Justice 2013

8.21.13

Define justice. Jake Nyquist: a decision that contributes to the general well-being of society
Crech: utilitarianism
Sam Elkins: a system of punishment to make bad people not do bad things, implemented by the people in power
Celia Lewis: an idea or ideology that brings people to the same playing field, but doesn't necessarily make it fair
Max Melcher: whose justice?
Clay Hatcher: consequences to make things fair, implemented by the leaders of society (fair = equal)
Will: a system of laws implemented to provide a safe and regulated society
Jack Kaplan: proportional punishment for a crime, implemented by some sort of judicial system

Is the world of Clockwork Orange a just system? Yes: IIIIIIII No: IIIIIIIIII
Not everyone agrees on what is right or moral, so the problem with Sam's definition of justice is that someone has to decide what is wrong or right. Jake's answer avoids the issue by allowing for actions that are either "good" or "bad", as long as they contribute to the well-being of society. Celia's definition explicitly states that justice isn't necessarily fair. A legal system can ensure equality of one of two things, opportunity or outcome, and Celia's definition states that justice is (or should be) focused on equality of opportunity - the "level playing field".
To create a civil society where definitions of morality differ, a system of laws is necessary to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Moreover, you also need an enforcer to enforce or formalize those rules, to ensure that people abide by the rules, even if they don't agree with them. The more nearly homogeneous a society is, the better it will function without a lot of rules. For example, even though the youth society and the adult society in Clockwork Orange are relatively internally homogeneous, it is the clash between them that causes the central conflict in the book.

What is needed to create a good, functioning society?

• Enforcer

Handbook--Either you accept the handbook rules, you don't care about them, or you don't feel that they apply, based on your prior experience with those rules (do you care about the rules if your teacher doesn't?). Most of the handbook rules don't concern most people or are common courtesy.

Unwritten rules + traditions (learned, so they differ from person to person, because of personality, environment, etc.)

We have rules so that we can demonstrate what happens when we break them. (?)

08.23.13

Chaplain: most moral, but ineffectual: “forced good” < “chosen evil”

Prison: totally amoral, pragmatic approach to the Ludovico treatment

External (both parties)—election or re-election ploy

World view:

How do you have to look at justice if you feel CO is a just world? • Pragmatic • Focused on society • Utilitarian

If you consider it’s unjust, you might be concerned with “fairness” or morality

August 26 The most striking thing about the first chapter is that he is arrested but it does not change his life at all. We are really reading a combined effort because it is a translated work, so we are getting the translators interpretation of the original work. The interpretation comes from: a) Word Choice: some words don't exist in other languages, few words are actually interchangeable in English. b) The humor changes between languages due to cultural differences. c) Syntax can be very different, i.e. in German the main verb comes at the end of the sentence d) The paragraphs are very long in The Trial e) The idioms in languages vary, and do not translate

Another striking thing about the first chapter is that "someone must have been telling lies". DLR on board: Modal Verbs transitive and intransitive verbs

                     auxiliary verbs- modal verbs is a subclass (ie the mood), ie would go, might go, must go
                     analytic verbs
                     synthetic- make tenses by adding verbs

Transitive verbs have direct objects, intransitive verbs do not have direct objects.

Back to "someone must have been telling lies" There is no doubt about it in the writers mind. Implies people are normally arrested after they have done something wrong. Therefore, there is some problem with the Justice in this case. This is important because it sets up the mood of the book with respect to the notion of Justice in the book. Also: someone had to mess with the system to make this happen.

The view is that only the bad will be punished and the good will not be. We supposedly share this view in the US currently. Justice breaks down because people lie.

The arresting officers are introduced on the second and third pages, who interestingly do not know why he is being arrested but assure him that his arrest will have no impact on his life. K. tries to talk the inspector out of arresting him, but this does not work. K. is very arrogant at the beginning, and feels that he should not have to deal with these problems. His arrogance comes from position and intellect, but not wealth. The narrator appears to be on K.'s side, we are getting his perspective. K. clearly cares more about himself than other people: he fails to notice the people from work. Why does it not give K's last name? This gives a more general or universal message, this is less specific. Because there is a discussion of a verdict of innocence, the justice system clearly does not assume the accused is innocent. This is the exact opposite of "our" justice system. At the end of the chapter: K. has a very unusual sense of perspective. He is also introspective because he thinks about his own feelings instead of what is actually going on.

