After a semester examining liberalism and its challengers, how have your viewpoints developed? Do you feel as you did at the beginning? Or have your viewpoints been altered by what you have learned?
Our entire country has shifted to the left with the election of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government in October, 2015. Even earlier, Alberta went further to the left when Alberta chose to reject 40 years of right-wing PC government in favour of the New Democratic Party under Rachel Notely in the spring. Her leftward swing has been extremely controversial - Bill 6 (extending worker safety rules to farms), new carbon taxes to combat climate change, a government review of royalty rates for oil companies, making distracted driving a demerit offence and the increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour among others. All of these issues raise questions about how much influence the government should have on us socially and economically.
The election of Donald Trump and the exit of Barack Obama in the U.S. has left a hugely divided America - with the divisions crossing all sorts of ideological lines - economic, social, political, racial, religious... The future looks very uncertain (but lots of fun to watch from the sidelines!).
For this last entry, I'd like you to comment on how liberal you believe our society should be. You may discuss political liberalism (democracy), social liberalism (personal freedom to act as you wish) and/or economic freedom (capitalism). What should the limits be on our freedom? What is justified in the name of order and security? What role should the government have in our lives?
Have you ever heard of historical relativism? It is a theory that says that we cannot truly judge people's actions in the past because we will never be able to escape the limits that the morality of our day and age impose upon us. Thus, for example, we cannot judge slavery or cannibalism to have been evil or wrong because we are applying modern standards to a society that didn't share them. In essence, there are no objective good or evil (or right or wrong) societies or beliefs.
Many people reject this and argue that, regardless of the nature of a culture, there are certain universal moral truths. All life is sacred, for example, or all people should be treated as equals; eating other human beings or committing incest is sinful and must be condemned, no matter what was considered 'normal' in the civilizations being discussed.
These are important factors to discuss when making judgments about citizens of totalitarian regimes. We all like to think of ourselves as decent 'good' people that would never have supported a man like Hitler or belonged to a regime such as Nazi Germany's. We would never have voted for the National Socialists; never have joined the party; never have turned in a friend or neighbor or family member for opposing the party; never have believed that Jews or Gypsies were subhuman and supported their extermination; never have supported eugenics and had your child euthanized due to genetic conditions; never have supported a continent-wide war in order to spread the dominance of your nation.
But how accurate is that self-portrait? Germans were considered a very cultured people prior to World War II. They produced composers like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. Great scientists, sculptors, philosophers, authors and painters abounded like nowhere else. So how could they possibly have allowed themselves to support a crude, violent and bigoted man such as Hitler? And, even more difficult to understand, how could they have actively worked to participate in his policies such as genocidal anti-Semitism, euthanasia or book-burning?
Think about what was going on in Germany at the time. Could that have played a role? Look at who supported Hitler and why in your notes and handouts. For more information, check out this article. Where would you have been in the list and what might you have thought? Try to put yourself back in that time.
Consider what you know about the Nazi regime and how it gained power. In the comments section below, please answer the following questions: If you lived in Germany during the 1930s, would you have supported the Nazis? If the answer is yes, would you have been active in that support (being a part of the party, been anti-Semitic, an informer for the Gestapo etc.)? If the answer is no, would you have actively attempted to resist the regime as Landmesser or Scholl did? Or would you have remained silent? Remember that this is not a comment on who you are today.
On Oct. 3, Westworld, a new sci-fi drama, premiered on HBO. The show focuses on a futuristic theme park in which wealthy guests (at the cost of $40 000 per day) immerse themselves in a fantastically detailed replica of the Wild West. The inhabitants of this world (called 'hosts') are all incredibly lifelike robots who interact with the guests in ways that make them indistinguishable from real human beings. Guests have the opportunity to participate in numerous adventures set up for them (from hunting down outlaws to dueling in the streets or saving a damsel in distress).
Why am I telling you this? It's because of the deep metaphysical questions that surround the relationships between guests and hosts in Westworld. You see, there are no limits to what you are permitted to do as a guest as long as you don't harm other actual humans. Guests may kill hosts in any way they wish. They may sexually assault them, brutally torture them, steal from them or humiliate them, destroy their homes or kill their pets. Nothing is off-limits.
