Factory stories

Foxcoon suicides
Looking back to the year 2010, the most striking event wasn't the release of Iphone 4, either wasn't the Winter Olympic in Vancouver. It is the Foxconn suicides event. Throughout the whole year, up to 15 persons attempted suicides by falling from the building. In one short period of May, 7 persons committed suicides.  All year round, people discussed and argued about this event. What caused this bloody result? As Marx may argue, alienation should be the main cause of all. The current situation at that time was that, workers in Foxconn received low salaries for up to 12 hours work everyday. They were living under the strict management and in a poor condition. They were managed to wake up and go to bed at the exact time. Even if there were lots of people working together, doing the same activities everyday, everyone was still detached because they barely communicated with each other. Completing the repeating task numbed their nerve. They didn't enjoy much entertainment; even romantic relationship was forbidden. Are they still human? As Marx will possibly ask. They were deprived of the attention of themselves, of others.They were producing the most popular, high-tech and fancy electronic device, but they themselves cannot afford it. How ruthless and pathetic it is.    

The real toy story

Above is the link of a photo project by German -born photographer, Michael Wolf. He depicted people's lives in Chinese toy factory and the subtle relationship between toy and workers. Look at these pictures, in their hands these workers are holding the most playful and beautiful thing in the world, toys, the dream of all children, with a blank, rigid and detached look in their faces. Such a remarkable contrast! Here is the phone that shock me the most. Photo  What do you think they look like? Human? No, I believe a line of slave with a guardian seems to be a more appropriate way of describing. What's in their minds? I am curious.

As a lot of us may argue, accumulation of capitalism boosts the development of economic and science. It seems that socialism do no good to the whole society. However, I still wonder, when we actually are in the midstream of the water, enjoying the innovation, convenience and improvement by capitalism, what's the life in the downstream?

Gender Roles In Society

There is a saying which expresses the idea that both male and female genders are equally important for the success of our society: “The human race is like a bird with two wings, and if one wing is broken, no one can fly”. Last year, the famous actress Emma Watson launched her campaign #HeForShe with which she reminded us of the pending issues between genders and discussed possible solutions to the problems women are facing. The campaign is about gender equality and in order for it to work, both sexes must get involved with men standing up for women. Emma Watson has addressed issues with education, the work place, and the payment gap between men and women. What we don’t realize is that a lot of the potential in women is lost because they are not as encouraged as men are. However, another aspect of the problem between genders that Emma has talked about it that people don’t realize how much pressure is put on men’s masculinity. She shares her genuine concern that men can’t express themselves and that expressing ourselves is basically what makes us human.

In her work Justice, Gender, and the Family the political theorist Susan Okin addresses the issue that gender is the main factor used by people when determining someone’s role in society. This, in turn, explains why women are being ostracized from many fields that are regarded as male’s work. The questions that we should ask ourselves is why do we continue to base the construction of our society on gender and why are women still excluded to such a large extend from politics compared to men? In this flow of thoughts, why is it believed that if men express their feelings, they will be regarded as feminine? How do you think can we solve these pending issues between the two genders? According to Emma Watson, we can begin to ameliorate the situation simply by changing our definition of the term feminism – feminism is the idea that women are equal to men and the movement should not be connected with man hatred. The next steps would involve men standing up for women but also women standing up for themselves. 

Gender Neutrality for the Growing

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/09/04/gender-neutral-parenting-letting-kids-choose

This article from the U.S. News Health Magazine discusses the recent changes in perspective on gender roles (and the slow diminishment of them), including how large enterprises and stores such as Target have taken initiative on the hot topic of gender neutrality for growing children. The article pinpoints an emphasis on not only the environment portrayed in places such as schools, but most importantly in regards to how a child is raised within the family at home. Even more so, the growing debate over the increasing demand for "safe" spaces that are specifically gender-neutral, whether it be directed towards bathrooms or on a college campus, has gained even more prominence as a movement.

Susan Okin places similar importance on the issues of destroying gender roles at the supposed source: the family. Following the reasoning that infants are not born autonomous, but rather as humans in a state that are meant to be manipulated and developed by the family (in short, nurture over nature). Okin understands it to be the case that gender roles and the subsequent social constructs from these concepts can be unearthed in the political theories that carry us through life and through the deliberations of the federal government. The notion of including the "family" in the study of a political science curriculum was a subject spoken about in class, but this article surely drives home the need to study the ramifications of one's upbringing. As a result, should the idea of gender neutrality become a more substantial in the study of political science, a major that already adheres to a wide scope of issues in creating explanations and theories for understanding and improving society as we know it?

The Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was brought in front of the U.S. Senate in 1972, after passing the House.  The text of the amendment was as follows:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." (equalrightsamendment.org)

Sounds like a shoo-in, right? Unfortunately, it was anything but. Not only did the ERA never pass, but several states that had initially ratified the amendment actually rescinded their approval. The ERA has been introduced to every Congress since 1982 but has yet to be passed. 

What does this say about equality?

One of the reasons that legislators gave for not ratifying the ERA was the fear of women being forced into combat if they were declared equal to men. Another reason was that the fear that the ERA would lead to the collapse of the family unit, rampant abortions, and the legalization of homosexual unions. Now, in 2015, abortions and same-sex marriages are legal, but ERA has still not been put into place. Susan Moller Okin might attribute the inequality to justice within the family unit. In many households, the woman and man do not earn an equal amount of wages nor do an equal amount of housework or childcare. Okin believed that justice within the family would have to proceed justice in politics. However, I think that it is unlikely that either will bring out the other. Individuals might see the ERA as just words on the page and not make any move to improve justice and/or equality in their own homes. Alternatively, if justice in the family unit becomes more commonplace, Congress might claim that the ERA is not needed anymore because equality has been established without it.

I think that both the ERA and justice within the family/household are necessary if women are to truly be equal to men in this country.

ISIS, Tilly and Clausewitz

“ISIS Video Claims Beheading of Russian Spy Threatens Russian People” December 2nd 2015

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/middleeast/isis-russian-beheading-claim/

Today, it is reported that a Russian Spy is behaved by ISIS. ISIS claimed that it was a proper fight back to Putin administration’s air strike last month. So far Moscow has not made any comment about this incident. 

Reflection:

Although the US’s military was operating air strike in Syria and Iraq as the fight back to ISIS’s murder of American citizens and so did the Russians, ISIS’s terrorism tactic are not working with countries like China and Japan, after their citizens are behaved as well. NATO countries especially the USA asked China as the rising power, to take action on ISIS. However, even though China has not few interests including oil in Iraq and other Middle East area, China is not taking any actions. As Moscow took actions against ISIS last month, it is predictable that Moscow will do it again, using the murder of its citizen as an excuse.

Bringing Back:

Tilly states the idea that government is the criminal organization that can legally use violence, including waging war. Moreover, he mentions that initially groups that want to become the legitimate ruling institute have to use illegal violence to fight. When one of them come to power, the party would make everything it did before become legal and glorious. ISIS is an example. It uses illegal violence and organize war against current regimes. Supposed ISIS take over Iraq or even Syria in the future, their illegal violence would suddenly become the legal force of the state. 

Clausewitz’s notion that “war is politics by other means” make me think that either USA’s military action or China’s disregard is the result of the calculation in politics. War could never be waged without a purpose, usually a political one, and there is also a political goal when war is avoided by political actors.

Does War Demonstrate Power?

On Friday evening the internet was flooded with articles about the terrorist attack that happened in Paris. People began to post pictures with hashtag #PrayForParis and to raise awareness of the fact that one can never know if they will not be attacked by surprise. After two days of investigation it is announced that ISIS was responsible for the attack. ISIS itself proclaimed a World War. In the last months the terrorist organization has begun to wage attacks against different countries – for example, a month ago there was a terrorist attack in Ankara with more than 100 victims. ISIS is a declared caliphate with most power and influence in Syria and Iraq but as we can see this is gradually changing and today the world is not so safe anymore.

In the past month we have discussed the use of violence and if violence is necessary for leaders to maintain their rule as well as to acquire new power. Clauswitz’s text On War defines war as an “act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. We can see that this is a valid definition for the recent events, since ISIS wants to impose its religious beliefs on the whole world through the use of violence. The terrorist organization mercilessly kills innocent people and says that it will continue until it cleanses the world from those who do not accept their interpretation of the Koran. In class we also said that war is politics by other means. However, the question one must ask is if war is not a sign of weakness. When leaders begin a war this means that they did not manage to come to an agreement through the use of normal means. In the case of ISIS, the caliphate has never tried to reach an agreement via peaceful politics such as negotiations and compromises. From the very beginning it started seizing power with the use of violence. Just this fact should make us think if this doesn’t show that they have a weak strategy – can a terrorist organization like ISIS continue to increase its power and control in the world or are the US and Europe going to be able to eradicate it? And does any of the two sides has the right to kill in terms of human ethics? 