August 27 Chapter Two is the interrogation. K. feels that he should be told why he has been arrested, but we don't know for certain that he is required to be told by law. The narrator's description of the length of the hearing indicates that they will do pretty much whatever they want. Dr. Raulston clarifies that he as still never been arrested (since yesterday). Innocent people can still be arrested and sometimes convicted. For example, people on death row have been proven innocent by dna; however, they are legally guilty but not morally guilty. K. sees the three people from work who were involved in the case on his way to the courthouse, and he thinks this is pretty weird. K. does not want to be punctual to the meeting because he interprets it as a social event more than a formal event. He is trying to put himself into a position of dominance in a situation where he clearly is not. Therefore, he is not taking the situation seriously and he is very arrogant. His arrogance shows itself again when he gets angry that they did not give him good directions to the location of the hearing. Furthermore, K. should be very uncomfortable that the people do not seem to want him there but he instead gets angry.(p26)If he thinks there is an attraction between the court and guilt, then he should have chosen the stairway that would not lead him to the court because he says that he is innocent. He should realize that he must be guilty, and realize that he has bought into their mind game already. (p26: "The court is attracted by guilt") He wants to try and establish power over a group of children; however, he should be trying to do this over the court. He only wants to take action with the kids. K. is showing an "avoidance behavior." (p26: "afraid of what noise they would make by shouting") He invents a guy to look for and feels proud of himself. This is another avoidance behavior. The atmosphere in the apartment: It is clearly a courtroom. Everything is squished; for example, you cannot stand up straight in the balcony. This cramped space makes peoples' minds break down before their body. This makes people subconsciously accept that they are lower than the judge. The physical surroundings now play into the mind games. The implication of having the door closed after him makes K. believe that the door is his personal door. (p27). K. Decided he "would do more watching than talking" (p28). This is after he realizes that the room is divided between being for or against him. However, within 3 sentences he reverses his strategy, and he decides to rant for the duration of the hearing. He cannot make a clear plan. They tell K. that he is the house painter because it is a form of intimidation. He worries about the reputation of the house painter, and he thinks that they do not really know them. This is a power game played by the Judge. K. assumes that the notebook has all of the information, so he assumes that the notebook lists what is going to happen. K. claims that he does not care that these hearings must happen all of the time because it is not a big deal. However, he must care because he showed up to the meeting. Additionally, he tells the groups that he is trying to stand up for the other people who are charged in this way but cannot defend themselves. The subsequent applause notes the switch from a courtroom appearance to a theater act. Then, when he claims he is not trying to be an orator it becomes almost a political speech (page 31). Next, he lies about what happens. This type of speech makes it sound like his arrogance makes him not know when to stop talking. He looses the self-censoring voice to prevent him from seeing stupid. All of this leads to the judge saying that he has used his one chance. If he is telling the truth, the fact that he even found the courtroom means he has been setup. This would mean that there is some type of conspiracy. Alternatively, there is an unreliable narrator and he was able to guide himself to the meeting. The unreliable narration may come from K. corrupting the narrator or the narrator himself having bias.

