Category: Justification

Introduction:

The meaning and purpose of life have been a topic that mankind has grappled with since time immemorial. Philosophers, sages, and theologians have all produced a plethora of answers to what the purpose of life is. Many are optimistic, vouching for a blissful hereafter that accompanies a virtuous life, whereas certain philosophers are skeptical about whether there is any meaning to life at all. Thomas Nagel is a renowned American philosopher who argues not only that human life is absurd, but that humans cannot escape this absurdity either. His position is a unique one, for it differs from those who appeal to the finitude of human life and universal existence. He posits that human life would remain to be absurd even if it lasted for an eternity, and even if the universe were to last forever. Having argued that humans cannot escape the absurdity of their lives, he posits that we need not be overwhelmed, nor depressed by such a reality. He believes that if life is meaningless, then its meaninglessness doesn’t matter either. Furthermore, he prescribes humor and irony in dealing with the absurdity of human life. In his writing, prior to explaining the absurd, Nagel contends that the argument “our lives will not matter in a million years, therefore our lives are absurd” is not a satisfactory argument. Nagel argues that the absurdity in human lives lies in taking it seriously whilst simultaneously failing to dispel doubts regarding the meaninglessness of our lives in the grander scheme of things. Despite this, Nagel maintains the position that the absurdity of our lives need not serve as a source of distress for us. This is because if something is meaningful to us, despite its objective meaninglessness, it suffices in giving us satisfaction, regardless of the “bigger picture”.

Paragraph 1: Why humans cannot escape the absurdity

In Nagel’s paper, “The Absurd”, he first rebuts specific arguments put forth for arguing that life is absurd. Thereafter, he goes on to formulate his argument for where the absurdity in human life lies, and why humans cannot escape absurdity. In Nagel’s opinion, the inescapable absurdity of human lives lies in us unavoidably treating our lives with seriousness whilst acknowledging that, objectively, there is no significance nor importance in how we live our lives (Nagel, 1971). According to Nagel, in virtue of the creatures that we are, we cannot and do not sit back idly and let our life go on passively. Secondly, we are creatures that invest a great deal of deliberation and time into the decisions we make and the sort of life we embark upon living. Humans are “not led by impulse, nor are they instinctual in their decisions – they invest enormous amounts of time and energy in their lives” (Nagel, 1971). However, despite all this, there is no escaping the absurdity of our lives as it’s the nature of reality. Furthermore, humans cannot escape this absurdity because justifications given for giving meaning and purpose to our actions can never be fully proven. If one is to argue that their life escapes absurdity because it fulfills a particular purpose, Nagel would proceed to question how that particular purpose escapes absurdity. Reason alone cannot be used to escape the absurdity that applies to this world. This is because whatever justification is given, a justification must be required for that very initial justification. This then produces an infinite regress of justifications that cannot ever be put to rest. This absurdity cannot be escaped even if one attempts to tie themselves to an eternal cause or movement, because those very movements/causes would need justifications. Some have attempted to escape the absurdity of human life by doing that, and the following paragraph will illustrate how that is not a plausible escape from the absurdity of life, and a solution that Nagel himself has proposed.

Paragraph 2 How should we respond to the absurdity of our existence? How should we not?

The infinite regress of unsatisfactory justifications prevents greater causes and movements from rescuing mankind from leading absurd and meaningless lives in the greater scheme. Take for example Mr. Marx, who claims to lead a meaningful and purposeful life because he partakes in the communist revolution. Mr. Marx reasons that this endeavor of his is objectively meaningful and justifies that by saying, “It benefits the lives of ordinary persons.” What Mr. Marx can’t answer is why benefitting the lives of ordinary persons is justified. Even if an answer is provided, the same question of “why is …. justified” can be asked of that justification. The infinite regress of questions seeking a justification that needs no justification cannot be provided by Mr. Marx. Having established the unescapable absurdity of human life, and how we should not respond to it, how does Nagel recommend we respond? Nagel recommends immersing ourselves in everyday life and not reflecting too deeply on the absurdity of life. This is because “if life is meaningless, then its meaninglessness doesn’t matter either” (Nagel, 1971). This absurdity and inability to escape the infinite regress of justifications is part of the human condition and so it must not be taken too seriously to the point that it infringes on our happiness and day-to-day life. Through humor and irony, one can appreciate the meaninglessness of life in terms of not taking it too seriously. This, too, can remove a lot of the worries and pressures that accompany the trials and tribulations of human life.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the reason why human life is absurd is that it’s treated with too much seriousness whilst simultaneously being acknowledged to lack objective meaning and value. No rational justification can rid it of the absurdity that plagues it, because any justification provided would need a justification. This cycle of infinite regress is impossible to escape from according to Nagel. Nonetheless, through irony and humor, one should lessen the burden it poses on the conscience. In so far as something gives a person meaning and happiness, that should suffice for that individual and they need not tire themselves with overwhelming philosophical thought and reflection over this matter.

