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?