August 29
Reading for weds. is a really short story. We will meet with other english classes to have a fight.
Chapter 3 of The Trial
We split into groups of three to find and justify the most important point of the chapter. Also: Find insight into K., Addition to world picture, and questions a real English teacher would ask.
Asking good questions is hard. What makes a question good? A good question is worth answering from a perspective of time and effort. For example, we don't know about Justice and cant' say what it is, it is more important because we need to know about justice to live life better.
Max: most important point is when he returns
Creech: They are trying to break his will
Parker: In Ch. 3 we learned more about the differences between the members of the court and K.
Mary: What is K.'s relationship with the usher
Connor: Why does K. continue to reject help
Celia: K. Wants things that are not helpful to him.
Matthew: What caused K.'s sudden weakness?
Will: Why was K. genuine with the usher?
Timte: The usher's wife was able to easily manipulate him.
<p> Student Responses
John, Brooks, and Celia
1) K. fails to get girl because he goes about things the wrong way... again. What he wants is not advantageous to him (ie making the magistrate jealous by courting girl)
2) Acting impulsively, emotionally vs. rationally; short- sighted, blinded by arrogance (ex. chasing married woman)
3) Insight into Judicial offices: Appearance vs. Reality, greeter's dress vs. high officials; outside of building vs. offices; gov't threats vs. actions
Mary, Michael, Will
1) Power struggle: Judge in the attic 9ashamed to bring people up there); The officials are no better off than K. is- Who has more power?
2) Insight into K.: Manipulated and influenced by women; When showed kindness, K. befriends Usher.
3) K is easily manipulated but thinks he is in power; No one knows what is going on with the courts.
4) Does the usher's wife really want to help K.?, Is K. being manipulated without knowing or is he aware of other's attempts to influence him? Do K. and the usher have a real friendship?, Why does K. treat the usher how he does?
Kasey, Jim, Connor
1) K. is a very self- conscious but power driven individual; the judge is actually a big deal when K. doesn't really care/think.
2) K's priorities are out of line because of arrogance. He's single-minded and just power driven over the court and women and people.
3) New additional details about the court and judge are providing just how important it is; we continue to see and understand K's thoughts and mindset. The lack of communication contributes to the mysteriousness of the case. Chapter 3 shows how realisty and K's "reality" are drifting farther and farther apart- he's going to get screwed over.
4)Why does K. feel so connected to the usher's wife?, Why does K. refuse to worry about the trial?, Where does K.'s struggle with power come from? (superiority)
Parker, Jake, Ryan
1)We believe the most important point of the novel so far is that K. and the members of the court are complete opposites in terms of beliefs, ideas, and mannerisms, with absolutely no common ground. For example, K. feels sick while in the court office (due to the unusual heat from the attic), but perhaps more interestingly, the court members feel sick when they step outside. These differences in environment and reaction to environments are symbolic of the people's fundamental differences.
2) K.'s independence and arrogance lead him to not care about other people.
3) The justice system in The Trial is corrupted by differences in perspective and the resulting jealousy. For example, K. points out that his office at the bank is much larger than the offices at the court.
4) Why does the woman take K. in at the courthouse?; What do K.'s expectations of the court office say about K.'s opinion of the justice system?; What's the difference between K. and the court members? ; What's the difference between K. and the other accused people?
Kreutter, Kaplan, Melcher
1) When he goes to the courthouse anyway.
2) (above) demonstrates that he does care about the court case. ; acts very arrogant and independent but in reality is often quite helpless/incompetent. ; delusional- reads into situations very strangely.
3) Continues to exemplify K.'s descent into arrogance-fueled delusion. ; Shows that K. really does care about the case and its outcome (despite his claim of being diffident/apathetic) ; More "oppression" language (stuffy air in offices, etc.)
4) What caused K's sudden weakness in the office? And what does his accepting help demonstrate about his character?
CRech + Friends
1) K. is talking to another accused man. When K. touches his arm he freaks out. This man has been broken down by the gov't and foreshadows k's future.
2) His not taking the trial seriously is helping him resist the attempts by the gov't to break him down.
3) The gov't is trying to keep everybody in their place and inflicting a fear of power in citizens.
4) Is it necessary for a gov't to be oppressive to enforce justice or is being oppressive unjust?
August 30
Which of the questions from yesterday are the most interesting?
Is Crech's question good? -Yes, it makes you think and makes sense with the course. The more frequently someone gets in trouble, the more they agree with the second statement. Jim: How do you define oppression for this question? Oppression is the use of excessive force. DLR: What is excessive use of force? Timte: The minimum amount of force needed to have justice. DLR: Consistency is another factor in the "correct" use of force.
Is Kreutter's Question good? - Of the four, which is the most important question? - What is his opinion of the Justice System?... What is his opinion of the Justice system, based on his expectation of the court office. He expects the Justice system to be equally corrupt or fabricated as the court office.
Why Does K. refuse to worry about the trial?- He thinks that his innocence is truly enough to prove it. He keeps on coming back though, so he must worry.
Of Mary's?- The second one is better because it will continue to apply throughout the story. It is really about his relationships in general. How could he not know that he is being manipulated?- Timte: it is easier to have people to think for him, Celia: He wants the women so it does not matter to him that he is being manipulated.
Are the officials better off than K. is?- Parker: The officials and K. feel unhealthy on opposite environments in and out of the courthouse. Ryan: The power they have is related to where they are physically, so this can interfere with the Justice. Kreutter: The officials are in some sort of jail inside the office because they spend too much time there.
Chapter 4 Discussion
What is K.'s reaction at the end of chapter one is pleased but not excessively so. It is hard to believe that he is pleased with this situation. Celia: He is so blinded by his own arrogance that he can be pleased with it, even though it is obvious it went poorly.
DLR: In chapter 4, why does he want to talk with her again?
Jim: because he wants to make out with her again.
DLR: Yes, but he also wants to talk to her again. Then, he cannot decide if the lack of response to the letters is good or bad.
Then, he talks to montage. The people in the story communicate very badly. They use intermediaries, talk about irrelevant stuff, not being truthful, some of the communication is like alternating monologue, there is not conversation. The monologs do not respond to each other.
Chapter 5
Why is this going on in his building? This is very unusual part of the story. He is confused, but also gets involved and asks for them not to be beaten. They are being beaten because they complained. They only got in trouble because they were caught. This is similar to the world of clockwork orange because the government knows what is going on but he is still not arrested. If you compare morality and justice, in both Clockwork and The Trial, people don't seem to care what he is doing unless he gets caught- for both Alex's parole officer and the beating in the building. Also another appearance vs. reality thing in chapter three- Brooks. The appearance is what counts. I.e. the point of the handbook is to be able to blame the teachers if something goes wrong. So they can avoid defending a teacher if the teacher knows they break the rules.
The whipping thing is important because it only matters because they got caught and not because they did it. K. says he complained without knowledge of the consequences. But he is probably lying because he does nothing and then leaves. The next weird thing is that it happens again the next day, it is like no time has passed.
Why is it there? Shouldn't it happen at the police station? - But, we already know that these worlds mix, ie the three clerks from the bank in his house at his arrest. People are already showing up where they are not supposed to be. There is clearly some overlap and connection that are not normally going on.
09.03.13
Chapter 5
"He would most likely have violated his duty twice over" - he's pretty much just making crap up, like always. He lives his life through deluded conjecture. We see that K. is progressively becoming more and more obsessed with his case and those involved (he goes to the court purely because he thinks he should, not because there is a scheduled court hearing). Now, he sees that there exists a force far greater and far more powerful than the forces subjugating him and this indubitably freaks him out (he sinks into denial/further delusion) All in all, K. is full of crap (he rationalizes his actions but then undermines his own rationalizations, demonstrating his irrationality)
Chapter 6
K.'s uncle advises K. to be proactive and energetic with regards to the case, and in essence challenges K.: "what the hell are you doing?" His specific advice is that K. should avoid disgracing himself and his family by seeking a lawyer and actively fighting the trial and possibly by fleeing to the country for a short while. His uncle reacts strangely: he accepts the fact that the case is not of a normal court with unsettling comfort. Either K. is so self-absorbed that he didn't see any warning signs coming OR the government is intentionally and maliciously trying to screw him. K. doesn't desire to flee to the country because he would prefer to embrace his ego and fight his case (further demonstration of arrogance). 'Personal Connection' invoked again when K.'s uncle offers to bring K. to Huld because the two went to school together.
Judge was sitting up on the podium reading...whatever...while K. was arguing his case, demonstrating that the case was basically already closed/decided. It is strange that Huld says "you can say whatever you want" when Leni is around; demonstrates that the relationship is inappropriate. Lawyer is apparently an invalid/cripple... K. pulls Implore - to beg Abhor - to loathe, hate, detest Ignorance - bliss
Today's notes enthusiastically provided by Flash Boy
09.04.13
Omelas A discussion of Utilitarianism - sets up a unrealistic, fantastical situation in which a particular facet of human philosophy, ideology, and nature are explored. Raises the question: is Utilitarianism moral? It assumes that people are fungible units and is focused on the maximization of pleasure and later that of happiness as well. Now, the system focuses on providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. These tenets provide a metric of morality (other metrics derive from things like religion/religious humanism, laws, common sense/secular humanism, empathy)
What are "good" questions?