A screebnshotfrom Ex Machina (2016)
What does morality have to say about this type of activity? These robots are impossible to distinguish from real people, but they ARE robots - purpose-built machines designed for a purpose: to entertain paying customers. Do they have any rights? They are not self-aware (although one of the plot points of the show is that some of them seem to be developing self-awareness) and each night their memories are wiped and their bodies repaired, so, the next day, they don't have any idea about the horrible treatment they endured the day before (and the day before that and the day before that).
What would you do in such a situation? If you could do terrible things to human-like robots with no consequences, would you? Is it different from doing them to real people? Is it the same? What do you think most people would do and what does this say about the true nature of human beings? Would your personal ideology lead you to different conclusions? Would a socialist be more likely to act malevolently towards the robots or less? A modern liberal? A fascist?
An android from I, Robot (2004)
LA Times article: 'Westworld' stars explain how the series confronts contemporary issues of human nature and the fembot
The question of artificial intelligence and sentience is a common theme in science-fiction. As our society moves closer and closer to being able to create a true A.I, consideration of potential consequences becomes increasingly important. Popular culture, always a medium for the exploration of issues important to the society of the time, also explored these issues. What is sentience? What rights would (or should) artificial beings have? In 1989, Star Trek examined the nature of sentience in the episode The Measure of a Man in which Data, an android character and crew member of the Enterprise, is threatened with dismantling by a scientist who wants to replicate him by learning how he works. Data refuses, and the conflict ends up in court where the question of whether he is property or a being with rights is debated. The final scene in the courtroom, in which Data's captain argues his case, is illustrative of the issues at hand.
Movies such as Blade Runner (1982), Ex Machina (2015), A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001), I, Robot (2004), the Terminator series of movies and television shows, as well as the upcoming Robopocalypse (among many others) investigate the nature of humanity and the responsibility that we have towards the increasingly human-like beings we are creating, not to mention the dangers that may accompany the creation of robots who are, in many, ways, superior to ourselves.
Consider the questions above when you comment on this: What do you think a typical person would do if put into the situation of being a guest at Westworld? Why, and how does this reflect your personal beliefs and values? PS. This blog is not suggesting that you watch the show. It is very violent and contains nudity and sexual activity as well as a great deal of foul language. Certainly, it is meant for adults. But you do not need to watch the show to think about the important questions about the nature of humanity and the meaning of sentience that it raises.
How much control should the government have over our lives? Liberalism, as a world view, began with the belief that individuals should be self-reliant and thus should be left alone by the government to achieve their goals to the best of their potential. Modern conservatives (classical liberals) still believe this and work to limit the influence of government on our lives. In essence, freedom means freedom from government control (this is called negative freedom).
But liberalism is a flexible ideology, and, in the 20th century, it moved leftwards on the political/economic/social spectra and began to accept some aspects of collectivism into its values. Modern liberals argue that, while freedom remains the goal, the government has a role to play in helping to remove the obstacles that are often in our way as we work towards our goals, and which are often insurmountable without help (positive freedom).
Think of all the ways that our various levels of government regulate our lives in the name of the common good and to prevent us from harming ourselves and others. The wearing of seatbelts in motor vehicles was made mandatory in 1987. In 2011, the Alberta government made distracted driving a ticketable offence and, this year, increased punishments to include demerit points. In 2002, bike helmets were declared mandatory for Albertans under the age of 18. For the 2011-12 school year, Edmonton Public Schools banned junk food in vending machines located in all of its schools. In New York City, the mayor attempted to ban large-sized soft drink containers in order to act against the problem of obesity in his jurisdiction (although this was ruled to be beyond his power by the courts in 2014). And there are many, many more examples.
Each time such a rule was put into place it was highly controversial. Some argued that people should be left alone to live their lives and that each person should bear responsibility for their decisions. Others suggested that people need to be helped in order make good decisions.
Sometimes the government forces us to do things, not to help ourselves, but to help others in the name of the common good. One such example is the government's ability to force its citizens to give up their property under certain circumstances. The City of Edmonton has, for example, appropriated the homes of citizens who live in the way of LRT development. The city will pay market rates, but the home-owners have no ability to refuse to sell.