Machiavellian Guantánamo Bay

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/guantanamo-prison-revolt-driven-by-inmates-despair.html

This article deals with the increasing pressure towards the executive branch of the United States to take hold of the situation within Guantánamo Bay, and to ultimately result in the swift taking down of the system. With the recent hunger strike occurring within the prison, the subject of closing it down has become hotly argued. However, with sparring between the executive and legislative branches over the matter, the initiation of such a movement has unfortunately been put to the "back-burner."

 Machiavelli argues that the moral code and obligation of a person changes as the individual works up through the ladder of politics and power. While the article states how, in many ways, the continuance of Guantánamo is decidedly unethical and not necessarily imperative, the maintenance of the prison-at the expense of the prisoners' lives and freedom-must remain in operation because of both legal ramifications and potentially adverse reactions from the international community. Therefore, as Machiavelli would argue from his writings in The Prince, the comparatively small cost of keeping the detainees imprisoned, when contrasted with the many negative implications of freeing/repatriating them, can be said to be of necessity to reduce further discontentment on a grander scale in the future.

What Superheroes Could Learn from Machiavelli

The Trope

In comic books, TV shows, and movies that feature heroes/superheroes, the trope of the "no kill rule" runs rampant. So ubiquitous as to have its own page on TV Tropes, many fictional heroes refuse to cross the line from beating up the bad guys to ending a human life. In his more recent incarnations, Batman refuses to use a gun. Daredevil wants criminals to be brought to justice using the legal system. Superman took a vow to never kill. Even Jedis try to avoid killing when they can. There are times in all of these books/shows/movies when a judicious use of killing could be used to prevent the loss of many innocent lives. Often times, this is something that the hero is forced to grapple with at some point. As Peter Parker knows, "with great power, comes great responsibility." 

Not So Machiavellian

Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that rulers must act in accordance to a different moral code than a regular person. For an investigation of power, one could argue that Machiavelli would say the same about any person in a position of tremendous power--such as a superhero. While they don't rule countries or kingdoms like a prince, superheroes represent power in our culture today. They have abilities that no human has--extreme strength, the ability to fly, invisibility, endless money with which they can buy cool gadgets--and that is what makes them an embodiment of nearly unlimited power. With such power, Machiavelli would argue that these heroes need to occasionally take a human life in order to prevent that human (generally the villain) from perpetrating more evil. So what does it say about our society that most of the heroes in our books, shows, and movies are reluctant to kill, even if there would be benefits to it at certain times? Does it show that we value human life beyond all else and find it unforgivable for a human to take another human's life? But what if the human that the hero doesn't kill goes on to kill 50 other people? Fifty lives could be saved if the hero would choose to end just one. Even though the math seems simple, this is a hard thing for people to accept. In addition to being representations of power, superheroes are often supposed to be an ideal human of sorts--noble, self-sacrificing, and merciful. Just as we hate to see our superheroes kill, we hate the idea of our government torturing our enemies or killing civilians in times of war. While many people say that they are "Machiavellian" or agree with Machiavelli's principles, it says something about our ideals that our fictional heroes are not so Machiavellian.

What can we do for famine?

Famine in Yemen

From the link, we can receive the information about famine in Yemen. It clearly lists out that 13 million people face food shortage. It is a horrendous number. I believe, most of people will condemn a government if it fails doing anything towards famine, since it is government's obligation to protect people from harm. I am really one of those people before I read Machiavelli. But now I have changed my mind a little bit, regarding a deeper reason.  

For government

Firstly, despite of the reality that government of Yemen is not able to response to this famine by virtue of the war issues and other severe factors, let us suppose that this government actually has the ability to do something. They can increase the production, develop public infrastructure, etc. What about feeding the people? It sounds like the most direct and workable solution. A lot of us will say yes. But what happen next? The government can feed them for a little while, at least as long as it could, keep them alive for a little while longer... till they give more birth to the next generation, more people are born and even much more people die in the future? Or as Machiavelli may propose here if he is ever so spooky to live util nowadays, that the government(leaders) should just be a cruel, ruthless but qualified decision-maker and let people die themselves. Anyhow people will not live a quality life in war condition and there will be more people dying in the future because current aids save lives and raise up the population of next generation. So why don't we just terminate their suffering sooner and quicker?  

