KQs 2

[ST. JOHN]

Post your KQs and RLSs here.  

BRADLEY, LIANA, JORDAN, MARNAGEE, AND SAVONTE: REPLY DIRECTLY TO *THIS* POST

ALL OTHERS: CHOOSE A KQ TO ANSWER, THEN REPLY DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON'S POST 

[LianaHa5]

Real Life Situation: The Pope has recently started his first tour of the United States. One of his first stops is the capital, and one of his first orders of business is to head to congress and discuss his opinion on the death penalty. This has reopened the door to the controversial debate of whether or not capital punishment should be allowed in our prisons.

Knowledge Question: How do we determine a fair way to punish those who have done wrong in the community? Where is the line between fair and unjust drawn? 

[LindseyStanley8]

Though determining punishment for crimes is ultimately influenced by standards of ethics, it is deep-seated in the moral code of the community involved.  Ethics and the morals of that community are used to establish a fair means of discipline for the criminal.

Whatever is considered fair or unjust must be defined broadly based on the ethical and, more specifically, moral laws of that community.  Thus, the line between the two (fairness and injustice) is drawn where these moral and ethical laws converge to create a standard of justice.

[JeetenMistry8]

The punishment given should be similar in magnitude to the wrong committed, which is fair in that it is similar to the idea of "an eye for an eye". For example, a shoplifter who steals a few items from a dollar store should not be given the same punishment as someone who steals the same amount of items from a high end store. A punishment is only unjust if the wrong committed is not nearly as severe as the punishment, i.e. either of the shoplifters receiving a death penalty.

[JovanyDorsainvil8]

In the modern society, punishment is determined not only by the severity of the crimes committed, but also the danger of the crime-committer. There are criminals who commit bad acts for spontaneous emotional reasons that are unlikely to reoccur, and there are also criminals that act violently without such reasons. Some argue that equal retribution (eye for an eye) for crimes committed is the best way to keep law in order; however, it doesn't account for accidents. People generally should be punished for voluntary and involuntary violations of the law; however, whether that punishment should entail elements like death and life sentences should not be determined by the crime itself. It should be determined by the risks of keeping that person in society or in prison. Punishment should be determined by the potential danger of someone if left in society. That is only fair to the rest of society. It becomes unjust when the potential danger to society is minimal.

[MaverickBeaudreau5]

It is hard to find a fair and consistent way to punish actions based on the severity of them, since people usually cannot agree on a given punishment for a certain action. That being said, crimes that are viewed as more heinous than others (murder, rape, etc) should be met with a worse form of punishment than, maybe, a store robbery. However, no matter what consequences there are for different crimes, there will be those who disagree with the severity level of them, making it impossible to come to an exact conclusion for how each crime should be dealt with.

[BradleyHutchinson5]

Real Life Situation: With regard to the crisis occurring in Syria, many countries worldwide are accepting Syrian refugees in an effort to help those in need. However, the top 5 wealthiest Gulf Nations (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain) have refused to take in a single refugee, despite being nearby.

Should we be obligated to do the right thing? 

[CamilaVizcarraGuevara8]

Assuming that "we" is the United States, there can be some debate towards doing the right thing. It can be confusing as to what the right thing really is. Is the right thing helping hundreds and thousands of foreigners get back up on their feet while providing them food, shelter, clothing, etc.? Or is the right thing to focus on the citizens and residents of our own country first? Logically speaking, the United States cannot do everything it is we wish to do. The controversial part is knowing that we need to focus on our country and the people living in it to make it a better place to live, while on the other side also knowing that there are people out there who need our help. Although the United States is among one of the top ten wealthiest nations, there are certain measures and precautions we must take in order to sustain the wealth.

[JustinHendee5th]

Bradley this question can be looked at from several angles. Sure, those Gulf Nations could take in the refugees, but at what cost? Being so close to the crisis, these nations have the possibility of backlash from the group which sparked this crisis. The closer to the area of crisis a nation is, the more likely something can happen in retaliation for helping the refugees, while other nations, such as German, can get away with helping these refugees due to being so far away from the area.

