Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Tiger, Tiger.." ( anyone know that poem?)
Check out the various book covers and artwork. Which is your favourite? Why?
Your participation in postings, pictures, links and your responses to other student's posts will determine your final grade. The goal of this blog is to supplement what has been discussed, read or written in class. Occasionally I will post a query or task with the expectation that you will eagerly respond. The same respect and diplomacy that is expected of you in the classroom extends to blogging space.
Helpful Links for research on background info.
"Tiger, Tiger.." ( anyone know that poem?)
Catch!
Meet Yann Martel!
Check out the various book covers and artwork. Which is your favourite? Why?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(77)
-
▼
February
(22)
- Gentlemen, Your Verdict
- Stories
- We discussed this a bit in class today but I thoug...
- Desdemona's Death
- Movie Comparison
- Positive Or Negative Loss of Control
- Emotional Turmoil
- Evil or Good?
- Question 5: p. 170
- Question 4: p.170
- Hockey/Character card extension granted: Due Thurs...
- The hockey cards.
- Othello believing Iago over Desdemona
- For those of you working on Emilia's character:
- Why Did Shakespear Write The Way He Did?
- Characters
- Shakepeare
- Othello
- p. 86 Question 4
- Question 7 p.61
- Question 4 p. 60
- Shakespeare's Audiences
-
▼
February
(22)
16 comments:
This question sort of goes back to what we were talking about today in class when we were asked "Would we save Mr. Mailer?". Personally, I think I would at least give it my best, because I certainly would want someone to do the same for me.
Now as for this question.
I, personally, am not a huge fan of the government. I wouldnt call myself an anarchist (by ANY means), but i am not the government's biggest supporter.
But, having said that, I do think that in the case of the story, the needs of the "state" would have to come before the needs of the individual. I mean, put it this was... A woman got married, and her dad is ticked or there are people coming to attack us. I think i might disregard the marriage, and tell them to take their personal issues somewhere else. But i do think, that the government should try and develop better listening skills and pay more attention to what individuals have to say.
Personally I feel that the state takes precidence ove and individual. Yes everyone is equal but if saving one person or helping one person puts everyone else at risk then in the end it’s a great loss instead of just one loss. Yes, i would feel completely guilty for the pain that I caused for the individual but i’d rather 30 people be safe then merely one. This question is like the question that we received in class today, save Mailer or the entire class. I also agree with “desiderata” on the count that i’m not a great supporter of governement and I feel that they should be doing a better job of listening to what us as individuals have to say. Even just a little bit, i mean what we have to say could help our governement in making decisions in helping our country.
Honestly I think that state takes precedence over an individual because I agree with "Morgan" to have one person put at risk makes for a better outcome rather than putting 30 people at risk. I know that sounds harsh but in a majority rules society that's exactly what is going to happen and government is going to look at what is more important. As an individual I'd want to try to help them but if I put others at risk too then it's not worth it.
It really depends on the situation at hand, whether or not the individual overtakes the whole. In Othello the individual problem of Desdemona is just an angry father. They did do the whole marriage thing a little stupidly, but with the invasion of the Truks on Cyprus the issue is merely too small to give much thought. With the state or the individual it really depends on the situation at hand for me. If it is something like we talked about in class to do with Mr. Mailer I would take the individual rights, but if it's something like in Othello I would take the needs of the state.
People would say that everybody has their own rights. But what happens if the safety of the state depends on the violation of individual rights? In 'Othello', the situation is that Othello and Desdemona's marriage is not favoured by Desdemona's father, Brabantio. This issue gets in the way of the possible war between Turkey and Cyprus. In this scenario, individual rights are not a priority as the 'state' has bigger issues to deal with, such as the war. The issue of a man being upset with a marriage between his daughter and a man that he does not particularly like should not be a first priority and personal problems should be dealt with after the needs of the state have been dealt with.
On the other hand, in a modern day situation, such as an intruder in a school and a lone victim wandering around the halls is a different story. If a group of 30 people in a room are safe from an attacker but notice the victim wandering around the hall, they are faced with two choices. They could either: try and rescue the wanderer and jeapordize the group's safety, or leave him to keep the group safe but risk his safety. In this scenario, the priority should be to make sure everyone is safe. Therefore, an attempt to rescue the wanderer should be a definite choice.
I believe that there are too many variables in the world to put things like this in black ad white. The grey areas encompass a huge amount of factors, such as the creditability of the state and the identity of the person(blunt, but true). I agree with "ihasturdle" on the matter of Othello, however. Concerning the comparative importance of a forbidden marriage and war, the war, and therefore the state, take precedence. But in a question of life or death, the sharp edges become blurred by the specifics of each situation. All in all, the state, or the majority, would logically take precedance, but there are special cases.