• Not purely informational
• Not able to be answered with an objective absolute by everyone
• More than one "correct" answer based either on the individual or on environment (culture, religion, law, family/friends, etc.)

Most of us adhere to the basic tenets of Utilitarianism whether we do so consciously or not, but that we place restrictions on just how far we will go along with Utilitarianism suggests that Utilitarianism is imperfect/impossible (an unattainable ideal).

"Or whatever they say in your day" - Doc Raulston

Schadenfreude - revel in the misery/pain of others (specifically that of those you don't like)
Genesis - coming into being

09.18.13
Notes from today's presentation (Duson, Arnold, French)

"This is a very easy chapter to understand if you just read it right." Will Duson

"The lie" is that everything done by the court is necessary.

Block is the man waiting by the gate, who believes everything he is told.

The Court wants you to believe you've done everything you can. (Why?)

The man from the country takes the gatekeeper's word for everything.

"What would K's equivalent of walking through the door be?" JK (What about when K stands up for himself in court, but then just stops?)

K is starting to buy into the idea that he's guilty just because of everything the Court has put him through...

The only people K sees, as the court seems to envelop his life more and more, are those who stayed....

It's not only the accused who have fallen for "the lie," it's the Court's servants and agents as well.

What is "inside the doors" for K? (since it's "inside the doors" that the man from the country can find the Law/Justice)

09.19.13

How would your opinion of the tale or of K be different if the Cathedral section were chapter 2 instead of chapter 9?

When it's chapter 9, K is more like the guy from the country after he's been sitting there a long time. If it were chapter 2, he would be more like the guy from the country when he first arrives at the door.

If it were at the beginning, you'd think he'd have more hope since he'd have more knowledge of what he was up against...

Jim asks them to vote on whether it's better as chapter 2 or chapter 9. Most people vote it's better at 9. One person says he'd stop reading if it were chapter 2 because you'd already know how things were going to turn out.

Parker: "This writing is effective because it's so complicated and complex. If the parable were in chapter 2, the book would not be as interesting or effective."

DLR: Putting the Cathedral section in chapter 2 would also make the tale read like a Greek tragedy, where the interest is not what the outcome is, but how the situation involves.

MK: Use of "Law" instead of "Court" would change your sense of K's plight, because a court is composed on people and so, if he's against the Court, it implies more of a chance of success, whereas if he's fighting an abstraction like the "Law" it's clearer that he can't win.

155: "don't take somebody else's opinion without checking it." But K can't do that...
160:"the court doesn't want anything from you. It accepts you when you come and it lets you go when you leave."

CA: K even says this in chapter 2, where he says the court would have no validity without his accepting its validity. Yet by his continuing to come and to argue with them, he grants them the validity he says they don't have.

09.26.13 Hatcher, Crech, Donaldson

Start off with a plot summary of the first half of the play.

Creon is particularly angered by Antigone's action because she is a woman.

Ismene wants to be executed if Antigone is going to be killed, but Antigone repudiates the family loyalty.

Haemon goes along with Creon's decision not to bury Polynices, but he agrees to go along with his father's decision about the execution.
Crech: He's totally fine with his father's decision to execute his fiancee.

Parker:What is the significance of burying the dead?
Celia: sign of respect
PD: (9) It's clearly shameful for the dead to remain unburied. Also, look at the family tree, and there are clearly conflicts of loyalty.
JK: conflict of god's law with Creon's
CL: less about family loyalty than about doing what's right.
JP: Are we sure that Polynices has done "really bad stuff" or is that speculation?
PD: it's addressed on page 6
PD: It's also difficult for Haemon since Creon and Antigone pull his loyalty in opposite directions.
JK: At the time of the play, loyalty to parent would take precedence.
CH: Haemon brings in the idea that a ruler should pay attention to what the public thinks as well
Cr: p 25. Haemon gives in to his father's will. "For there is no marriage that should occupy a larger place with me than your will and the path of honor."
ME: Yet he ends the conversation by saying his father will never see him again. And on 27, he says 'you really need to rethink this.'
PD: Also points out on 26 that he needs to consider other opinions.
PD: Another question is that of loyalty to the gods.
RS: They play a pretty important role: angering the gods is what causes the events of this whole story
PD: Antigone points out (17) that loyalty to gods is more important than loyalty to a man.
Cr: Law of man is easy to interpret/understand whereas law of the gods is more difficult to interpret. Creon probably thinks the gods would be on his side since P. was a traitor.
ME and JM: No, Creon wants to punish P for personal reasons and is just using.
JN: Is the fact that Creon is related to P. affect how he treats him?
Cr: Do you think Creon is in a position to make the declaration that P should not be buried?
JM: No.
Cr: We never know facts.
CL: Creon is never supposed to be in power or not, so he shouldn't be the one to decide whether the actual king should be buried or not.
DLR: provides backstory for the genealogy
PD: What's the point of this story?
BA: Justice
(Thank you for that brilliant insight, Brooks.)

09.27.13

CA: Antigone points out she did nothing morally wrong and is punished because of what's-his-face.
Max: She's kinda effed to begin with

(editorial comment by DLR) Sigh

Max: "Dead people stink pretty bad"
Sam: Antigone is willing to be killed to save her brother from the sacrilege of not being buried.
Max: Killing people is usually bad.
Connor: "Do you hate America, Crech?"