Sure, there has been the occasional terrorist within a group of refugees having gone to the farther countries, but these acts are seldom. Most of what I have said is hypothetical as we have not seen what would happen to these countries, but in my opinion they are probably looking out for their people first, which is the goal in the mind of many countries. So yes, we should be obligated to do the right thing, but first we should keep in mind the well-being of the public in your own country regarding the possible future effects an action can have on your nation as a whole.

[JordanBenedict8]

With the recent crisis in Europe many people use different language (refugee or migrant) when describe how they feel about the people who are coming.

How does language shape an ethical debate?

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9319695/refugee-migrant-difference?hash=4ebb39ab-c1cc-4994-ab2b-6a6558afa85a

[SalmaHuque5]

It is impossible to determine a perfect method to doling out punishment based on the crime. Everybody has a different spectrum on which they judge crimes,. For example, I do not support the death penalty, so the worst punishment I can think of is still much milder than what it is for some people. Considering this, I think the punishment for a crime is more based on emotion than reason. People hear about a crime like murder, and their sympathy for the deceased fuels their vindictiveness towards the murderer. Since people mostly judge punishment based on their emotions, the only way to punish in a way that will be approved of is by using the methods that the majority support, not necessarily the ones that individuals are ethically inclined to follow.

[MarnageeScott8]

RLS: Last week republican candidate Ben Carson was doing an interview for NBC. During his interview he was asked if a president's faith should matter when it comes to leading the United States. Carson replied with, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation, I absolutely would not agree with that.”

KQ: Does a person's religion ultimately define who they are as a person and their ability to lead a country?

[CarolLin8]

I believe that the punishment for a crime should be equivalent to the scale of that crime. The punishment should be logically sentenced and reasonable enough in a way that could benefit the victim. For example, people who commit vandalism in a shop should be sentenced to work in that shop until the cost for the damage repair is paid back. However, there are exceptions and more severe crimes, such as murder, in which no amount of work can repair the damage that has been done. So in these exceptions, a more harsh punishment should be given, for instance, the death penalty. The line that crosses into the unjust territory, is when a punishment is unreasonable given. For example, if a person is charged with vandalism and sentenced with the death penalty. The severe punishment that is given is unreasonable for the less intense crime. Despite my opinion, there are different extents for different people as to what is fair and unjust, so the line between fair and unjust is created by the holistic society's mindset.

[JamesHood8]

Language can be important when trying to communicate with one another because of how easily something can be changed or even be used to deceive others. As shown in the article many people are going from many countries in the Middle East to countries in Europe to either escape persecution or to be able to make a better living for themselves. The difference in these groups is their title of either migrants or refugees. Language here is used to classify people so to allow others to identify what treatment they might need which causes some to claim the refugee status so that they can potentially receive better treatment than other migrants. This has lead to more specific language in some areas while having less specific in others which in all has just attributed to the constant struggle of using language and conforming to political correctness.

[SpencerCaro8]

What makes a crime? I think that all crimes, at their core, represent  an infringement on the liberty of others (whether that be liberty to live, etc). For punishment, the offenders' liberties ought to be infringed upon in the same manner for equality. This sentiment is echoed by Immanuel Kant (with regards to capital punishment): "whoever has committed murder must die". However, the line between fair and unjust must be drawn, otherwise it could follow that executioners must die for inflicting such a punishment, and their executioners must be killed for committing murder, ad infinitum. So we draw the line of punishment-oriented liberty infringement based on the magnitude of the criminal's crime of infringement (ie murder would warrant capital punishment, but capital punishment does not warrant capital punishment because the criminal was guilty). 

[KiranLakhani8]

Ethics and morals determine what is wrong and what is right. An eye for an eye is a way in which justice is served. The crime that is committed must be given a punishment that is equal in weight. There must be a societal agreement on what crime is worthy of what punishment. For instance cutting off someone's hand for stealing a candy bar is unreasonable and unjust even if it does prevent the person who committed the crime and others from stealing in the future. It is unjust because the punishment is too severe for the crime. Making the person who stole pay for the candy bar and a fine for stealing however is reasonable and fair because it pays for the damage done to to supplier but also makes the person who stole to think twice before stealing again. The person will think twice because they are paying more money than the actual price of the candy bar. The fine and cost of the damage has the same effect as cutting off a hand but to a lesser degree and is reasonable.