In the case of Othello, if I was the Duke..I dont think I would waste time over the fact that Desdemona married a black man. In the story there is supposedly a war going on and the Duke and the people in his town are under attack. I would want the goverment to deal with that issue rather than a controversial marriage.
This is sort of like what we talked about in class about saving Mailer, and in that situation I would try my hardest to save the life of the one person even though it might jeoprodize the lives of many others.
I think it all depends on the situation.
It definitely goes back to what we were talking about in class today! In this situation some want Othello prosecuted for winning Desdemona through "Magic". Although, once things are said and done, it was clear to everyone that, due to the attacks on Cypress, Othello - being a general - was needed in order to secure the safety of the town.
As we talked about in class, although opposite, it was up to the Duke whether or not to kill Othello - in doing so possibly cost the town of Cypress its freedom - or allow Othello to live, increasing the chances of the town's freedom.
I personally agree with the decision they made; although one life is very valuable, hundreds of lives are much more valuable, and therefore, the safety of hundreds should be held above the safety of one.
So lets try this again since my internet just screwed up...
I think it really depends on what type of situation we're talking about. You wouldn't look at a life or death moment the same as you would in a slightly more sane frame of mind looking at a more trivial issue. Such as Othello and Desdemona's marriage. Something like marriage should definetely be something where you would not necesarily take into considering how it would help you family, you should marry for love not to help your family's financial or status situation. So in that case its a personal choice over state. But in the case we were presented with today in class" whether or not we would save mailer" i think that we are in a totally different mindset all together. Its life or death we're talking about not a marriage that is only opposed because of a racial difference. I think in the case of saving someone in a situation where their life was at risk i would do my best to at least find a way to help them. That being said i would not go to far out on a limb to save them if it meant being a bullet shield for them and then possibly exposing the class and putting their lives in jepordy, so in that type of situation i would think of the outcome to myself and the class then act. Every situation should always be regarded differently and then be acted upon accordingly.
I hope that made some sense...
Okay, well i didnt know we were supposed to leave a really long explanation :S Well the needs of the state is extremely more important because we are talking about thousands of people compared to a persons personal problems with his daughter enlopying(spelling error probs) with a Moor, Othello. The personal issues Barbantio has should of been resolved after they have a grasp of the crisis in the state. This is a 50/50 question though because this will depend on the morals and prioritites of the individual. Wow, I can see how everyone wrote a lot
When we had the question in class "would you save Mr Mailer?" is answered with yes but in the case in Othello I would say the interests of the state go before the interest of the individual.
In Othello the Duke has to react in the interest of the state and not of the individual because if Turkey took Cypris who says they stop afterwards? Probably Turkey would soon attack Venice. Facing this risk of loosing many lifes in war or even loosing the war with Turkey the government just can't act in the interest of an individual without bringing the whole country in danger.
In a state the scale is simply too big to put the rights of individuals over the needs of the state.
I strongly feel that the State takes precidence than an individual. Like with the Mr. Mailer rescue thing...if one person needs your time when the rest of the world needs your time because they are gonna maybe even kick the bucket...who do you think that you would choose? When something like that comes to your attention it can be a difficult decision...but when you really think about it, the world is sooooooo much more important then the marriage problems a single person is going through.
Individuals are the ones who save the world or come up with astounding discoveries. I mean, the people should all be listened to, but when the world and your home are at stake, something says in your head that there are more important things to do, and listening to this person is not one of them.
In the situation of 'Othello' I would agree that the state does take precedence over the individual. If circumstances were altered and there was to be no invasion of Turks into Cyprus, then the marriage of Othello and Desdemona would be of higher priority. Individual issues are important but when faced with potential life and death situations such as war, the individual issues(ex:marriage between Desdemona and Othello)seem relatively unimportant. I really think that it depends on the situation. In the situation portrayed in the play I would say that it is justified for the state to have precedence over the individual.
im not sure which one id agree with cause either way i find that to completly agree with one would be a condradiction but if i have to chose id have to say the state mainly because it isnt right to put one life over the groups beccause if by saving one person you had to sacrfice the rest of the groups well being then really its a waist. guilt would come in to hand afterwards but id relize that i at least made sure that the "group" was entirely safe.
I think any society that holds the rights of the individual higher than the rights of the state is a superior society. I'm not saying that the state shouldn't have any rights, but I do think that individual rights should always be weighed first. We don't need to be saved from ourselves. If they weren't, if the state felt its rights were more important, we'd be living in a very regimented society. It would tell us where we should live, what to eat, where to work -- all because it would be the best thing for the state. No thanks.
Post a Comment