Graeber - Debt: The First 5,000 Years

"One has to pay one's debts." What a strangely complex concept. It is not so simply as it seems. The questions about justice raised by this simple phrase are far reaching. When we are forced to consider situations like the one in Madagascar, for example, the question becomes much more complicated. Should countries with no feasible way to repay their debts (debts which they don't deserve in the first place), should they have to? Some people may believe that it is as simple as that: One has gotten into a situation where they have accrued debts, so thus "one has to pay one's debts." However, this crosses over into the territory of morality and justice, similar to points raised in Sandel's article. It is not simply black and white. On one hand, it is difficult for government to develop a moral position on an issue because when it comes down to it, government should be as objective as possible when it comes to deciding what is right for people. On the other hand, most people know in their gut when something is morally wrong and many of them are outraged to see nothing done about such things. With situations like Haiti and Madagascar, it is fair to say that the average person would probably agree that those countries don't deserve the hand they've been dealt. But what can truly be done? That is a question that I'm not sure I have the answer to. In fact, due to the subjective nature of the issue, I'm not sure that anyone does.

The reference to the flaws of the "human artifact" that Burroughs mentioned is a difficult one for me to attach to.  Referring to humans as artifacts seems so artificial, degrading, and fleeting.  If we are probably the most superior species on the planet, how can we be labeled as such an insignificant concept?  Will humans in fact die out like he claims?  Why does he suggest that we "were not biologically designed to remain in our present state any more than a tadpole is designed to stay a tadpole?"  However, I do have to acknowledge that despite our enormous capabilities, larger than average brain sizes, opposable thumbs, and numerous over advantages we have as a species over other species, the setbacks we have created for ourselves, and the problems we have yet to overcome do attest to an immense amount of stupidity, disorganization, and laziness.  The ignorant statements mentioned in the other readings about debt and the poor ideas surrounding this concept do enforce human's inability to fully function as a society.  This reality begs the question: how long will we be able to survive like this?

9/18/14 Kaia Hayes

I found each of  the scenarios and applications discussed in Michael Sandel's Justice, What's the Right Thing To Do very thought provoking. Each presented a different layer of moral conflict-- from the social, political and economic quandaries of price-gouging, bailout and military honor to the fundamental conflicts concerning human life and sacrifice for greater good found in the trolley and goatherd scenarios. While it was interesting to interpret each of these and attempt to resolve them with my own logic, I was most intrigued by what Sandel had to say about the act of moral reasoning and philosophy in general-- that posing questions like these are necessary to spur people into contemplation. When debating viewpoints, we tend to present them as though they are etched in stone, the end-all, be-all. But this is often because the heat of the moment calls for a black and white, condensed argument that can stand against the opponent. The moral dilemma allows one to apply their beliefs to a concrete scenario, and at once find the weaknesses in their argument as the conflicting aspects of the story reveal them. Instead of taking for granted that, because they have always felt a certain way, they will continue to feel this way about an issue, one is forced to rework and justify the tenets of their personal moral logic. For this reason, I believe that a dialectical approach, rather than a traditional volleying of rigid, canned statements, is the best way for two individuals (i.e. politicians, thinkers, colleagues) to truly dissect an issue and work to form a resolution.

Debt, Justice, and Morality

I found many emotions stirring through me when I was reading the piece on debt. In this reading, David Graeber talks about how third world countries have been afflicted with debt and how the IMF has a big role in this. I always thought the International Monetary Fund was a institution that helps developing countries, however Graeber opened my eyes. In his piece he refers to the IMF as the "world’s debt enforcers—You might say, the high-finance equivalent of the guys who come to break your legs." The IMF has basically allowed banks to give out billions of dollars in loans to developing countries for exorbitant compound interest rates and has assured the banks of repayment. What I found even more disconcerting was that most of these countries have paid back three to four times what they have owed and are still not even close to repaying their compounded principle amount. I find it sad when people and organizations can profit on others suffering, and this can also be seen in the Justice reading which talks about price gouging in Florida. As a society we need to amend our profiteering attitude and try to help others out without  thinking only about ourselves and our gains.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

