompanied by a warning label. Indeed, this powerful combination has gotten many consumers so deep in debt that it becomes impossible to dig their way out. According to the Consumer Federation of America, in 2008, Americans held $850 billion in credit card debt. That works out to an average of $8,568 per card-holding household (Dickler). As consumer debt grows, so do the profits of the credit card companies. A vicious circle is created, wherein the credit card companies invest a portion of their profits into more advertising, which in turn creates more consumer debt and makes more money for the companies to invest in more advertising.
The effectiveness of this advertising cannot be denied. The bandwagon approach seems to be one of the favored methods employed by the credit card companies. The average consumer sees ads with smiling, carefree people spending away, while suffering no ill effects. They believe that everybody else is using credit cards to improve their lifestyle, so why not join in the fun and jump on the bandwagon.
The major credit card companies, with their ubiquitous advertisements, have to be given much of the blame for the financial predicament engulfing many people today. However, poor financial health is not the only negative effect caused by credit card overuse. Worries over money can directly affect one’s physical and mental health as well. Depression, nervous breakdowns, and even suicide can often be traced back to financial stress. For those who feel that suicide might be a little too drastic, oftentimes, the best way out is bankruptcy.
Only after all other options have been tried, do most people consider bankruptcy. It is, however, far from painless. In addition to possibly causing an individual humiliation and difficulties for years afterward, it can also have a negative effect on our nation’s overall economy. Either creditors are forced to assume the loss, which can cause them to raise their prices, or the federal government assumes the loss, which may result in tax increases or a ballooning of our national debt.
For some, the connection between a seemingly harmless TV commercial and an increase in bankruptcies might be a little hard to fathom. However, I believe that when the manipulative and coercive effects of credit card advertisements are thrown into the equation, the correlation becomes clearly visible. There exists a chain reaction, that one must consider: (a)the unsuspecting consumer gets duped into making purchases based on advertisements rife with logical fallacies, (b)the credit card companies use similar ads to encourage and facilitate these purchases, (c)the consumer debt level becomes unsustainable, (d)bankruptcy is seen as the easiest way out of the predicament, and (e)bad things happen.
There are two simple steps that a person can take to avoid the scenario outlined in the preceding paragraph. The most obvious would be to take all advertisements with a grain of salt, and understand that the advertiser’s goal is not to better your life, but to coerce and to manipulate. The second step is to make wise financial decisions, based on your personal or family budget, and not based on the happy-go-lucky spending habits portrayed in advertisements.
It takes a great deal of will power to just say no to the instant gratification that can be found in irrational purchasing and mindless consuming. Resisting the lure of easy credit requires constant vigilance and, sometimes, x-ray vision. One must endeavor to see through the shiny veneer of slick advertisements, and realize that the made for TV world of carefree hyper-spending and credit without limits is actually a fantasyland. Knowledge is the greatest weapon against these modern-day snake oil salesmen; Knowledge of the damage that advertising has done to our friends, our neighbors, and our country.
Works Cited
Ancog, Lisa. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – Axe Billion Women Commercial.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Anderson, Shirley. History of Advertising. Hub Pages, 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. [http://shirleyanderson.hubpages.com/hub/-Advertising]
Dickler, Jessica. “Getting Squeezed by Credit Card Companies.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 27 May 2008. Web. 3 Oct. 2011. [http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/pf/credit_debt/index.htm?cnn=yes]
Gornichec, Robert. “Meaningful Beauty-Faulty Use of Authority-Robert Gornichec.” Online Posting. 29 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Rodrigues, Lisa. “Faulty Use of Authority.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Log of Completed Activities
__X_ Sep. 19- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 23- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
__X_ Sep. 26- Complete readings for paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 30- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
__X_ Oct. 3- Submit RD2 [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 7- Submit three RD2 evaluations [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 12- Submit FD2 [125 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Sep. 19- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 23- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
__X_ Sep. 26- Complete readings for paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 30- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
__X_ Oct. 3- Submit RD2 [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 7- Submit three RD2 evaluations [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 12- Submit FD2 [125 pts]. Review the guidelines.
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy
Michael Sabetta
3 Oct. 2011
RD2
The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy
Advertisements have been a part of human life since time immemorial. Long before the advent of television, radio, or even newspaper, advertisements have sought to influence the way that people utilize their resources. After thousands of years of trial and error, manufacturers and service providers have succeeded in honing their persuasive skills to a fine point. In light of this, I believe that the time has come to examine the overall effect that advertising is having on our society and the lives of our fellow human beings. The primary goal of the majority of advertisements has been to increase consumer spending on certain products or services. Advertisers have been very successful in achieving this goal, to the point where many consumers place their desire for these products and services ahead of making responsible financial decisions. [THESIS] When one considers the irrational purchases, the high levels of consumer debt, and the correspondingly high levels of personal bankruptcy that are so prevalent in this day and age, it becomes clear that advertising has had a negative effect on our nation’s economy, and on the lives of the people who live in our great country [THESIS].
I had always considered advertising to be fairly modern practice. However, after doing a little research, I was amazed to discover that advertisements have been traced all the way back to 4,000 B.C. According to an online article titled History of Advertising, “Wall paintings depicting sales and commerce messages…[were] the very first advertisements of humankind” (Anderson). It would be interesting to know what percentage of those sales were for irrational or unnecessary purchases. Logic would seem to dictate that people living thousands of years ago did not have such modern marvels as The Clapper, Chia Pet, or the Slice-O-Matic enticing them to part with their hard-earned money. While it is possible that there existed similarly worthless items available to consumers, the half-hour infomercial was still several millennia away, and I would venture to say that most people probably limited their purchases to the basic necessities of life.
