Author: hwardwell1

In most cultures people diverse people are able to exist in harmony because of shared values. Appiah presents a new angle to look at these values, his belief is that values are a matter of perspective.  A good example of this could be a comparison between Christian values and Buddhist values. Buddhists believe in “Samma Vayama,” which translates to right effort. According to the Vipassana Fellowship, The Samma Vayama exists “to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states; to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;” The christian faith also believes in finding personal well being through service.  Today the faith has eight fundamental social values,  one of them being service. Service is defined by the Evangelical Alliance as “meaning is found in service rather than self-centeredness.” Although both faiths believe in similar concepts they have different reasonings that bring them there, because values are defined by perspectives rather than definitions.

Appiah discusses the American governmental system, specifically the first amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Americans are able to agree that protecting religion is a positive decision, but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. These questions could be extreme, like what to do if an established religion starts taking violent actions, or would it be okay to create areas where religious institutions couldn’t be built.

Sources Used

https://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp5.php

http://www.ethos.org.au/site/Ethos/filesystem/documents/In-depth/Politics/Eight-Core-Christian-Values-Brian-Edgar.pdf

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

When a group of people is committed by their culture to do something harmful to their own people, change is very difficult. In the article “She Ran From the Cut” By Jina Moore Nice Leng’ete’s story is told. She is a woman from a tribe in Kenya that helped combat Female Genital Mutilation.  In the article “The Art of Social Change” by Kwame Anthony Appiah a similar story is told, but the focus is on Chinese Foot-binding in the late nineteenth century. Both of these events are similar in the way that they are continued because of tradition, cause great suffering to the women who receive either, and it’s men who primarily kept both alive. With both stories, a woman born into either of these societies could have been forced to mutilate their body. This mutilation was done because it was tradition, and a person who was non-compliant would be ostracized by their community and not be able to marry.

In both cases, pain creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. In both cases extreme agony was avoidable, as there was no base for either besides in the cultural sense. Conversation is needed for a change. In the case of Nice Leng’ete, Kenyan methods for “the cut” involved dancing and singing, it was a beatiful ceremony for women coming of age, except that one aspect kept it from being that. Nice Leng’ete decided that it was time for a change, so she started a conversation in the most classical sense. She made people realize that change was accessible and possible, just by using her voice and learning new methods to replace the old ones.

In this article Ron Currie Jr. explores his relationship with a cousin that has a very different worldview from his own. His cousin Ben is a far right leaning individual that some would possibly label as an extremist, while Ron is a liberal that lives in Portland, a city he describes as “a town so liberal they charge a fee on plastic shopping bags.” Ron and Ben both grew up together in Central Maine, where they both shared hobbies that others would consider a bit geeky, but then a divide came in their life. Ron became a journalist while Ben joined the military. They set out on completely different paths from this point and developed ideas completely separate from one another.  In the end they are able to get along and likely learn a lot from one another, but there is a problem.

Ron brings up a problem that has become all too prevalent in our current day and age, and that’s bad communication. Ron brings up that he and Ben could have “courteous conversations about our disagreements, something we’re routinely told is impossible these days.” The last part of that statement makes me uncertain about how much I can agree with Ron’s opinions in the rest of the article. Throughout the article he’s a bit biased, leaning towards a fear of leaving his comfort zone while having no qualms about stating his opinions towards those he feels are lesser than him. The people Ron feels are lesser than him are typical gun owning, right wing, Americans. Otherwise known as people just like the rest of us.

I do partially agree with Ron’s idea that we have forgotten how to get along, but Ron is kind of a problem in all of this. While Ben sticks up for his beliefs Ron seems to have an innate  conviction that his ideas are superior to those that are held by those opposite him. Ron and a lot of the public has forgotten that in the end, we are all people. In our own lives, our beliefs tend to be backed by the things that are important to us in our own lives and other strong opinions we hold. These notions are formed because we think they are good and correct. How hard is it to imagine that a person who appears to be a polar opposite of yourself went through a very similar process when creating their own opinions?

Ted Talks TRIAC paragraph

Fear of the unfamiliar is something rooted deep into the human psyche.  It’s very hard for humans to get along with all of the differences that they may have.  Adichi states that feelings toward others “stem from the mind’s knack for thinking in categories that cover more than one person and fewer than all people.” I am of the belief that people are inherently selfish to a certain degree, and this is because of the ways that we can’t compromise for each other. In the end people have been able to come together and we are truly in an age of acceptance.

This is an issue because  when people don’t work together it’s because they’ve decided that the rift between others is deeper than the value that could come from working together. People must agree that intrinsic differences are less important than what could happen if they tried something in a direction that would benefit every party. This is the problem with any hatred between people. It doesn’t make any sense from a logical standpoint. Folks working together have a chance to create something potentially larger than themselves, so why would they miss that opportunity?

People have to put hatred under their feet, because strength comes with unity. If unsolvable divisions caused by racism, sexism, and disparity can be overlooked so that all could work together, the world would be in a stronger place.

 

The Fault in Our Attention Spans, final draft

The Fault in Our Attention Spans (Rough Draft)

Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!