Works Cited:

1. Nagel, T. (1971). The Absurd. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(20), 716. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024942

There is an increase in the level of obesity in developed and developing countries. According to Friedman from the Atlantic, obesity has spread to places from developed countries to developing countries. As it is increasing, psychologists are studying contributed factors. One of the appealing reasons for unhealthy food to people is the type of advertisements. The study “Are Self-endorsed Advertisements Unhealthy Food More Effective Than Friend-Endorsed Advertisements?” compares the success of self-advertised fast food and friend-advertised fast food that the participants are exposed to explain why people continue to consume unhealthy products even though they are aware that it is harmful to their bodies.

According to Simonson, self-justification is “when people tend to defend their behavior and use the available information as supporting evidence to gratify their desires.” Self-justification evolves from cognitive dissonance. Thus, stronger justification is needed for unhealthy food because the strengthened association between self and the product would result in cognitive dissonance because of the negative results on their body image. People who are exposed to self-endorsed advertisements would self-justify the advertised products more strongly than people who are exposed to friend-endorsed products since their self-justifications are stronger for themselves rather than their friends. Thus, the hypothesis of the study is that “the people who are exposed to the self-endorsed advertisement will have a more positive attitude towards the advertised products than the people who are exposed to friend-advertised products due to their self-justifications” (Choi, Kim, Sung, & Yu, 2017, p.1074). The independent variable is the type of advertisements, self-endorsed or friend-endorsed. The dependent variable is the success rate of the endorsement.

To conduct the study, 186 students at a university in South Korea were recruited. 61% were men and 39% were women. The average age was 23 years. A dedicated area for the experiment was prepared along with the shooting and display equipment to record the advertising image using the participants’ pictures. The students were told that they could only participate if they form a pair with a friend. After they signed the participation consent form, students were informed that the purpose of the study was to evaluate advertising programs tentatively proposed for a new product that would soon be launched. In the self-endorsed environment, participants were shown three advertisements, each of which included their own picture, and in the friend-endorsed condition, they were shown three advertisements, each of which included their friend’s picture. All participants were asked to select the advertisement that they preferred the most out of the three advertisements. After choosing their preferred advertising image, participants answered items about their perception of the healthiness of and their attitude toward the product. Finally, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they self-justified the product (Choi, Kim, Sung, & Yu, 2017, p.1075).

In conclusion, the result agreed with the hypothesis. The students who were shown the self-endorsed advertising for unhealthy food judged the product more favorably than the participants who were exposed to the friend-endorsed advertising of the same product. The research question was answered; the self-endorsed advertisements for unhealthy food were more effective than the friend-endorsed advertisements.

This study relates to psychology due to the self-reference effect, cognitive dissonance, and self-justification. Self-referencing is a cognitive process that people use to understand new information by associating self-relevant stimulus information with information stored in their memory (Debevec & Romeo, 1992). Through self-referencing, the information in advertising and oneself correlation can strengthen, thus, allowing the consumers to produce a positive reaction to the advertised product. Rather self-referencing causes an enthusiastic perception, this experiment demonstrates that self-justification led to self-referencing which overcame the cognitive dissonance. Although people are conscious of fast food which results in cognitive dissonance, by justifying themselves, they produce a positive attitude toward unhealthy products.

Regarding the study, I think that it is easy to change self-referencing. Since self-referencing is using stored information to understand new information, it can change one’s view if the persuasion is strong. By studying self-referencing, producers will understand the demographic of their consumers better, thus, creating more demand for products and increasing their profits. I also realize the importance of cognitive dissonance. For a person to experience cognitive dissonance, their thoughts must be contradictory with one another. To make it go away, one of the thoughts must be changed, resulting in self-justification. Through self-justification, one undermines the cons to parallel both thoughts, preventing dissonance cognitive. The relationship between self-referencing, cognitive dissonance, and self-justification is triangle shaped. Each one has an impact on another, causing different results if one is altered.

The situation presented where a student submits an assignment purchased from a paper-writing service as his/her own work provides a multi-level dilemma considering the current norm of academic integrity and anti-plagiarism policies. While an argument can be made that the service itself is unethical, the hypothetical posed does not provide enough information to determine, and ultimate accountability for the ethical failure rests with the student, as the ultimate decision-maker regarding the submission of the purchased assignment.