[LaurenWheeler5]

Bradley, your RLS forces us to assess our own value judgments and I believe it makes us to question our own ethics. Living in the Western Hemisphere, our worldviews are different here than over there. As citizens of the United States, we form a world superpower. This makes us more able to accommodate refugees of Syria, yet we ourselves are not receiving any. At first glance, it may seem selfish not to help out a struggling country, but from a historical context, it makes sense. In the past, the United States has sent troops to different countries whom we felt needed to be helped, especially during Roosevelt's time in office. After sufficiently "aiding" a country, the troops stayed in the country (for the most part). Presently, some people, such as Donald Trump, claim that the United States is suffering from a severe immigration problem from neighboring regions. As it is better to learn from others' mistakes rather than to make your own, it is highly likely that the reason that the adjacent regions refuse to accept the refugees. Though Syria is struggling during this time, and the nations may not necessarily WANT to appear unfeeling, they most likely are more concerned about their own domestic affairs. So defining "right" as something that is most beneficial to all parties involved in a decision, one should have the choice to decide whether or not to do the right thing, depending on how beneficial and/or detrimental it is to their general well-being .

[AndyAustin8]

Determining a way to accurately punish people is very difficult and often crosses ethical lines. Since there is no clear objective manner to go about this, subjective methods are often used case by case. There are clear extremes that are easy to judge (a mass shooting where the shooter has no way to plea insanity and is in all ways guilty and clearly warrants the harshest penalty). However, often times the cases are much more nuanced and lack a clear degree of wrongness. This is where the need for a subjective mind (a judge) is used to clear up the issue. Although the judge has precedents set by other judges to go by, it is up to him to accurately decide the punishment warranted for each case. The only downside to the use of subjective judges is that sometimes one judge can be much harder on a crime that another would not be, but I believe this is the best system we can plausibly achieve.

[CarlosBeasley5]

Ethics of society is the way in which "fair" or "just" punishments are determined. For example some society used and still use, "an eye for an eye". Now some may see this a counterproductive and pointless. However, what goes unseen is how well this proverb utilizes the sense of an equilibrium in society, being balanced and unbalanced. If someone steals, don't steal from them, but instead in-debt them to the person who was wronged until the magnitude of the crime is rebalanced. Or if someone murders another person then unfortunately their life must be taken as well. As harsh as this seems it truly keeps the peace and equilibrium in society set. So in order for punishments to be fair they must be equal in magnitude of the crime. Or if they are to be just then they must be accepted by the ethics of the society. As Newtons Third Law states, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Determining what is fair is to keep in mind what is equal and what the ethics of the society are. 

[DionneWareham5]

I believe that in a sense a person's religion does define who they are, because religion helps to shape a person's beliefs and morals. It also plays a role in a person's decision making. However I don't believe that it affects their ability to lead a country. I believe that church and state should be separate. There is not a need for the inclusion of religion in politics. I don't think politicians should use religion as crutch for their decision making, because everyone does not share the same beliefs, instead they should use the merit in the argument. Everyone is not a Christian and I believe the inclusion of religion in politics creates a divide between people and does not allow for the representative to represent all people fully, because of this division. A Christian president Should be no different than a Muslim president, because religion should not be allowed in the political sphere.

[LeahHardigree5]

I believe that a person's religion defines who they are because there are usually guidelines and morals that religious people try to follow. This may affect their behavior and opinions, however I don't think it determines whether or not they can lead a country. One's religious standpoint shouldn't interfere with running the country and supporting the constituency. In addition, the President does not have full power over the country. Balance of power generally prevents anything from being passed that could be detrimental to the country.