For us

This is one hand. On the other hand, as Machiavelli argues that normal person and leaders should be abide by different moral code, does it mean that we can feel at ease and donate food and provide aid since we are promoting the rightness by helping people? They are flesh and blood, how can we just let them fade away? We cannot stop the war in Yemen, we cannot individually go to Yemen and produce more crops, we cannot simply bring people to other country and provide them a job. It seems that only thing we can do is donating food. 

Such a dilemma! What we are doing is increasing the future death by not increasing the current death. Maybe Machiavelli is incisively right. 

Power of Majority

Concern
In Democracy in America, Alexis expresses his concern about possible tyranny in the absence of administrative centralization. Without a sole power controlling, or without a group of experts as Socrates might proffer, decisions made by majority can lead to disaster. Is it the case that the multitude are sometimes so blind and easily misguided by their own desire, that they are driven by emotions and impulse when they are making decision? Will it mean the common will can somehow be a problem? What will happen if someone thinks they can ignore the common will? Will it be the case that, minority will join the majority for multiple reasons even the minority realizes that the majority are wrong? I think I was exposed to a possible answer for all these question though a movie when I was young.
Movie <Malèna>
Malèna
Directed by Giuseppe Tornatore, one of "Home" trilogy 

    Compared to other two movies in this trilogy, "cinema paradiso" and "the legend of 1900", "Malèna" seems less known but appears to be more acute. It deeply touched my heart at my age of 14 and revealed the power of majority in front of my eyes. I was shocked by the scene in the later part of this movie, which depicting a woman, the main role in this movie, besieged, insulted and beaten up by almost all the other women in that small town, when other man just silently stands aside and watches. The others beats her in the name of punishing the slut, when practically the whole town envied her beauty. But no one stops the fanatic multitude! What should we say? What can be said? In the case of the beauty, she is minority. She can not even fight back because she is facing so many people. She wants to justify herself but no one cares.  In the other case of the multitude, they hides their jealousy and selfishness under the mask of righteous judgement, along with the unintentional conspiracy of men, executing the power of majority. 
Get back to topic
    How bad the consequence can a awful decision-making majority result? No worse than an innocent woman beaten up by others. Hence, I personally think suggestions from experts are needed when the situation loses control, or so to speak, needed all to time to prevent that situation from occurring.       

Socialism and Free Will

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Norway-become-so-rich-despite-being-a-socialist-country

Often in class, the ideals of freedom or "free will" of a person have been rooted against "assurances" from the government in contrast. These assurances essentially create a safety net in most cases for the citizens, but the opportunity cost to this usually entails a reduction in freedom. Because of this, it is difficult to strike a perfect balance between the two within the modern society, and socialism in Norway (among others) is in many ways a prime example of a favorable approach to assurances over freedom of the marketplace, etc. While there are still capitalistic components in Norway's system, the higher degree of regulation of the economy and all its working parts utilizes much more restraint than that of many other states.

One of the more important points stated in the article was the belief that there is "a very high level of trust in Norwegian society, which makes a lot of things easy." The apparent demonstration of greater trust and dignity of Norway certainly contrasts with the views on human nature by Dostoevsky and Hobbes, and as a result it could be argued that socialism is possible because of this. However, there is obviously a strong variation among societies around the world in how cohesive they are/can be, which poses issues for a prospective plunge into a more socialist landscape. However, Dostoevsky would most likely agree primarily with the enforcement of socialist policies, as he feels that man would choose assurances of food, money, and material goods over free will. If this were to be true, would socialism be more beneficial when considering foremost the negative views on human nature of Hobbes and Dostoevsky?

Patriotism vs. Freedom?

The Patriot Act vs. the Freedom Act

On October 26th, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law as a direct response to the events of September 11th that same year. USA PATRIOT Act is a backronym (meaning that the name came before the words that the letters stand for) that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The PATRIOT Act allowed for "enhanced surveillance techniques" and increased domestic security measures. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the NSA's collection of phone records; he fled the country immediately thereafter. In the wake of Snowden's revelations, the USA Freedom Act (a backronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring) was passed by the U.S. Congress. For differences between the two acts, watch this video at ABC News.