Justification Discussion

Justifications from the student’s perspective include time management concerns matched with an economic justification and a “no harm, no foul” situation. Both justifications spring from an immature ethical perspective and assume that the grade is the only reward at play. The “I don’t have time to complete the paper, besides, I’ve already paid for the class” justification operates in an egoist framework beyond the lack of active engagement in learning, but also a sense of economic entitlement, with the student’s assumption that education is an easily transferable item. With this explanation, the student underestimates the experiences gained from learning to manage time, learning to prioritize responsibilities, and even introduce to ethical problem-solving, demonstrating normative myopia (Hartman, DesJardins, & MacDonald, 2018, p. 42). The other student-specific justification mentioned in the hypothetical is likewise problematic. The “I wasn’t caught, so I didn’t do anything wrong” defense is also operating in the egoist mindset, but with the addition of an attempt at blame transference and self-exoneration.

The first two justifications are more applicable from the service’s perspective than a student’s perspective, although the justification that the completed assignments are posted to encourage new topics and exams to be developed does have limited application from a student’s perspective. The citation justification is irrelevant, as the hypothetical outlines that the student is submitting the service’s work as his/her own and not citing the work. While instructors are known to recycle assignment topics and test questions, from an ethical perspective, this justification is not persuasive as it too involves blame shifting.

Basic Ethical Service Considerations

The ethics of such a service is conditional. Areas that would play a role in the ethical decision-making process would include the User Terms of Service, where the company’s stance on users submitting the assignments available through the system and the protection of their intellectual property rights would be documented. Overall, however, the ultimate justification for the existence of the service is to make a profit, and how the company defines its social responsibility will play a large role in the decision as to whether this service is ethical. Abuses of the service that contravene any terms of use and intellectual property rights are inherently unethical.

Other Considerations

Other areas for consideration include an analogy of the student/school relationship as a variation of the employee/employer relationship. With this relationship, the school serves as an entity to help prepare students for the job market, as is becoming a more prevalent expectation from colleges (Rosenbaum, Becker, Cepa, & Zapata-Gietl, 2016, p. 534), and while students are focusing on a more direct introduction to the job market, colleges are providing a testing ground to develop necessary intangible skills, including time management, project completions, working in groups, and understanding rules and consequences, that most employers seek and students frequently overlook as an important benefit (Geher, 2018). Other skills resulting from college coursework include critical thinking and an additional understanding of personal responsibility (“What to expect in college”, n.d.). While the goal is the degree, the other benefits are a part of the payment for the student’s engagement in their education.

The emphasis on the impermissibility of plagiarism has attained the status of a hypernym in the academic sphere. Warnings about and consequences of plagiarism are spelled out on school websites of all academic levels across the country. With this emphasis on academic integrity, there is no moral free space, or allowable area, for an ethical difference to exist regarding plagiarism (Hartman et al., 2018, pp. 306-7).

Accountability

While there are several stakeholders in the situation, including the student, their parents, the instructor, and the university department, as and whole, the crux of the situation is the decision to turn in someone else’s work as the student’s own. While parental stakeholders may have affected the decision, the ultimate accountability rests on the student. The instructor has a role in aiding enforcement of the school’s plagiarism policy, and the hypothetical that since the plagiarism wasn’t discovered by the instructor, it isn’t an infraction, is a misdirection. The intent in this situation is that inattentional blindness (Hartman et al., 2018, p. 42) will shift the focus of the issue from the student’s failure to comply with an academic integrity policy to the instructor’s failure to identify plagiarism.

Conclusion

Overall, the situation presented of a student presenting a purchased assignment as his/her own work is a poor ethical decision on the part of the student. The ethical standing of the service itself is questionable, as additional information is needed to determine acceptable use of the service’s products, and whether any terms of use were violated in the student’s decision. Accountability for the decision rests with the student in this situation, as the final decision-maker regarding the use of the purchased assignment and its submission as original work in violation of the academic integrity hypernym in the current scholastic paradigm.

References

1. Geher, G. (2018, January 10). Why go to college? Psychology Today. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201801/why-go-college
2. Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2018). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.
3. Rosenbaum, J., Becker, K., Cepa, K., & Zapata-Gietl, C. (2016). Turning the question around: Do colleges fail to meet students’ expectations? Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 519-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9398-3
4. What to expect in college. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://orientation.ucsc.edu/what-to-expect.html

“The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Through analogies, monotonous, forthright statements and inordinately plain explanations can be brought to life and given color. However, others claim analogies are inherently reductive as they always search for similarities and simplify things so far that their essence is lost. Another puzzling characteristic associated with the analogy is whether it is able to provide evidence or proof that a belief is true and reasonable or that they aid the comprehension and interpretation of knowledge. For the purpose of this essay, I will give an initial definition of three key terms presented in the essay question. An analogy is a way by which similarities and differences between two comparable subjects are juxtaposed. It is asked whether it aids understanding, in this context, this can be perceived as the ability to interpret and comprehend a subject. On the other hand, can an analogy provide justification or does it have the ability to explain a subject with reason to back up a claim? After looking over each definition, I was confronted by a perplexing query. Are there any limits to what we can learn about the world through perception? This implies that both the justification and understanding of a topic can be generalized into perception. Yet different people perceive the same things differently and this could be because of different conditioning of their minds since their childhood. So how does analogy bring various and dissimilar perceptions to become almost analogous? Through the exploration of the areas of knowledge of mathematics and ethics at the hand of reason, I intend to construct a clear path of reflection and reasoning to answer the posed questions.