[SymonneMartin8]

Although a person´s religion does shape their personal beliefs and morals to a degree, I do not believe that a person´s religion affects their ability to lead a country, with the exception of countries in which the state and church are not separate. In countries like the United States, religion and politics (should be) separate; because of this, a president cannot make decisions based solely off of the rules or beliefs of their religion. If this holds true, then religion is not a factor when deciding whether or not a person is adept to lead a country. That should be decided by their proposed policies and plans for the country and not by who they decide to worship. Whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, etc should never be a reason to not allow them to be president. The real problem is when people judge another person based off of their religion instead of their character, as was the case in your example during the presidential debate. 

[Ryan Kelly 8]

A society's ethical standing is the backbone of all decisions in said society, and therefore the laws and beliefs created by following that ethical code must be consistent.  If similar crimes receive similar punishments, then fairness is not an issue.  This begs the question of how should certain crimes be sentenced.  One could argue that crimes could receive a sentence based on damage done, such as theft equaling the monetary and psychological recovery of the victim or murder equating to the loss of the perpetrator's life through either service or death.  The most important goal of punishments for crimes is to deter the act in the first place, so more serious consequences could reduce crimes in general. 

[LaikenBaumgartner8]

I think that when determining a punishment for those who have done wrong in the community, the magnitude of the crime committed, as well as the circumstances under which it was committed, should be taken into account. If someone is mentally ill (previously diagnosed, not just deemed mentally ill by a lawyer to get out of federal prison), then I believe that the death penalty should not even be an option. However, if a serial killer murders four women with no justifiable cause, then the question of the death penalty comes back to the surface. Why should tax payers pay for the food, care, and even the television bill of a murderer for the rest of his life, if they high disagree with his crimes? On the other hand, an important question to consider would be: why do we believe we have the authority to decide who lives or dies, if we are questioning that same judgment onto someone else? Does murder solve murder? Does it cancel out?

[Ryan Kelly 8]

[SrinidhiDupaguntla8]

Even though we, as the whole United States, may feel obligated to do the right thing by allowing refugees into our country we can not make a decision as significant and impactful as this one without properly evaluating all of our options and circumstances. The situation in the Gulf Nations is each unique to its own, so there is no room for comparison. While we may feel obligated to do the right thing, we must make a rational decision that primarily benefits our nation and then help others. 

[SrinidhiDupaguntla8]

In my opinion, a person's religion does make up a significant part of who they are as a person, because religion is defiantly the core of our beliefs, but sometimes we may not want to limit ourselves within the boundaries that our faith draws. Therefore, I believe that religion does not ultimately define a person and it especially does not determine their ability to lead a country, because some are capable of separating their religion from their decisions and this is ultimately what determines one's ability to lead, if they are willing to believe one thing while doing another.  

[PatrickMurphy5]

A person's religion does not define them whatsoever. The purpose of most religions, being to instill values, morals, and beliefs, remains positive. It is the daily actions and beliefs, influenced by a personal interpretation of religion, that define a person. If a person was defined by their religion, then all members of each major religion would act the same or at least hold the same ethical values. This is not the case though, because there are radicals and moderates in all religions. Because a people are defined by their actions and not what religion they associate themselves with, religion should not matter in determining if a person is fit to lead. Their actions should.

[LoganSweeney5]

Religion does not define the identity of a person, but it does help to shape the beliefs of that person. Religion is a set of beliefs that deals with various issues within the world, which requires faith. You cannot have a religion without faith, which defeats the point of being part of a religion in the first place. People do have different beliefs depending on the person or the religion that different people associate themselves with. However, not everyone is aware of the various beliefs and practices of religions other than our own, which can cause confusion as to why people of other religions practice something in a different way. For example, let us say the leader of a nation was one religion and the majority of the nation is part of another religion. The leader would not allow laws to be passed into legislation if it went against his beliefs, and vice versa with the citizens. This would make it difficult for a country to operate if each side cannot allow a certain piece of legislature to pass because it goes against their beliefs. There would also be confusion as to why it was passed in the first place because not everyone is aware of the beliefs of other religions. Religion does not affect the ability of one person to lead a country, but it can affect how the leader decides to lead his country.