JP: Wouldn't it bring shame to Antigone to be executed?
MM: What's going on with Ismene? What does she say to Antigone in this section (22)? What does she want?
RS: She doesn't want to live without Antigone, so if A is going to die, she (Ismene) wants to die as well.
MM: Doesn't hurting Ismene show that Antigone is doing this partly out of rebellion?
RS: She doesn't care about her sister as much as Ismene cares about her. (But maybe Antigone is just stronger than her sister)
SE: Wikipedia tells us that Sophocles was pro-democracy. Go to p 28. Haemon represents Sophocles' view of how a city should be run.
It's definitely anti-dictatorship even if not positively pro-democracy.
MT: How does religion play into the rule of the city?
SE: There's definitely a huge theme of choices and consequences in this play. There's no choice in here that goes unpunished--they have huge consequences.
MM: "Shouldn't be a spoiler alert if you've read, Crech
SE: Tiresias is telling Creon it's wrong to leave the body unburied. Kinda reminds me of the plagues Moses brought.
Creon soon changes his mind about having been so obedient to what Tiresias has said in the past--he won't be now.
JP: Why does Creon want to kill Antigone?
SE: It's definitely to flex his muscles (show his power).
MM: At first, though, he wants to get Antigone to reverse her position, not to kill her.
MM: This is play. We're only reading the dialog here, but there's a lot more going on. So what they say is not necessarily completely what is going on.
JK: The director's interpretation always comes into a play.
CA:

10.08.13

Follow-up from yesterday's presentation by Daphne Bernicker
Took about 30 minutes of follow-up today, going into why it's easier to affect actions than thoughts or feelings.

Feelings are the most primitive and least controllable, yet also the motive force for most actions. Yet, we look down on "irrational actions." They were astonished that if I see someone lying on the sidewalk hurt, my desire to help is not rational. I guess you can tell these kids did not grow up in New York City lol.

We got to the point of the irrational determines ends, the rational determines means.

We looked at things both from the individual perspective: it's easier for us to control our actions than thoughts or feelings. Then we looked at it from a systemic (or societal) perspective.

A reasonably large and heterogeneous society needs a system of laws to enforce its social norms. The norms need to be specified (legislating), enforced (executive), and conflicts mediated (judiciary).

But this feeling--> thoughts --> actions can be run backwards, too, which is the basis of conditioning.

Hamlet's "Assume a virtue if you have it not"; how the govt addressed racism in the 60's. Legislating actions is easier and "what matters"; (possible exceptions).

Military integration implementation: "salute the uniform, not the man"

10.09.13

Exodus 32

The Golden Calf story: they worship the golden calf, and CA: "this is bad" (because of the Ten Commandments--worshiping a false idol)

Psalm 106

3 "Blessed are they that act justly" Yes, but in this verse the defn is circular. So, in the context of this psalm, what does it mean to "act justly"?

Luke 12:48 "From those to whom much is given, much is expected." Sam: My trainer said that.

So, the bottom line is "to act justly" means to "obey God."

Zechariah 7 "So two guys and their posse..." Sigh. Are you fasting to honor God or to feel self-righteous? Apparently the latter, since he smites them. Few different "Listen to God or you'll be screwed" "Do what's actually right as opposed to doing stuff that will get you acclaim."

Exodus 21

Mostly Newtonian punishments "an eye for an eye" though some are worse. This is not God punishing but here he is working through people in order to see this version of justice be done. There's disparity in the justice between males and females and between free and slaves. Similar discriminations in Code of Hammurabi. Patriarchal, warrior-based or influenced society.

Genesis 2-3

Basically creation, the end of the formation of earth.

"They ate the fruit and God is obviously pissed." This story is about free will. God didn't have to tell them about the fruit, and he didn't have to give them free will. This is unjust.

Adam and Eve and the serpent are all punished. And not just them, but all their descendants.

Justice is served because the people who break the rules are punished. The story is a basically a version of Pandora's box.

Matthew 7

speck in your neighbor's eye vs the beam in your own; pragmatic principle because people who are acting unjustly are often not aware of it; it's difficult to act justly--image of the wide and the narrow gates.

Ask and ye shall receive: kind of putting the blame on people who are destitute (but what is the context of the whole passage? It's about

21: "do the will of God and you enter Heaven"

18: "a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit" (this is justification for Calvinism) "a good tree bearing good fruit" seems like a statement of "what goes around comes around"

"If everything's going well for you, you could still be a bad dude." "This seems very simplistic to me."

Matthew 18:23-35

Master takes mercy on a slave who owes him money. That slave turns around and demands money from someone else and has him put him in prison for non-payment. This annoys the master. The moral is that to be forgiven by God, you have to be forgiving yourself to others.

Max: Is there such a thing as forgiveness in a just society.

10.15.13

Paul Hobby guest speaker

Bertrand Russell: "Unless you assume a God, the question of purpose is meaningless." PH: Unless you assume a God, the question of justice is meaningless--it's a large abstraction. How do we deal with it pragmatically, then?

Ask your dog about purpose or justice, and you'll be waiting some time for an answer. It's just not on their mind a lot...

Is justice fairness? "Fair" pretty much means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.... So, that doesn't help.

The top of the decision tree: Where does justice occur?

On earth? In the afterlife?

"on earth" people: epicureans--Lucretius says that the afterlife judgment felt like "a crowd control device" De rerum natura (50 BC); says that justice occurs here on earth.