What Would the Philosophers Say?

Hobbes probably wouldn't have many objections to either the Patriot Act or the Freedom Act. Aside from the fact that there could be a question as to whether or not eavesdropping would violate Hobbes belief that a man has the right not to confess, he thinks that a person's liberties are limited to whatever the commonwealth says they are. Rousseau could argue that surveillance benefited the common interest of its citizens. Locke would have more objections to many of the security measures taken by both acts; for example, wiretapping could be seen as a violation of private property. I would also be interested to know what each of these long-dead men would think of the names of these acts--the Patriot Act and the Freedom Act. Both "patriot" and "freedom" are loaded words and have the potential to generate strong feelings. No doubt this is the reason that the words were chosen first and then backronym-ed into long, convoluted names that necessitated the use of the rather colloquial "eavesdropping" over the more technical "wiretapping" or the general "surveillance." The Patriot Act was signed into law in the wake of 9/11, at a time when Americans felt passionately about protecting their country and when nationalism was rampant. Over a decade later, those feelings cooled to a lukewarm pride that primarily emerges on the Fourth of July or at sporting events. Once Snowden revealed the depth and breadth of the NSA's surveillance, many Americans were outraged. (Admittedly, some people did think that Snowden was a traitor whose head needed to be put on a pike, but that is neither here nor there.) When the Patriot Act was revised and made into a new act, it was given a name to invoke that most American of values--freedom! Does this mean that patriotism and freedom are incompatible? One classic American patriot would disagree with this--Patrick Henry, of "Give me liberty, or give me death!" fame.

Property

“The Conflict over Takings and Property Rights in China and Its Parallels with that in the United States”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/08/the-conflict-over-takings-and-property-rights-in-china/

In this article, the author compares the legal condition of “eminent domain and property rights” in the US and China. Since Kelo v. City of New London, many small business and real estate owners have been advocating against its decision and seeking for reform. Compared to the situation in China, the lower-class peasants and the poor have been suffered from no legal ownership documents and illegal expropriation from their local governments due to “economic development”. Although independent scholars and private owners call for less constraint on property and land seizures, while many Chinese officials favor less constraints since they can improve their performance and gain revenue by selling expropriated land and attracting new investments.

My Personal Reflection:

In China, the concept of “owning a land or property” is largely differently from it in the US. Nobody except the state can truly own a land and the ultimate right of owning any property is reserved by the state. If someone discovers a gold mine in his back yard, it belongs to the state even though the man bought his land and build his house on the land. Local government can reallocate farmer’s lands in a forceful way. In urban area, some people are forced to accept little compensations from the government for taking their property away, even they fight to refuse the offers. What is happening in China is ironic because 70 years ago Mao forced the rich to hand over their lands to the poor while now the poor has to hand over their property to their governments, who have deals with the rich developers.

Bringing Back to the Readings:

To Locke and Rousseau, the concept of property is so important that civil society is impossible without property. In Locke’ writing, he regarded right of owning property is people’s nature rights and the way to enact their freedom of doing more things. In Rousseau’s writing he even states that the “first man” who claimed his property is “the true founder of civil society”. To him, the right to own something make both the rich that want to seek for protection for their property and the poor that want to seek for equality, and thus leads to the agreement of creating government.

However, is the right of owing property not to be violating really critical all the time to us? Some authoritarian societies, such as the Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII, had created the most abundant commonwealths within a short period of time as the government has the power to step in private property and reallocate them. That’s said, individual should sacrifice their rights of owning rights and tolerate what the government do to their property for the sake of the whole society. Therefore the conflict here is, who should has the ultimate right of owning a property, the individual or his/her government? It seems like there is no a satisfying solution even in the most developed country in the world.

How much do we really need to live a good life?

We ended our last class with the conclusion that the biggest problems of America throughout history have been slavery, racism, equality and depletion of environmental resources. All of these issues are in a way connected with the idea what people define to be freedom and liberty. On the one hand, Hobbes defines that liberty is doing what one wants without being restrained by anything. On the other hand, Locke views liberty as something given from God in favor of the people – so that we can make more of what we have. Therefore, while their concepts of liberty differentiate to a certain extent, they also convey a similar idea – that liberty is a concept created for the better well-being of humans.