In this article, Burroughs talks about the future of the human body and other evolutionary and biological themes such as cancer causing viruses and genetically or biologically produced genocide with the use of enzyme inhibitors. The one point that really interested me was his description and comparison of the human body to the technical equivalent of the flintlock pistol. Burroughs describes this state of static development that humans seem to be stuck in; I find this interesting because it is not the first time that I have heard that humans have virtually stopped progressing genetically; rather, they are progressing socially. I do not necessarily believe that this halted evolution is a bad thing, but it has become completely social. Through our scientific breakthroughs, we have been able to keep so many people in the gene pool that would not have been able to live, let alone reproduce, in previous times, allowing for this great, wide gene pool with so much variation. By the same token, as Burroughs was warning, there is great potential for these genetic rifts between populations to go wrong with the use of these race and ethnically targeted chemicals. An event that wipes out an entire race of people simply because of their genetic code is a horrible thought and would prove catastrophic, apocalyptic to say the least, to any population.

The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse

Before reading The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I thought that it would be the same topic as what Zizek. However, shortly after beginning the reading I found out that they had two different views on the four horseman of the apocalypse.  While Zizek's four horsemen were ecology, economy, biology, and society and Burrough's four horsemen are famine, plague, war, and death. These two different ideas may at first seem very unrelated, but after careful thought, I found them to be very related in their own way. Burrough's four horsemen of the apocalypse refers back to the four horsemen that were brought up in the book of Revelation in the bible. However, I think that Burrough's views on it differ from that of the bible and has a more modern appeal to it.

Justice: What's the right thing to do?

In "Justice...", I found the trolley problem and the situation of the soldier with the goat herders to be really interesting. Was killing one or a few better than allowing a larger group of people to die? These two scenarios present moral problems that can be debated, regardless of which side you choose. Also, the situation wherein the soldier decides to let the goat herders go, not knowing that his troop would be surrounded by the Taliban and that a lot of his people would die, was from the movie, "Lone Survivor." I just thought it was interesting because you're presented with an ethical dilemma. Should you kill people who may be innocent because you foresee a bigger problem? Sometimes we are presented with difficult situations and it may be difficult to differentiate from what is right and wrong.

Response to Justice

It seems that each generation has many a scathing remark to give regarding their children's lifestyle and society they are a part of. I postulate that this is not a fallacy or some technique to inspire compliance, but a frightening truth. Michael Sandel in Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do provides an astute insight into the morality of many people and institutions of which we think we know a great deal about: the corruption present in so many of these influential figures is truly astonishing. As always, I tend to integrate my thoughts with historical trends, hence the statement of our scandalous generation. If one considers the vice present in the government of our 19th century forefathers, we see that we have since made several beneficial cultural and societal changes, but at what cost? Those individuals fueling the advances in our nation become wealthier and wealthier while the layman becomes comparatively worthless. I assert that this is another factor that will lead to the demise of some major political or corporate entity (which would both, in my opinion, be apocalypses of massive proportions). Evidence for this theory is found throughout history as the elite find ways to hoard all of the money and deceive inhabitants into believing that all is well. 

The Four Horsemen: Are we the real problem?

After spending most of the week reading Zizek and learning about his Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Ecology, Economy, Biology, and Society), it was a relief to hear a new opinion on such a large part of the end-all-be-all. Burroughs writes that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are Death, Famine, Plague, and War, but his most interesting decision was to use the metaphor of the Horsemen actually being human beings. Like we have read in other pieces, this implies that we as humans, once again, are going to the be cause of the end of the world as we know it. Burroughs allows the reader to come the realization that the Apocalypse isn't going to occur in a split second, like how the tall tales say it will. Rather, he implies that humans are at fault. Humans made Famine. Humans made War. Humans made Plague. Humans lead to death. So often do we attribute these powerful entities to the acts of a God, but in reality, our actions have led to these Four Horsemen. Our breakthroughs in science, a topic that I am so very interested in, could lead to our downfall. The disparity and difference in amount of food people in different parts of this world could lead to our downfall. Our selfish decisions to attack another country over differing opinions could lead to our downfall. Burroughs' ideas have a common understanding with Diaz and Zizek. While they all are different thinkers, some being more radical than another, they all believe that the end of the world can be attributed to the actions of humans, and their information to back up the claim is hard to reject.