[SavonteMcCuller8]

RLS: It has been 70 years since a woman was executed in the state of Georgia. However, Kelly Gissender, who murdered her husband 18 years ago, currently faces the death penalty because of her crime. Today, Pope Francis asked for Georgia officials to grant clemency to Miss. Gissender. Regardless, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parolees has decided to carry out the execution. Kelly will die by lethal injection at 7.00 p.m. tonight.

KQ: Should any human being be allowed to hold power over the life of someone else?

[TulsiPatel5]

The line between what is fair and unjust is drawn by the peoples' ethical and moral norms. The degree of punishment should depend on the how much damage was done, but there should be exceptions. For example, a crime committed in self-defense should be taken in consideration rather than just giving all who committed the same crime the same punishment. In my opinion, the death penalty puts innocent lives at risk and having life without a parole is more of a severe punishment. 

[Jessica Miralda8]

In order to answer this RLS situation correctly "we" as citizens have to take into mind what the U.S may be risking if they were to begin to take in refugees, Also this raises the question why aren't the wealthiest Gulf Nations taking in their neighbors that are pleading for help? What factors are they taking into mind? Although it may be morally correct to take in these refugees at what cost would we doing it for? Yes, it is morally correct for us to take in these refugees but it is also important for the U. S to take into consideration the well-being of their habitants.

[ChristineJones8]

I believe that in certain cases religion does act as a guiding factor in who a person is and how they lead a country. For example, someone who follows a religion that scorns homosexuality would most likely hold bias in their personal views and legislative actions towards homosexuals.  However, I don't think a person's religion ultimately defines these aspects. I believe a just and qualified leader would not allow the natural bias he's prone to feeling to impact his actions in leading the country. I think its possible for people to keep the general good of the people.

[ErikaPadierna5]

I think that figuring out a fair way to punish individuals is extremely difficult. Many often think of the phrase "an eye for an eye" yet in doing so then it "makes the whole world blind."

To be able to determine a fair and just way, a person would need to have a balance between logic and emotion. People are often lead by their emotions and act on impulse. Now, to add even more to this topic, the terms "fair"and "unjust" are subjective to each person. Overall, society has a series of moral codes and ethical values that we tend to follow. So to be fair would be to dole out the punishment that is deserved which would make it just.

[PaulaTorres-Wilcken8]

Punishments in the legal system are largely based on ethical codes and emotions, especially since there is so much bias in the "ideal punishment". These bias factors can range from feelings of revenge from a victim and their families, to sympathy from jurors, and more. There is no one universally-accepted line between fair and unjust. However, we must weigh the risks and consequences of letting criminals back into society. Generally, punishments are decided on a value system. For instance, stealing a pack of gum does not result in life in jail. Minor infractions have minor consequences, and major offenses have major punishments. Generally, repeated offenses are more heavily punished. This is because the offender was given a chance to change, and that chance was not taken advantage of. We also base these punishments on the well-being of society. This idea of putting the majority before the minority is repeated throughout history. If a community is better off not having the offender in it, then the punishment will probably be more severe in an effort to contain the peace in the community. If society is judged to be better off with the offender dead, then the punishment will be carried out in a way to make that possible. Each situation has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and we have placed rules in order to keep that in place. We have also placed a rules to limit bias as much as possible, by having the ultimate decision made by a group (not single individual) of our peers. These peers are the members of the community affected, but not close acquaintances with the offender to keep personal emotions limited as much as possible. All we can really do to determine fair punishments is reduce bias, use reason to make the best decision for society, and assume innocence until proven guilty. 

[DestinyOkpomo8]

My way of determining a fair way to punish those who have done wrong in the community is using the golden rule. The golden rule is do onto others as you would have others do on to you. I would utilize this rule by having the perpetrator receive the crime that he committed to someone else. For example, a thief would be robbed by the government. This question definitely appeals to the logic and reason in the human brain. The line between fair and unjust can be never be determined since the terms "fair" and "unjust" are subjective in the terms of each individual.