However, there are certain issues that arise from their concept of liberty with which people have to tackle nowadays. These issues are connected with the quantity of specific natural resources – a lot of what was once in abundance is either extinct or near extinction. Also, many animal species have disappeared. One of the first environmentalists, who raised the question how much people need in order to survive and live a happy and fulfilling life, was Henry David Thoreau. In his book Walden, Thoreau openly criticizes the American society and its insatiable hunger for more riches and luxury. He expresses the idea that people have become too materialistic, and because of their selfish nature they have forgotten what is truly valuable in life – to live in such a way as to be able to say that you truly experienced life in its highest and lowest moments; to be able to feel pleasure from the little; to know from where your food comes, etc. These are all topics which Thoreau covers in his book. His message is that we don’t need much in life and that we should appreciate the moments for what they are. He raises the question whether it is right to take so much from the natural resources for our needs.  

Now let’s go back to the idea of what liberty is in the opinions of Hobbes and Locke. On the one hand, their definition of liberty is correct in terms of human nature because it conveys the idea of how our society works – people are selfish and want more than what is enough. On the other hand, their positions of what liberty should be (for the abundance of humans’ needs) can be questioned: how can their concept of liberty be considered as correct if it triggers in people the thirst for more when what they already have is, in fact, in excess? 

Hobbes vs. Locke on Turkey-PKK Conflict

“Turkish Troops Enter Iraq in Pursuit of Kurdish Rebels”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/world/europe/turkey-pkk-bombing-police.html

Article Summary:

On September 8th, Turkish ground troops entered northern Iraq, seeking to capture Kurdish rebels from PPK that created a bomb attack to that killed 16 Turkish government’s soldiers on September 6th. The day before, the Turkish warplanes also struck Kurdish insurgent targets in northern Iraq and killed dozens of rebels from PKK. Through this mission, Prime Minister stated that PKK fighters from their mountain strongholds in Turkey and northern Iraq would be eradicated.

PKK, Kurdistan Workers Party, has been seeking independent territory within Turkey since 1980s. Because it mainly fights against the governmental force in the insurgent way and often uses terrorism tactics like bomb-attacking, and most importantly, promotes Marxism and Leninism. PKK has been regarded as a terrorist group in Turkey and listed on US’s Foreign Terrorism Organization as well. Since 2013, the PKK leaders and the Turkish government has been negotiating a peaceful solution for their territorial conflict. However, this July, as the collapse of a two-year cease-fire, attacks from both sides increasingly frequent and wide. 

Personal Reflection:

This article follows both US’s and Turkey’s national narratives, as they share the same interests on the ideology and defeating ISIS. PKK as an actor that goes against Turkish government, is tightly connected to the YPG force that forms allies with the US army in Turkey-Iraq region and plays an important role against ISIS. Dealing with actors with different interests definitely has put the US into a difficult and subtle spot. In the middle of the article, it mentions that the European Union has also labeled PKK as a terrorists group. But the fact is, in 2008 the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance decided that the EU should wipe off PKK from the blacklist because the listing was illegal under EU law, and the PKK should be regarded as a political force that practice different goals and principles. Under the pressure from its NATO members, EU refused to accept the court’s decision (See source 3, 4 and 5). As a terrorist group, the PKK is labeled unjust by the US and Turkey not because the PKK did a lot of inhuman harms to the civilians, but because the US share a lot more common interests with the Turkish government than with the PKK and its affiliated force.

Another example is that China has labeled Dalai Lama and its related groups as terrorists. China did it because Dalai Lama went against its ideology and did not obey its political agenda.

(P.S. Source 1 and source 2 explain clearly the relations among these four actors, Turkish government, the PKK, the YPG and the US.)

Connecting Back to Locke and Hobbes:

Hobbes’s approach: 

According to Hobbes, government is established based on the contract between people. However, once people agree the contract and a sovereign is established accordingly, people can not raise up against the sovereign because it breaks the contract and hurt the commonwealth. It is because Hobbes emphasizes more on the legitimacy of a sovereign that can protect people’s physical safety rather than more other rights. If Kurdish people are not satisfied with what rights they have and their living conditions, their rebellion would be considered as unjust by Hobbes. Then the Turkey government’s suppression on Kurdish ethnic group is to protect most of the people who still agree on the contract and commonwealth, and therefore just.