From what I recount one of my maths teachers sayings, “good analogies can take an idea that is baffling and turn it into something simple and enjoyable, especially in math. Solving a mathematical problem or concept is like trying to cross a river and the way you approach it or solve it is with a raft.” I was unsure of what he meant as I was familiar with the analogy of counting with the help of apples, “numbers are apples”. I remember the confusion that I felt when I was presented with the number -1. How could you have a negative apple? This is when the analogy of using apples couldn’t stand anymore. “Then if numbers aren’t apples, they are lines”, my third-grade teacher said. I was introduced to a number line, and could easily visualize negative as being part of the picture. At this point, zero does not represent anything in fact, it represents the middle point. This image of a number line made things much easier to understand, whether a number was negative or positive depended on which side it was to zero. Despite this miraculous discovery, some of my friends still couldn’t perceive what was being told. The concept hadn’t ‘clicked’ in their minds, announcing a visible complication. Why do some analogies come easier to some than others? This develops toward the theory of nature versus nurture. Am I biologically better at mathematics than my peers or is it my early childhood experiences, my surrounding culture, or the manner that I was raised that makes me more prone to understanding this mathematical analogy? Nonetheless, as my knowledge of mathematics developed, I was again faced with something incomprehensible, i2 = -1. When you square a number it never turns negative. 12 = 1, -22 = 4, 02 = 0. Once again, we change our analogy to aid our understanding of a mathematical concept. This time, I was told to add a number line, but this one would go down and up, contrary to left and right. In this instance, when you say i2 = -1, you are multiplying the number 1 by me and then by i. In the new analogy we created, this shows a 90° rotation and since we get 2 x 90° rotations, this equals -1. How did my maths teacher know that analogies could be so good at explaining perplexing concepts? Using my reasoning, why should I not use analogies to help understand all mathematical concepts? I chose to approach one of the equations considered “absolutely paradoxical” Benjamin Pierce 1759. It’s bewildering to think that e (irrational) to the power of I (weird dimensions) times by pi (also irrational) could so perfectly equal -1. However, using proofs, this could perturbing and complex equations could be made to look so simple and easy. This time, I colored each different symbol and I knew that each symbol meant something different. I know that e represents growth, I represent a sideways push and pi represents half a circle. With this image in mind, I without a doubt land backward, on a negative one. This brought up the question, does math need a language to be understood, or is math a language in itself? If so, an analogy can be described as a form of language to convey mathematical understanding in a more familiar manner. You can also think of this manner of solving as deductive reasoning. The process of forming a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises, theories, or premises (assumed to be true).

On the other hand, there are instances in which analogies provide justifications rather than an aid to understanding. Using the concept of analogical arguments, analogies can arguably provide an explanation to a subject with reason to back up a claim. To argue by analogy it is necessary to argue that because two things are similar, what is true of one must be true of the other. When making analogical arguments, it is necessary to make clear what are the similarities between the two different subjects. Once again my train of thought was put to stop. If justification is the act of showing something to be reasonable, is it not subjective? If so, to what degree of subjectiveness can an analogy no longer work effectively to justify? This could imply that a justified ‘true belief’ may not be accurate and valid but that at least the person trying to convey and justify their belief through analogy is attempting to understand and make others believe it and understand it. A clear-cut way of presenting an analogical argument is to take the following structure.

• Premise 1: Object A and B are similar because they both share aspects g, z, r, s.
• Premise 2: Object A has a property t.

Conclusion: Therefore, object B also has the property t.

This is something I have retained from my ethics class. In moral reasoning, we tend to often use analogical arguments which help to think of the consistency of our moral outlook. Mrs. Amy (my ethics teacher) asked us, “Is it morally wrong for me to hit a human baby, and laugh?”. We all quickly answered yes in shock at what our teacher had so blatantly told us. She then said, “It’s similar to beating a dog for fun right?” It took us a little longer to answer, but we all concluded that it was. She then told us that both actions (X and Y) are morally wrong because in each you are intentionally inflicting pain on an innocent being for ‘fun’. Therefore, for consistency, action Y is, to an extent, as morally wrong as action X. Our Ethics teacher showed us that because actions X and Y are comparable in certain aspects, and that she has listed some of the similarities for consistency, then the controversial action Y should justifiably get the same verdict as the action X. Through reason of comparisons, she has justified the moral outlook on these situations. However, once again this would imply that it is universally recognized that actions Y and X are the same. But this is not fully true as some people will argue that beating a dog for fun is completely different from beating a baby for fun. Culture and belief play a significant role in ethics and therefore, when conveying an analogy to justify a belief, it may be recognized by some but also dismayed by others. Nonetheless, an analogy can still, to a certain degree, provide justification for Ethics.