"in the afterlife" people: justice (and judgment) occurs in the afterlife, not here.

The Swerve: How the World Became Modern: Thomas Jefferson wove together the ideas of epicurean justice and afterlife-justice

What's the religious part of the Declaration of Independence? "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" "epicurean sound bite": "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

You learn a lot about abstractions when you move them down, when you try to apply them:

Learn about justice when you try to apply it in the courts.

Experience as federal prosecutor....

What are you after as a federal prosecutor: restitution, etc. This is a lot like revenge, which is what most courts are about. The fancy term for this is redress of grievances.

Courts are historical by defn (you can't adjudicate facts that haven't happened yet). Thus, courts don't, for the most part, do prospective justice (except through injunctions, for instance)

PH says he was running a judicial MASH unit--running triage on cases--has limited time, limited FBI agents etc.

Has to develop a personal code for what to indict: his was "room and board"--if the public is willing to pay for someone's room and board, then he'll take the case. Other things need to be taken care of different ways.

If justice means anything, there must be a higher arbiter than just man-made prosecutions. So, if it's a transcendent concept, where does it come from?

Justice is hard, elusive.

"There's no such thing as historical justice"--you're trying to true up accounts in the rear-view mirror. It has to be done, but it's not pretty, and it's certainly not perfect.

Recall that the victors are those who write history; thus, you can't square historical accounts in a way that makes everyone happy. What one side sees as justice, another sees as repression. Thus, justice is not a shared standard, it's a personal thing.

Chapel talk a few years ago: the radical idea is that we're not supposed to keep score. That's a very radical idea for St. John's, which is the center of score-keeping...

Score-keeping as the basis of personal relationships does not work.

W H Auden:

That's the story of the Middle East right there.

So, you need to live by a code which propels you forward whether people deserve it or not.

Think about peaceful resistance: Gandhi and MLK were not trying to square historical accounts, they were trying to move forward. Don't try to pursue justice for dead people because they are, at the end of the day, dead. Pursue justice for your children and grandchildren.

W H Auden: "Both I and the public know,

And all school children learn,
Those to whom evil is done, 
Do evil in return."

"Don't live for what's lost; live for what's left."

Good final essay topic: "Define justice in the absence of a transcendent authority"

Crech responds with utilitarianism

Jack: a lot of justice is in the eyes of the beholder, so the views of society as a whole (democracy)

The problem is that the more you observe about political processes, the cheaper the idea seems.

There's also different ideas of justice in different jurisdictions. What kind of justice is it that changes when you step across the river? It's not. It's legalism.

Sam: Justice is mainly about equality. Not equality of outcome, but equality of treatment. Maybe equality of opportunity.

The problem with that view becomes how you apply it in real life...

How do you express tolerance in public policy? It starts to become preference in public policy (affirmative action or OEO, for instance), and that leads to a backlash. How do you apply tolerance without leading to the Tea Party?

Kasey: Justice requires an aspect of morality. There shouldn't be a justice system without a higher power. References the Bible stories from last week. So, all judgment comes initially from a higher power, and it's in our court to enforce those principles in our courts.

"You need to be able to articulate why you believe what you believe. People who can't articulate what they believe chunk spears at each other."

Mary: Justice without God is inherently flawed.

Brandeis: "Justice delayed is justice denied"

A transcendent view of justice (God) says that in fact justice *is* always delayed (til the afterlife). [That would be a fundamental difference between human and divine law.]

"The thinner the social contract, the deeper your law book is."

France's social contract is coming apart because they made the Muslim immigrants janitors, they didn't make them French.

Celia: Justice won't work without a social contract or a higher power.

Ryan: You also need someone to interpret the laws. People even disagree on what certain parts of the Bible means.

Parker: Even people without religion have some sense of right and wrong.

Crech:

1) If God told you to blow up a school, would you? 2) Why do secular govts tend to have higher qualities of life?

It's a huge problem when people see themselves as instrument of that higher authority.

PH "There are wacky people who use religion as their sword rather than as their shield."

Jefferson was saying that individual freedom is the precursor to a just society: it doesn't cause it, but it's necessary for it.

"If we have to lock people up or kill them to demonstrate what we believe, all is lost."

10.17.13

Debriefing of Paul Hobby's remarks:

Why do so many people talk about justice if it’s so abstract?

• People want revenge • The system of laws affects their behavior • Justice establishes order (no); • (Jack) People like to think the laws they make are based on justice; • Justice comes from morality (or at least is supposed to);

Why do people dress up an idea of revenge in “justice”?

Jim: Justice is restrained revenge Matthew: Justice is retribution, not revenge

What’s the problem with administration of justice? Basically, that it’s run by people

How does “justice” help break the cycle of retribution/revenge? Peavy: a third-party system can have credibility with both sides If justice means anything, it must come from God…. Why?

           You could believe in Nature’s justice.  The arbiter doesn’t have to be divine. 

How does survival tie into justice? (It doesn’t) What’s added to the idea of “justice” that’s not in survival?

“Perspective defines justice”

(Human) justice is always for a society, whereas revenge is personal.