Locke’s approach: 

To Locke, there is a law of nature that is higher than any written law. Any legitimate government has to follow it. Further, government’s establishment is based on people’s consent and leader should be elected by people. If the leaders or even the government is not favored by people, they has the right to raise against their government. It is reported that the Turkish government does not favor Kurdish people and stop them from involving in politics. Meanwhile, Kurdish language is also forbidden in public school. According to Locke, the Kurdish can definitely raise against the Turkish government because they are not satisfied with the violation of their rights and their living condition. Therefore it is their natural right to rebel or take other just actions against its government.

Sources and Supplies：

1: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-isis.html

2: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-PKK-PYD-YPG-KRG-KDP-and-the-Peshmerga

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey–PKK_conflict

4: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:142:0023:0024:EN:PDF

5: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/12062015

Would You Rather Live Under Anarchy or Tyranny?

In John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, the author discusses a world governed by a natural law. Locke’s natural law consists of the idea that all men are morally equal – this means that a person can seek revenge over a criminal. However, people do not have the right to kill when they do not have any justifiable reason to do so. They also do not have the right to demolish what they do not own.

In our last class, we were discussing the question whether we would live under Locke’s government or Hobbes’. We defined Locke’s government as safer but Hobbes’ as freer and hence, giving people more opportunities to do what they want without being punished. Some people claimed that Hobbes’ idea of what the government should be like is better. However, if that is to be believed, a question that comes into mind is isn’t such government going to have dreadful consequences in the future of our society.

Let’s picture Hobbes’ idea of government in the current world:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

Under Hobbes’ government people will have more freedom than under Locke’s. This freedom is expressed in the idea that people will not be punished for any of their actions, since there will not be a real government. However, the consequences can be terrifying as noted from the article about the war in Syria. As we can see, so far the Syrian victims are over 200,000, and the Syrian refugees – 4 million. Mariam Akash, a mother and a widow, conveys the situation in Syria in just two sentences: “We're just living on the edge of life. We're always nervous, we're always afraid”. Hence, this shows that there is no such thing as “just war”. Every war is devastating in terms of the society and the country itself. Therefore, we should start asking ourselves which one is worse: anarchy or tyranny? The second one provides people with physical safety, whereas the first one – with death and pain. So if you thought that living under someone’s regime is worse than living in a constant state of war, think twice. 

Allegiance to Who?

In Plato's Crito, Socrates and his acquaintance Crito engage in a philosophical argument essentially over one's obligations to the state that had raised them and these accompanying laws. Today, there are unfortunately numerous cases in which infringement upon what is believed to be past the boundaries of humanity have been occurring in regions such as the Middle East. Migrant crises are not a new phenomena, but the causation of such chaos on the international stage deserve to be analyzed and evaluated for its ethical standards, both for the state AND for the citizens' actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/world/europe/germany-emergency-measures-european-migrant-crisis.html?_r=0
In this New York Times article, the subject of the current migrant crisis into Europe (mainly concerning Germany) from the Middle East is discussed, as well as reactionary reform to be introduced concerning travel within the Eurozone. In the article, it is said to be estimated that as many as 800,000 immigrants may travel/find themselves smuggled to Germany by the end of this year (2015). While this influx may have presented some benefits by way of an increase in the younger, and as a result working population, the trajectory in which Germany and other states such as Italy, Hungary, and Austria are being swarmed by people from the Middle East is simply unsustainable. The source of these mass emigrations stems from unrest in states such as Libya concerning controversial practices and what is seen by many as inhumane treatment of civilians in addition to political instability in many areas.

Bringing it Back
In Crito by Plato (including other stories of the Five Dialogues), the question of "should one ought to follow the law?" is placed at the forefront of discussion and debate. As Socrates sees it, such heresy it would be for him to flee from prison and Athens altogether would be absolutely inexcusable morally, since he himself had been born and "reared" in Athens, as well as living there all of his life. In connection with the current dilemmas faced particularly in Africa and the Middle East, it could be stated that obedience to one's own state that effectively cared for them since birth/most of their life is in fact a moral imperative. Thus, one could ironically find fault for a citizen leaving a war-torn state, even if this very option seems to be the most sensible and obvious of all actions to undertake. Therefore, Socrates provides an argument that precedes even the subject of inhabiting European states such as Germany, as the singular notion of leaving the home state is put under moral investigation.

Who to blame?