In conclusion, I can only agree to a certain extent with the statement, “the role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification”. It is clearly demonstrated that analogy plays a significant role in understanding mathematics. Nevertheless, the ability to understand the comparison between one thing and another may depend on the person. It can be compared to learning a new language. Analogies also have a notable role in justification for Ethics. However, as justification is subjective, this can be problematic because, from the knower’s perspective, there is not much to distinguish belief from knowledge. Arguing to the contrary takes the appearance of a circular argument. This means that instead of providing proof, it asserts the conclusion in an alternate form, hence persuading the listener to accept the fallacy. Yet in both areas of knowledge, aid in understanding and justification through analogies can vary among different people. With this thought in mind, to which degree is a knower’s perspective essential in the pursuit of knowledge? I could have furthered this essay by exploring the role of nature vs nurture more in-depth. In addition, while writing about the role of analogies in mathematics and ethics, my mind quickly became preoccupied with these arising questions, “To what extent can an analogy find similarities between different topics and effectively communicate these similarities to two different people?”. This question that was brought up during my essay captivated my attention and nudged me to further explore the mystery of analogies.

In a rapidly changing world where we have emerged in the age of information and technology and a growing knowledge economy, the pace of change in an evolving employment landscape is predicted to accelerate with approximately 65% of children entering primary school expected to gain future employment in completely new job types that don’t yet exist (World Economic Forum, 2016). Whilst the question about the purpose of education remains philosophically unsettled, Durkeim (1973), summarised that education teaches individual skills necessary for future occupations. This is an important function in advanced industrial society with its complex division of labour, therefore the guiding principles of vocational and academic educational philosophies might assist educators to navigate and keep up with these changes, however, given that each of these philosophies assumes the deficit view that ‘young people must be deliberately and actively shaped to take their rightful place in adult society’ perhaps as society evolves beyond the industrial age the humanist philosophy of education would best guide the education of today’s young people.

‘Defining the purpose of education connects a broad vision of social, cultural and economic futures with the actual practices and priorities of schools. Intelligent action is guided by aim’ (Education Queensland, (2002), p.11). If the aim of education is preparing young people for adult roles then it would appear that a vocational philosophy would best guide the education of today’s young people as the processes involved in taking over roles in society keep it functioning however a vocational education serves as a mechanism for preserving our society rather than serving its evolution.

‘For thousands and thousands of years, educational activity has involved preparing young people for fixed roles’ ( Learning Guide 2: The Vocational Philosophy, 2019., p9) and Deweys research demonstrates that preparing young people for adult roles that already exist through vocational learning is effective however it limits the growth of knowledge and thus development of new career options for young people ( Learning Guide 2: The Vocational Philosophy, 2019). Applying a vocational approach to educating our young people may still be valid as new job types come into existence however it fundamentally cannot meet the demands of preparing students for roles that due not yet exist.

The academic philosophy, that education on certain subjects that are particularly suited to developing the mind and promote the search for truth can improve society, also appears to be a useful guide in the education of young people today. However, the notion of a just society requires the application of a vocational approach in order for each person to transfer and learn to a high level the skills required for roles in society to keep functioning and thus an academic approach in this regard is limited, however the academic perspective does focus on improving society rather simply preserving it ( Learning Guide 2: The Academic Philosophy, 2019). Guided by contemporary forms of the academic philosophy, there has been a shift in Australian education from the systematic approaches, schools of thought and perspectives of 20th century nation building to the approaches, schools of thought and perspectives of 21st century nation-(re)building (Connell, 1993, Dewey, 1990, Durkeim, 1973, Osborne, (1998), p.10, Luke 1999, Symes & Preston, 1997) with the introduction of ‘STEM’ and ‘21st Century Skills’ into classrooms supported by the view that ‘science, technology, engineering and maths are especially important in the modern world of learning and work’ and; that ‘STEM literacy’ along with critical thinking, creative thinking, communication, collaboration, teamwork, personal and social skills and ICT skills are going to be valuable in the future (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2007).