Justice has to have transparency, consistency—neither is necessary for revenge, which is an essentially emotional response

We need God for emotional detachment and ubiquity of enforcement

Group: Ryan Schick, Andrew Warden, Jack Kaplan, Will Duson

John 8

    a. A woman accused of adultery is about to be stoned to death as per Jewish law (laws of Moses). When the townspeople ask Jesus what they think about her punishment, Jesus at first pretends not to hear them. When asked again, Jesus declares that the person without sin should throw the first stone. The townspeople are quiet let the woman live.

    b. God's justice is even: the townspeople want to kill the woman for her sins but they themselves have sinned.

    c. Although God sometimes forgives in the Old Testament (e.g. Sodom and Gomorra), divine justice was more generally vindictive in the Old Testament. John 8 illustrates the more forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek nature of the New Testament.

Matthew 27

Luke 15

Luke 23

Group: Crech, Parker

1 Timothy 2 1 Peter 2 1 Corinthians 14 Ephesians 5

Group: Brooks, Jim, Jake 1) Jesus Drives out an impure spirit

	a) Luke 4:31-36

b) Jesus makes the demon leave a possessed man. c) God wants to help people who are hurt, he also wants to show his power when he helps people. d) Before, God focused on punishing people who were stupid, so this is clearly a change because he helped this man without wondering what he did to get the demon in the first place, which was probably bad. 2) Matthew 25:31-46 a. Matthew 25: 31-46 b. Basically Jesus is going to come and sit on his throne and judge everyone. He will separate them into the "sheep" (those who are righteous) on his right and the "goats" (those who are damned) on his left. When questioned how he has determined which people go to which group, Jesus will answer that they were placed in each group based on the way in which they treated even the lowest of people (should welcome strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.). c. The story illustrates how God will reward those who are kind to the poor, the hungry, and the week, and will damn those who neglected them.  d. The old testament is more about punishment for actions, but this passage gives a warning about what will happen in the future.  3) Warning of the necessity of repentance….or else a. Revelation 2:5 b. Not really a story. Jesus explains that man must repent unless Jesus, God will "remove your lampstand out of its place." c. This illustrates God's justice because it is a warning for man to do what God desires (repent for one's sins) or else face the wrath of God. Man is flawed so everyone will sin; however, through repentance, God allows man to escape his wrath and be saved. d. Unlike the Old Testament, this is a warning against future actions; therefore, man is given an opportunity to escape its destruction. In the Old Testament, those who broke God's law were punished, but the New Testament is more of a warning for all to heed in order to be saved from that punishment. 4) Women accused of adultery a) John 8:2-11 b) A woman is brought in front of Jesus because she was caught in adultery. The men want to stone her. Jesus tells them that the one of them that has not sinned should stone her first, the men leave, and jesus tells the woman to not sin anymore. c) God believes in equality: because the man did not sin less than the women, they had no right to punish her. The laws should not be enforced by people who are not superior themselves. d) This is different because Jesus contradicts a old test. law. While before God accepted people carrying out his laws on earth, now he wants to be the one who carries out justice because no one on earth is perfect, so they should not act as if they are superior. /Group

10.21.13

How does mercy function with justice?

Divine mercy

God is able to discover whether there is true repentance; atonement involved, sometimes wrt the individual injured, sometimes wrt God.

Human mercy

If the purpose of justice is to provide a stable, safe society, then mercy can work provided you can be assured in some way that the justice principles have been internalized.

If the purpose of justice is to provide punishment, there's no place for mercy.

Internalization

• education (brainwashing)
• exile (self- or otherwise) for those who won't abide by the strictures of society

Omelas is the system where there's essentially complete internalization of the principles of society that a justice system would ordinarily be needed to enforce

10.29.13 David Dow
On board: (Tree) Top: 506, Second Row: 356, 4, 108; below: 70%, 4, 108
Asks where you are on death penalty 1-5 (5 is a big supporter). The largest number place themselves at 4. Says it is just like TX.
How he became a lawyer
by accident 20 years ago, when he was teaching a course about habius corpus. When he taught this class, most of the important relevant cases were about the death penalty. This is not always true; for example, now they are about terrorists. He decided to become an expert in death penalty law by reading all of the cases out there. He then met some people on death row. There are 4 parts of these cases: murder, conviction; state habius corpus hearing; federal court like before; everything else, ie asking people for pardon or just give up, sometimes try to return to part two. When he first visited death row, none of the people were entitled to a lawyer after the first part. He met eight people when he went. One of them lost his lawyer right before he gets executed because the lawyer had lots of stress. Dow decides to represent this case, thinking it would be the only one he would work on. He was not against the death penalty for the first 5 or 6 years, but this changes while he was a lawyer.
Why did this change for him?
All murders are terrible. Dow will describe two of them.
Seven years ago, a woman has a relationship with a man who had been at the top of his highschool class in Utah, a mormon. The man ended up going to a military recruiting fair, and then enlisted in the marines before 9/11. Was still serving after 9/11, and sent to Iraq. He got caught in a firefight, where most people he fought with were killed, said he was shooting at anything that moved during the conflict. He returned to US to become a sniper, but then moves back to Utah because he broke down. He meets the woman at the bar, and finds her again on facebook. He learns that she had his children, and then they decided to get married. The neighbors said they had a good marriage. But then drowns his wife. He attempts to make it look like a suicide. He then gets married again, and one day admits himself to a VA hospital, and confesses to the murder. What should we do with him?