[MarthinePaul5]

It's all about choice. How much freedom does one have if he or she has no choice? People don not like to be told what to do. People like to be able to make their own decisions. No one should be obligated to help those around them. Yes indeed it would be nice but he or she does not have to. Everyone should be able to make decisions with their own minds. Where is the individuality if everyone is obligated to do the same thing?

[JaymieBromfield5]

Religion is a specific system of faith and worship. While there are many forms of religious knowledge systems, they all require a reliance on beliefs without objective evidence. What we believe influences what principles we determine to be right or wrong. Therefore, when making decisions, many can be swayed to make agree or disagree based on the congruency between what they believe and what is presented. However, assuming that politicians will lead as representatives of a constituency, who listen and hopefully carry out the desire of a body of citizens, there is no need to consider the bias of their religious preference. 

[DeviDayal8]

In my opinion, a person's religion does define who they are as a person. Depending on what religion you are, you will have different perspectives and beliefs. However, assuming that someone can't lead a country because of their religion is a bit extreme. 

[ShambaGriffin8]

A person's religion does define who they are as a person because one would live their life according to their belief system. Religious beliefs determine what one morally believes. However, a candidate's faith does not ultimately define their ability to lead a country but to ask a person to put their faith to the side in order to lead a country is far fetched. Fortunately in the United States their faith system or belief system would not play a factor due to the fact that we separate the Church and State but in other countries where the religion of the leader can alter the country as a whole then their religion does define their ability to lead that country.

[Chris Kauffman8]

when determining a crime that is suitable for the death penalty, i believe should be voted on by the people and would only affect the sates that people are in. i believe in this becuase even though the united states is one country, ethical and moral standards can change dramatically. this way also the line between fair and unjust can  be drawn by the citizens that would have to face these punishments instead of letting the supreme court make a ruling that doesn't follow the common ethical views of that states or their region.

[Ali Robinson8]

Finding a fair way to punish people is difficult because of the different aspects of a crime. For example should a person of mental disabilities be punished to the same degree as a normal person for stealing? Also if a starving person stole food should they be punished as harshly as a person who steals bread but isn't starving? So the person judging these crimes must take into account the aspects of the crime to better understand it and deliver a fair punishment. When a community does this however the punishment is given by the opinion of the judge which can lead to problems. In most cases the punishment is fair and if it isn't the community should be able to help the person being unjustly punished.

[AbbyLhoste5]

The punishments we determine for those who have done wrong is based on our ethics and morals as a community. The line between fair and unjust is not clear and distinctive because individuals all hold their own personal beliefs about crime and punishment. The line must be drawn to meet individuals preferences as best it possibly can. I therefore think that when determining how to punish a criminal, the punishment should vary with the severity of the crime. Also, the line between fair and unjust, in my opinion will never be clear and objective, so it should be drawn to meet popular opinion.  

[AndreaTully5]

Two wrongs do not make a right. Although the death penalty is the ultimate punishment, controlled and regulated by the law, it is not equal punishment. By simply ending the guilty persons life, that individual escapes the magnitude of punishment that would equal the pain they may have committed towards the victims families. Also, the death penalty eliminates the possibility of conversion and chance for the guilty party to make a right

[Azrah Khan8]

In this case Miss Gissender committed a grave crime by taking another person's life. I believe that because she took a person's life that another human being may be allowed to hold power over hers, because she did the same thing as well. I believe that no human being should be allowed to hold power against another person's life because that power is not in our hands. But in a case of a murder being committed then the person who committed the crime should get punishment as severe as the crime they committed. 

[AnayaGibson8]

I believe that religion definitely plays a large role in however one orchestrates their life. I feel as though that religion is basically the center of a paradigm for a lot of people, including myself. But for others, it may be different. Maybe religion is a small fraction of how they conduct their lifestyle and just some sort of safety net in terms of hope. So, it basically depends on how deeply rooted one is in that religion for it be a determinant of their identity. However, when it comes to the leadership of the country, religion should not play a large role, because a large group of people who share various beliefs or morals are involved.