Australia is a diverse nation filled with mass diversities of ‘cultural capital’- defined as a set of influences and or experiences that are valued within an institution or society (Thomson, 2003) Whilst recent application of the academic philosophy has been an effective guide to educating young people by valuing STEM learning and 21 Century skills in response to the age we are living in, thus providing students with an opportunity to achieve the recommended learning outcomes that might be beneficial to them later in an uncharted employment territory they are not necessarily reflective of all students diverse interests, learning styles or multiple intelligences. STEM and 21st Century skills draw on and are developed through deep inquiry and complex problem-solving using mathematical knowledge and scientific procedures, applied to technological and engineering challenges ( Learning Guide 2: The Academic Philosophy, 2019), however research suggests that 21st century skills could also be developed via the conceptualisation of educational practices situated in the arts by focusing on discovery, surprise, distinctiveness and the metaphorical; and by regarding the quality of the learning journey as highly significant (Eisner, 2002). Such a conceptualisation offered as an alternative to or alongside STEM learning would increase the diversity of ‘valued’ subjects and ‘21st Century skills’ thus better positioning students to be prepared for the unknown employment possibilities of the future. Despite this, the academic philosophy regardless of how it is contextualised still implies that for young people to be equipped for jobs that don’t yet exist they must acquire the cultural capital by having a highly prescribed education rooted in ‘valued’ subjects imposed on them.

Reid (2005), identifies that educators are preparing students for a future that is difficult to imagine at a time when the old and the new are intersecting. Much of the old is still dominant, even with technological advancement and globalization are constantly altering the way in which we communicate, understand and organize ourselves and is consequently of direct significance to schools, especially in how education prepares students for the employment landscape as it changes Thomson (2005, p.), states the theory of Bourdieu that ‘Schooling is organized to make differences and differentiation. It is geared to produce particular and different kinds of educated persons’. Ideally then, an educational philosophy that adopts a humanist perspective would best guide the education of today’s young people and: recognise the merit of Rousseau’s argument that young humans are already good and education should allow them to flourish with minimal, sensitive intervention; respect and value diversity, value concepts of self-love, natural curiosity and inquiry in order for young people to thrive and learn a great deal; honour the internal motivation and uniqueness of each child as favoured by Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Fröbel and; as suggested by Illich, be critical of ‘systems that force individuals into being needy, dependent and disempowered’ ( Learning Guide 2: The Academic Philosophy, 2019). Such an approach would minimise ‘institutional wisdom’ yet whilst it is in conflict with the philosophical perspectives of academic and vocational learning the humanist perspective it would still recognise the merits of vocational and academic learning provided such approaches are introduced to young people as a response to their expression of interest., making a humanist approach less restrictive than a purely academic or vocational approach on its own.

Further, each child is unique and has their own interests, strengths and needs hence a humanist approach to education would encourage young people to explore and develop these qualities through community engagement opportunities not so much to steer the natural temptation to envy towards compassion for those less fortunate as suggested by Rousseau but to serve as ‘stimulus opportunity or field experience’ so young people can observe, identify their interests, put today’s wealth and power in perspective and respond to the evolutionary needs of the community and broader society on a global scale. Similarly, Pestalozzi stressed the importance of experience rather than subjects in learning, and valued the internal motivation of learners. Further, Dewey found that meaningfulness, the close fit between learning and doing, and ‘whole person’ participation, promotes effective learning ( Learning Guide 2: The Academic Philosophy, 2019).

Such an approach framed within the humanist philosophy of education would not only generate cultural capital that would likely be beneficial to the demographic of students who will enter into jobs that don’t yet exist but more importantly it would represent the purpose of education in the 21st century in a manner that reaches beyond the scope of simply preparing students for employment in order to produce cultural and economic capital that is valued and beneficial to Australian society as individuals and as a whole. Furthermore, the humanist philosophy would best guide the direction of education because it honours student autonomy yet allows opportunities for complex forms of knowledge to develop. Deweys’ view that ‘teachers must begin with the purposes of their students, steer them into potentially rich experiences, and watch carefully for signs of growth’ ( Learning Guide ?: The ?? Philosophy, 2019., p?) conforms to this notion. Learner centred models of education guided by a humanist approach such as ‘Progressive Education’ which emerged in the 1800s along with home-schooling and de-schooling movements and more recently online and distance education learning networks incorporate practical elements of academic and vocational learning at some level yet they are all deeply rooted in a humanist philosophy of education and are powerfully demonstrative of how the humanist philosophy would be best to guide our young people in order to prepare the reported figures for future jobs that do not yet exist. The humanist philosophy grants educational freedom in a way that is fundamentally not attainable in education systems underpinned by the educational and vocational philosophies that currently dominant the sector now. However as times change it may even go so far as to guide complete educational reform regarding how, when, what, where and why education is accessed and delivered in the 21st century for every student including those that will enter into employment opportunities that do exist.