Convincing consumers that the necessities of life include things that are not really necessary has become job number one for many advertisers. They do this by employing a variety of logical fallacies to persuade the unsuspecting consumer that he or she simply cannot get by without making the purchase. A prime example of this was highlighted in a post by Lisa Rodrigues, one of my English 215 classmates. She discusses a Sony commercial that tries to get people to purchase a big screen TV, by “Using a professional athlete to catch the attention of the sports fanatic and capture the younger generation by using Justin Timberlake” (Rodrigues). The commercial begins with a young family in an electronics store, trying to decide which TV to buy. “I don’t know, these all look the same” says the father. The wall opens, and Peyton Manning is shown, playing ping pong with Justin Timberlake. While not missing a beat, they tell the man that the Sony Bravia is better than the other TVs. The logical fallacy here would be the faulty use of authority. While I have no doubt that both of these individuals are highly authoritative in their respective realms, neither one of them has the expertise or authority to tell the shopper why he should purchase this particular television. Notwithstanding that fact, their appeal to certain segments of the population, based on their football and entertainment fame, will probably be sufficient to sell a good number of televisions. English 215 student, Robert Gornichec, did a good job summing up the reason why advertisers tend to not be bothered about finding an actual authority on the product they are pitching, “…the fact that the major spokespersons for this product are major television stars gives the impression that this is a worthy product” (Gornichec).
Another logical fallacy frequently utilized by unscrupulous advertisers is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This refers to a cause and effect relationship that can be deemed questionable, at best. Lisa Ancog, in her Laulima post, offers a great example of the use of this logical fallacy in a commercial for Axe body spray. The ad shows thousands of bikini-clad women determinedly running through the forest, while pushing and shoving each other out of the way. Finally, they converge on one man, alone on the beach, who is profusely spraying himself with Axe body spray. The message is that if you use Axe, women will be fighting to get their hands on your body. While this image probably resonates with millions of sex-deprived men everywhere, a little common sense should reveal the fallacy of this advertisement.
Alas, common sense seems to be in short supply, when it comes to consumer reactions to cleverly designed advertisements. Compounding the problem is the abundance of easy credit available to many consumers. When coercive advertisements are combined with readily available credit, the resulting concoction should probably be accompanied by a warning label. Indeed, this powerful combination has gotten many consumers so deep in debt that it becomes impossible to dig their way out. According to the Consumer Federation of America, in 2008, Americans held $850 billion in credit card debt. That works out to an average of $8,568 per card-holding household (Dickler). As consumer debt grows, so do the profits of the credit card companies. A vicious circle is created, wherein the credit card companies invest a portion of their profits into more advertising, which in turn creates more consumer debt and makes more money for the companies to invest in more advertising.
The effectiveness of this advertising cannot be denied. The bandwagon approach seems to be one of the favored methods employed by the credit card companies. The average consumer sees ads with smiling, carefree people spending away, while suffering no ill effects. They believe that everybody else is using credit cards to improve their lifestyle, so why not join in the fun and jump on the bandwagon.
The major credit card companies, with their ubiquitous advertisements, have to be given much of the blame for the financial predicament engulfing many people today. However, poor financial health is not the only negative effect caused by credit card overuse. Worries over money can directly affect one’s physical and mental health as well. Depression, nervous breakdowns, and even suicide can often be traced back to financial stress. For those who feel that suicide might be too drastic an option, oftentimes, the best way out is bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy, however, is far from painless. In addition to causing an individual humiliation and difficulties for years afterward, it also has a negative effect on our nation’s overall economy. Either creditors are forced to assume the loss, which can cause them to raise their prices, or the federal government assumes the loss, which may result in tax increases or a ballooning of our national debt.
For some, the connection between a seemingly harmless TV commercial and an increase in bankruptcies might be a little hard to fathom. However, I believe that when the manipulative and coercive effects of credit card advertisements are thrown into the equation, the correlation becomes clearly visible. There exists a chain reaction, that one must consider: (a)the unsuspecting consumer gets duped into making purchases based on advertisements rife with logical fallacies, (b)the credit card companies use similar ads to encourage and facilitate these purchases, (c)the consumer debt level becomes unsustainable, (d)bankruptcy is seen as the easiest way out of the predicament, and (e)bad things happen.
There are two simple steps that a person can take to avoid the scenario outlined in the preceding paragraph. The most obvious would be to take all advertisements with a grain of salt, and understand that the advertiser’s goal is not to better your life, but to coerce and to manipulate. The second step is to make wise financial decisions, based on your personal or family budget, and not based on the carefree spending habits portrayed in advertisements.
Works Cited
Ancog, Lisa. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – Axe Billion Women Commercial.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Anderson, Shirley. History of Advertising. Hub Pages, 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. [http://shirleyanderson.hubpages.com/hub/-Advertising]
Dickler, Jessica. “Getting Squeezed by Credit Card Companies.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 27 May 2008. Web. 3 Oct. 2011. [http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/pf/credit_debt/index.htm?cnn=yes]
Gornichec, Robert. “Meaningful Beauty-Faulty Use of Authority-Robert Gornichec.” Online Posting. 29 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Rodrigues, Lisa. “Faulty Use of Authority.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)