Twenty years before, a career criminal stole some things and forged some things. When he was paroled, he goes to Hockely TX, tries to buy a woman's car. When she refuses, he shoots her and steals the car. Later tries to buy crack with money he steals from the house.
Most people think the two murders should be punished either the same or the second more than the first.
Dow: Draw something about your own life that you remember that embodies love.
When he did this exercise before, his wife drew the same thing that he did; his kid sleeping.
Whatever it is that we drew, the first person could have drawn, but the second person never could have. The second person (Michael Richard), grew up with abusive, drug addict, parents. His father once beat him enough to send him to a hospital. Lived alone since he was 11. It is hard the imagine Walter Smith (person 1) becoming the person who he became. (In the context of what we read last week).
He had this idea when he first went to death row that they would all be terrible murders, these images were shattered. This image was replaced with one like Michael Richard. They had not ever experienced love. Everyone on death row was poor. Lots of people on death row were people of color.
Board: 506, the number of people texas executed under the death penalty since 1980. If TX were a country, it would rank 5th in the world in the number of executions it carries out. Dow: As a lawyer, I noticed that there was entrenched racism in the system in general, in particular in the death penalty. 356 of those people were executed for killing a white person, except only 40 % of people murdered in TX are white. So this is nearly twice the expected value. The 4 is the number of white people who killed black people who are then executed. One of those four also killed a white person in the same crime. Of the remaining 3, one was a white supremacist who killed a black person in prison. The two remaining did it in freedom. Those two were of the 3 men who dragged a black man through the streets until he was dead. The third of the three was sentenced to life in prison. Psychologist who often testifies in these cases was involved with this third person. In TX, jury only asks if people are going to be dangerous after their death. This Psychologist would testify based on their skin color. In the case of Walter Smith, everyone thought they understood how he had come to do what he did. Agreed that he should be sentenced to a prison term between one and 15 years for committing manslaughter. In 2009, they executed the other guy even though he had an IQ of 64, and the supreme court made it illegal to execute mentally retarded people. The jury who executed him did actually not know what his IQ score was. He was executed before any court addressed the issue of who he was.
The second thing that happened to move Dow on the 1-5 scale was that executing these people did not make us safer.
Questions?
Celia: Why did the other two guys on the truck get the penalty?- He did not testify in the other two cases.
Kaplan: How did it stand on appeal?- It didn't, state gave these people retrials; however, one guy did not get this retrial and is now still on death row
Do you feel unsafe working with these people?- Only about 5 people of the 100 he has represented who he believes are innocent. Most of these people would never do anything bad, but would not trust them to take care of anything he loves.
How many women?- 7

Heart of Darkness: DLR: Mouth of the Thames estuary- Where the Thames river meets da sea DLR: It makes people tolerant of people's stories and convictions Jack: How well does Marlow understand French? Jim: Marlow is confident in his French. DLR: He thinks his French is fine and he has not missed anything. Does he actually know what's going on? What happens when writing a tale in retrospect? What he says at the beginning will be influenced by everything that happens on the trip. Tales told in retrospect lack detail because we don't care about unimportant details. We remember a general synopsis of what we see. People piece together pieces of information in a way that makes sense even if these connections do not exist. Two layers of retrospect storytelling in HOD.

"And this also," said Marlow suddenly, "has been one of the dark places of the earth." (3) - DLR and Brooks: While London is now a bustling and civilized city, it was once a "dark" place in the past, metaphorically it was once the Congo or African world, a savage and uncivilized area. Timte and Celia: Could mean that, with all of these great things that come out of London, there is also much oppression, murder, corruption, etc. "Flicker" means its going back and forth between light and dark. DLR: Marlow could be suggesting that London is on its way out of its glory days, is about to be on a decline. His deliberate use of the word "flicker" suggests this constant change from rise to fall.

"the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine." (3) Celia: he is using one instance to give a bigger picture rather than the contrary. DLR: For Marlow, this suggests that perception is a big component of the truth. Rather than dissecting the story, the meaning of HoD from his point of view is going to be derived from outside of the story, ie from the reactions of those who listen to the story. Even if they're both honest, a lot of the details when Marlow tells the story and then the narrator retells it are going to have changed or been altered. Think about this change detail when reading HoD.

"I was thinking of very old times... the hate." (3-4) this whole paragraph is pretty much a direct parallel the journey that Marlow is about to take to Africa. DLR: If you saw this paragraph and you were victorian/English, you would think that it's describing the Africans, but in reality it's describing the English before the Romans came.

On P. 4 when talking about the conquerors coming to England. DLR: Marlow says taking land away from people with different complexion than yours is not a very good think when you look into it (no sh*t). What redeems this conquest is a certain idea, unknown to the reader.

DLR: the interview on p. 6 is perfunctory, nothing more than a formality. DLR: p. 9 the doctor tells Marlow that there are very unspecific, vague changes that happen to people when they go to Africa. This vagueness is a recurrent theme throughout the novel, seen already by the unknown idea behind the conquests.

"The company was run for profit...the laborer is worthy of his hire." (10) DLR: the company is exploiting the African natives for maximum profit, mistreats them and disregards them in order to make more money.

DLR: when the French steamer is going down the river, shooting the 8-inch gun into the jungle (p.10), the real reason for doing so is just because they can. They're men and they love guns and love shooting them off, and justify it by claiming they're shooting at "enemies".

11.07.13

Questions on pp 12-27: look at imagery, different aspects of "colonialism"--there are some elements both of the Victorian attitude as well as of a more contemporary perspective.

11.18.13

Marlow's description of Kurtz immediately before "The horror! The horror!"

sombre pride

• ivory
• god to natives
• success over fellow Europeans
• reputation
• power

ruthless power

craven terror

• death
• end of all his power/success
• scared that he could be wrong, his life wasted
• change from his idealism

Intended

Victorian view of women: naive vs idealistic

African woman and Intended are essentially personifications of the wilderness and civilization respectively.