A lot of questions about V’s actions and use of violence arise while reading V for Vendetta. Many question whether or not his use of violence as revenge is morally justified. It is agreed that there is something wrong with their government and something has to be done for it to change, but is violence really the answer? In V’s mind, he believes violence can be used for good, and through violence, he hopes for change and freedom of the people. The book seems to support the motivation behind V’s revenge, which can be seen through his past with Larkhill Resettlement Camp, his utilitarian practicality, and the destructive government. To begin, many seek revenge on those who have done them wrong, in V’s case it is those from Larkhill Resettlement Camp who stripped his identity away and turned him into a science experiment. Just like the Nazi movement, Larkhill was created by Norsefire to hold “political prisoners, homosexuals, Black people, Jewish people, Muslims, Indians, Pakistanis, and others deemed undesirable by the gov’t” (V for Vendetta Wiki). They basically just took everyone that did not fit their perfect mold of a respectful, white, and straight person, and exterminated them. This was run by a military officer, Commander Lewis Prothero, who took those individuals for torture, humiliation, scientific experiments, and extermination, which caused when to die horrific deaths. Those running the camp had no mercy for anyone there, this is evident on page 33 when V says to Prothero, “… how you can show so much concern for porcelain and plastic… and show so little for flesh and blood.” (Moore) V was a part of Dr. Delia Surridge’s science experiment, “she designed a chemical hormone treatment known as Batch 5 and began distributing to select prisoners” (DC Database) Room 5 belonged to V, Dr. Surridge’s ideal subject. Due to the torture and the excessive number of drugs he was fed during his time at the camp, V’s mind was nonetheless warped, which causes his twisted logic of revenge. Due to the drugs, he didn’t remember his name, or where he was from, and his body and face were left completely warped. They caused him years of pain and basically took his whole life away to fulfill their experimental needs which changed him forever.

V is now filled with an undeniable rage and wants to take his revenge on those from Larkhill. He does this by using terrorist tactics to rebel against his fascist government and has his own “fate” for each of the perpetrators. An example of his ironic fates for the perpetrators is evident on pages 34-35 when V drives Prothero insane by burning his doll collection in the same kind of contraption that would be found at Larkhill. This is justifiable because he is taking away something meaningful from him as he did with all the victims. V strongly believes that he can fight violence with violence for the greater good which is why he plots his revenge against those who hurt him. He is plotting these revenge killings out of pure rage and bitterness which is why this is all morally justified in his mind. To continue, V has his own ethical views and his own ideas of what is morally right or wrong which is different than many others. This has to deal with his utilitarianism practicality and his disregard for society’s expectations. Utilitarianism is defined as “a doctrine that the useful is good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” (Veronica) In the book, you see many examples of V doing everything in his power to achieve his goal of the greater good for the citizens. His view of the greater good of the country is completely different than the government’s view which is why they see most of his actions as terrorism. This is evident when you look at the drastic measures, they took to get rid of those who did not fit the ‘perfect mold’. In their minds, those people died for the greater good of the country.

They did not care for the lives lost, they just cared about being the country with the perfect mold. In V’s mind, he is creating good through the chaos and trying to make the citizens less fearful of having a voice. This is evident at the beginning of Chapter 11 when Evey lays V’s dead body in a glass coffin in the underground train and sent it off with plenty of explosives towards Parliament. This action was symbolic because it was V’s final statement before he himself is gone and Evey takes over. Blowing up Parliament while everyone is watching was the last thing that the government had against the people. Taking it away in front of everyone showed the citizens that the choice is now theirs: follow the government or finally have their own say. He believes that after all the violence is over and he is gone, the good he tried so hard to bring out will outweigh all the bad it took to get to this very moment. To finish, V lives in a controlling society run by the British government which just so happens to be the same exact people who destroyed him in the resettlement camp. They take away all the citizen’s human freedom which makes V feel the need to save them since they ripped away his freedom as well. This is one of the reasons why he opposes the oppressive British government. “In V’s world, the government has taken all civil liberties from its citizens, allowing them to spy on anyone without warrant at any time and even establishes a nightly curfew.” (Smith) As shown in this quote, the government does not care for its civilians and takes brutal measures at all times, never allowing small and innocent mistakes. Which is the same thing they did to the victims from Larkhill Resettlement Camp. The government resorts to violence to scare the citizens into following their rules and orders. An example of this can be found on pages 5-6 where we first see the nationwide curfew. Evey is caught breaking the curfew by ‘fingered’ who threatens to rape her and then arrest her for not following protocol. V then comes in to save her and justifiably kills the ‘fingered’ for harming and scaring Evey. Another thing that the government does to its citizens is take away their voice and their ability to think for themselves. On page 218, V states, “Knowledge, like air, is vital to life. Like air, no one should be denied it” (Moore) He is stating how the citizens do not have proper education and the government has denied them this. Thus, in V’s mind, he is giving the people a chance to have a voice and rebel against the government that is taking everything away from them bit by bit. In summary, anyone who goes through hardship has some part of them emotionally, mentally, or physically changed. In V’s case, it is all three, his face was unrecognizable, he is filled with undeniable rage, and he has a constant need for revenge. After what has happened to him, he feels the need to be the voice of the people who are too scared to fight back against the fascist government. Everything he does for revenge is a message to the government, reminding them of who he is and what he stands for. This is seen throughout the book, when looking at his past, his utilitarianism viewpoint, and the destructive government’s actions.