Introduction
As Aristotle indicates that a slave can't be just if the war is unjust, slaves seem strictly binded to war as an object with no soul but only body. If in a unjust war the slave inwardly refuse to fight,will it make him more just? In class of political philosophy, a classmate asked a interesting question"If the slaves make mistake, whose fault it is?" Should we lay all the obligation upon the masters whereas slaves are the ones actually execute all the instruction, or should we think this way, that salves are nothing but certain tools manipulated by master, therefore master ought to bear all the consequences?

German movie"Die Welle" (The Wave)
Page for "Die Welle" from IMDb
Movie "Die Welle" was released in 2008. In a week of freely selection of course by students, A high school teacher is reluctantly pushed to teach autocracy when firstly his aptness is anarchy. At the beginning of first class, he makes a decision that he will rejuvenate the class, through reframing rules and disciplines, to rebuild an anarchy. The enormous sense of group honor, uniforms, “Die Welle" as group name, unanimous greeting gesture, the class seems to be more self-disciplined and in order. Everyone shows substantial belongingness and attachment. However, as time pass by, things are becoming uncontrollable, one students got shot by a fanatic boy when teacher announce that "Die Welle" is over, the fanatic boy commits suicide after.
The movie is adapted from a novel which based on a real event in US in 1967.

Let us think
The movie is similar to all other movies about fascism. By detachment of "anarchy and autocracy", it seems to me just coincide with slaves system, teacher gives orders as a master and students follow as "slave" to preserve this group as a prize. This group "Die Welle" somehow indeed nourish students in a sense of group honor and reciprocal support. The twisted and complicated relation among teacher, students and group"Die Welle" is what make this movie so mesmerizing and fascinating. At the end of movie, a boy kills himself. Who should take responsibility? Teacher? Who, to some extent, start everything.The group"Die Welle"? Which the carrier of teacher's ambition and students' desire for community. Student? Who himself pull the trigger. It is really hard to say. That's what makes that question from classmate so profound. Who to blame? Maybe everyone can not avoid the consequence resulted from their actions insomuch responsibility fairly cast upon.

Whose Justice is it Anyway?

In The Republic, Plato described a character who expressed the idea that "justice" can be defined as helping one's neighbors and harming one's enemies. Aristotle expressed a similar view in his Politics, in which he explained that taking slaves from a just war was just in itself. Both of these great philosophers clearly believed that there was such a thing as a "just war" and that violence was justifiable at times; however, they also believed that a war could be unjust.

But who decides what counts as “just”? As the saying goes, it is the winners who write the history books, and what one side of a conflict sees as just, the other likely sees as the opposite.

Let’s take the current conflict in Palestine/Israel as an example.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

In 1948, Zionist leaders created the state of Israel on land given to the Jews following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine into two separate areas—one for Muslims and one for Jews. The Muslim Palestinians rejected this proposal.

From that time on, fighting has been nearly continuous between Israel and Palestine, but both sides see the conflict in very different lights. Each has been responsible for initiation of attacks. PBS offers an excellent explanation of the conflict showing the points of view (or POV) from both sides. This article explains why Palestinians rejected the UN partition because of the demographic distribution of Jews and Muslims in Palestine at the time. It also explains the Zionist perspective of many Jews in the region, who have historically been in search of a homeland since the destruction of the First Temple. This piece from PBS only covers up to 2001. The Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014 is nicely covered in this article. The catalyst of this conflict in the spring and summer of 2014 was the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens by Palestinians (possibly Hamas). Israel responded with airstrikes on Gaza, which Palestine responded to by shooting rockets back at Israel. However, Israel has superior military technology, so while 2000 Palestinians were killed by the end of the conflict, fewer than 100 Israelis died.

Who’s in the Right?

In Politics, Aristotle stated that “the art of war is a natural art of acquisition…an art we ought to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit.” Similarly, in Plato’s The Republic, the character of Polemarchus tells Socrates that the best way to help friends and hurt enemies (or, by his own definition, to be just) is by making war and being an ally in battle. The issue with both Aristotle’s and Polemarchus's positions here is that both look at a war from only one side. In reality though, there are two sides (or more) to every war, and both cannot be “right” or “just.”

Israelis see their position as being the correct, defensible one; Palestinians maintain that they are in the right. If they can’t both be right and both sides can’t be on the side of justice, then is any war every truly just?