Read the following article to see another example that is currently an issue in our province:
What do you think? Is it ok for our governments to limit our freedom in order to protect us from ourselves and our own bad decisions? Should they have the power to force us to act in the name of the common interest?
Here we'll be talking about ideologies - from left wing to right wing; from radical to reactionary and everything in between!
Over the course of the semester, I'll be posting articles and ideas on this blog that you will be expected to read and comment upon. Sometimes these postings will relate to a specific concept or case study from the course. Other times it will discuss a current event that deals with ideological values and beliefs.
I won't always be telling you when I've posted something new, so check often! Your comments will be used at the end of the course to help me evaluate your knowledge of course content and ideas. I will use this to help determine your mark. For many students in the past, this has had a big effect on their final grade!
Here's your first blogging opportunity - comment on this post by describing one ideology that you subscribe to. An ideology is a system of beliefs and values held by a person or a group of people that helps them to understand and interpret the world around them. Your ideology (or world view) helps to explain the past and determine a path towards the future. We all have many ideologies that help define who we are:
political (communism, democracy, elitism etc.)
economic (socialism, capitalism etc.)
social (libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism. environmentalism, feminism etc.)
religious (catholicism, Islam, protestantism, atheism, agnosticism etc.)
Of course, since this is the beginning of the semester, you don't have a lot of information upon which to base your opinion. But that's ok. Simply think about what ideologies are (reading the first chapter of Perspectives on Ideology will help) and how they relate to you.
You might want to think about what political party you would vote for (especially given the recent federal and provincial elections, or the presidential election in the U.S.) or whether you believe in the rights of individuals to live their lives without government influence (individualistic values) or the rights of the group to be safe from problems such as poverty, fear and hunger through government policies (collectivist values). You may want to focus on a non-political ideology (such as religion) that reflects your beliefs.
It is very important that you discuss an ideological world view that you currently subscribe to rather than one that you think 'might be nice' based what you read in the textbook.
Here is an example of an excellent comment made by a previous student on this question: I subscribe to the ideological belief that the utopic society would be comprised of a balance between capitalist and socialist values. Socialism inspires the idea of a perfect society, where every individual is treated equally regardless of how contributing to that society they may be. However I believe human nature is selfish in it's core, and as a result of that, a socialist society could never truly function. For example if a research scientist position pays the same amount as a grocery store cashier, an individual would likely choose the easier career. For it is human nature to choose the path of least resistance. A person who is naturally individualistic, will not willingly work towards collectivism if there is no incentive. Socialism is beneficial though in it's value of taking care of everyone. Capitalism is an effective societal alternative, on the merit of it's ability to take advantage of our natural pre-disposition to 'look out for self'. Capitalism often creates a spread of wealth from the successful entrepreneur, to the workers, and eventually to the surrounding communities and businesses. However the wealth differences between the rich and the poor become very problematic, and foster resentment between the opposing economic classes. I believe a society should have at it's core capitalistic values for economic prosperity, yet socialistic systems should be in place to provide everyone with equal opportunities to access education, healthcare, security, as well as an equal say in government.
IMPORTANT: Remember that you will need to have created a Google account with your last name in the ID in order to comment.
Comment Rubric:
Here is the rubric that I will be using to provide feedback for you on your blog comments/responses. It measures the following elements:
How insightful your comments are.
How well your comments demonstrate understandings of liberalism and other ideologies.
How much effort was dedicated to discussing the required issue(s).
Comments are thoughtful, perceptive and insightful. Comments reflect considerable effort directed at understanding issues connected to liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry.
Proficient: Comments are accurate and interesting, but general. The author demonstrates a solid understanding of issues connected to liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry.
Satisfactory: Comments are brief and lacking depth but are connected to the issues
surrounding liberalism and other ideologies described in the blog entry. Effort is very basic, but no more.
Poor: Comments are scant and/or unrelated to the blog entry. The entry may be inappropriate in content and/or style and vocabulary. Required understandings are insufficiently demonstrated. Effort is unsatisfactory.