Nobody Should Be Left Behind

Can a person live a normal life out of poverty with a minimum wage? The federal minimum wage is 7.25 since 2009. Which gives a person about $1,160/month without taking taxes out. This question is only considering a single person. In the aftermath of the basic expenses such as rent, utilities, food, gas, car payment, and car insurance this paycheck scenario based on the real minimum wage would not be enough for one person. Politicians should have into consideration people with family as well. This paycheck will also not give a family or single mom/dad an appropriate living standard. The minimum wage should be raised to an amount that a person can economically adequately live and that will be convenient for the country’s economy.

When the minimum wage is raised, people acquire money to spend, and people react to incentives (EP), without spending/buying the market and our economy would not work the way it does. Consumer spending makes up 68 percent of the US economy. The Circular-Flow diagram (EP) shows how Markets for factors of production take place with firms giving wages/capital to households in exchange for labor/land. The household then buys products from firms, Markets for Goods and Services. This flow demonstrates how our economy works as well as how a higher wage would give people the possibility not only of surviving to pay their bills but to consume. Becoming part of the diagram induces the ripple effect, demand for a product will cause more jobs.

Teens and restaurant workers are two remarkably affected groups by increasing the minimum wage. States such as California have raised the minimum wage showing little to zero impact on those groups. More than half of the workers under minimum wage are between the ages of 25 and 54 years old, 26% of them have children while nearly two-thirds work full time. 56% of those workers are women, therefore, if the minimum wage would increase, it would reduce the gender pay gap (PES). An increase in the minimum wage would also significantly improve the lives of those of different races as 40 percent of African Americans along with 34 percent of Latinos (PES).

Everyone should be able to live a normal life based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs by working a full-time job. To achieve a higher living standard for everyone in the USA or Iowa many laws need to change besides the minimum wage, such as where taxes go, tuition costs, and others. The government needs to take action, the first one could be to start increasing the minimum wage according to each state because it exists to protect the workers, in contrast having a low minimum wage benefits the richest pockets. Such a low minimum salary is the alternative to slavery for big firms (NES). It is time to give people a deserved salary in addition to creating a smaller gap between the poor and the rich with a reasonably higher minimum wage. Triggering win to win with more revenue for the government from taxes, higher salaries for workers, and more demand for firms.

Nobody Should Be Left Behind

Can a person live a normal life out of poverty with a minimum wage? The federal minimum wage is 7.25 since 2009. Which gives a person about $1,160/month without taking taxes out. This question is only considering a single person. In the aftermath of the basic expenses such as rent, utilities, food, gas, car payment, and car insurance this paycheck scenario based on the real minimum wage would not be enough for one person. Politicians should have into consideration people with family as well. This paycheck will also not give a family or single mom/dad an appropriate living standard. The minimum wage should be raised to an amount that a person can economically adequately live and that will be convenient for the country’s economy.

When the minimum wage is raised, people acquire money to spend, and people react to incentives (EP), without spending/buying the market and our economy would not work the way it does. Consumer spending makes up 68 percent of the US economy. The Circular-Flow diagram (EP) shows how Markets for factors of production take place with firms giving wages/capital to households in exchange for labor/land. The household then buys products from firms, Markets for Goods and Services. This flow demonstrates how our economy works as well as how a higher wage would give people the possibility not only of surviving to pay their bills but to consume. Becoming part of the diagram induces the ripple effect, demand for a product will cause more jobs.

Teens and restaurant workers are two remarkably affected groups by increasing the minimum wage. States such as California have raised the minimum wage showing little to zero impact on those groups. More than half of the workers under minimum wage are between the ages of 25 and 54 years old, 26% of them have children while nearly two-thirds work full time. 56% of those workers are women, therefore, if the minimum wage would increase, it would reduce the gender pay gap (PES). An increase in the minimum wage would also significantly improve the lives of those of different races as 40 percent of African Americans along with 34 percent of Latinos (PES).

Everyone should be able to live a normal life based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs by working a full-time job. To achieve a higher living standard for everyone in the USA or Iowa many laws need to change besides the minimum wage, such as where taxes go, tuition costs, and others. The government needs to take action, the first one could be to start increasing the minimum wage according to each state because it exists to protect the workers, in contrast having a low minimum wage benefits the richest pockets. Such a low minimum salary is the alternative to slavery for big firms (NES). It is time to give people a deserved salary in addition to creating a smaller gap between the poor and the rich with a reasonably higher minimum wage. Triggering win to win with more revenue for the government from taxes, higher salaries for workers, and more demand for firms.