Directions:
1. Write your response to at least ONE of the 4 bullet pointed queries below and,
2. Respond to TWO posts by your classmates.
2. Respond to TWO posts by your classmates.
- What does Doug Porpora argue are the primary ways/reasons we allowed ourselves to become a party to genocide (as discussed in Chapter 6)?
- Define “neighbor.” Having done that, what is your response to Porpora’s assertion on p. 181?
- It takes a positive morality of radical commitment to one’s neighbor to extend the concept of neighbor to those one does not see face to face, to extend the responsibilities of neighborliness to suffering peasants in a remote country. It takes such a radical commitment to neighborliness to care about the effects of political decisions on our neighbors everywhere. That, however, is a commitment that is largely unknown in mainstream American Christendom.
- Comment on Porpora’s assertion on page 197 that:
- Most people are not used to considering knowledge a responsibility. When it comes to responsibility, we tend to focus on our actions, not on what is inside our heads. We tend to assume that if we act in good faith, that is, if we act on whatever knowledge we have with the best of intentions then what we do is not really blameworthy, even if it has negative consequences.
- What, if anything, do you take issue with Porpora about in his book? Explain your reasoning fully.
For Porpora's comment that knowledge is responsibility, I definitely agree with the first portion of his argument, which is that most people do not consider knowledge as a part of what they are responsible for, that it is either something you possess or not, and what you do with it once that is established is what counts. I think that once you have enough information, action is the next logical and moral step. By not acting on that knowledge, you are a part of the problem he describes in the book, the problem of apathy and indifference that allows wrong to exist. I'm still not sure on what he is trying to say with his last point, however, as he says people assume that action with good intentions is not blameworthy, while I still believe that if negative consequences were to stem from any action, even if it was brought about by well intentions, people would still regard it as a failure and at least try to right the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Porpora in the sense that many people don't consider knowledge to be one of their responsibilities. I think that people take knowledge into account and try to act responsibly, but most differentiate between knowledge and responsibility as two separate entities. I think that what he's trying to say in his last point is that acting with your best intentions is not the same thing as acting based on your knowledge of a subject. He says that acting with your best intentions and still suffering consequences is blameworthy, although most people don't consider it to be. Perhaps if more people acted considering their responsibility of knowledge, there would be fewer consequences.
DeleteI agree that knowledge is important, but what's interesting about this assertion is who/what has the power to solicit action. Holding the knowledge is important, but how do you move that knowledge in ways that solicit action? Then, how do you control that action in a way that's morally just?
DeleteThink about who has the power to solicit action in America: The government/political parties? The media? Reporters? TV/Radio/Internet? Social Media? Justin Bieber?
I think that the the prior conception of responsibility that Porpora references is a suitable definition for personal responsibility, however, in the context of a greater community it is insufficient. In our society, ignorance of a law does not exempt one from the consequences of breaking it. Not knowing the speed limit doesn't justify speeding, even if you don't think you were going excessively fast. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a certain standard of knowledge from people, to hold them responsible for this as a member of a community.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even think about the responsibility in this context, and your point is really interesting and I definitely agree with it. However, I do think there are other situations in which ignorance of a rule is something that going to happen (for example, ignorance of specific rules or social norms in certain cultures) in which the actions someone may take would be in best intentions with the minimal knowledge they have, yet is considered wrong in that society. In that case, is it fair to subject them to the same punishment as someone who knew better? And if so, how can we decide what the "standard of knowledge" is for the global community as a whole?
DeleteYou definitely make a good point that we should be expected to have some standard of knowledge. You're making me rethink my statement that one should not be blamed for their application of knowledge as long as they have good intentions.
DeleteSo... knowledge first, action second?
DeleteWhat if laws aren't made readily available for those whom they actually affect? For instance, what if there is no speed limit posted but the law is still enforced when it is "broken?" Who's responsible then? Nevertheless, I agree that one needs to understand the laws that govern them to be a member of any community.
DeleteYou make an excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly. The speeding example is certainly a good one. You have a bright future ahead of you, Jack. Best of luck next year!
DeleteI agree with Porpora's assertion that it is people's responsibility to know the consequences of their actions. It is definitely true that some people act without thinking about potential consequences, or even if they think about potential consequences, without knowing exactly what the potential consequences may be. Other people do consider what they know about a situation before they act in a way that might influence it. Many people take their knowledge, what they know about a subject, into account. For instance, most people use their knowledge when voting in a presidential election. It is people's responsibility, as citizens and voters, to educate themselves about the candidates and their platforms in order to make a knowledgeable and effective vote. In this scenario, most people are aware of their responsibility of knowledge. People who don't know about the candidates and are not knowledgeable about the subject, tend to abstain from voting. There are instances, though, as Porpora points out, when people tend not to focus on their knowledge of a subject, but instead focus on their actions. People might act in what they believe to be good faith, but this good faith might be based on instinct and temptation, rather than concrete knowledge. I believe that it is people's responsibility not only to act based on their own knowledge, but also spread the knowledge and educate others. It is our responsibility as citizens, neighbors, friends, and family members, to spread our knowledge to help other people so that they, too, can make educated decisions and calculated actions.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your points, and I like that you distinguished between our responsibility as voters to educate ourselves and then our responsibility as citizens, neighbors, and friends to spread our knowledge.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Porpora's assertion about neighborliness. There's a difference between caring about "suffering peasants in a remote country" and doing something about that suffering. American Christians might "care" about the suffering peasants, but they're not doing anything. American Christendom, in my opinion, is often a local affair. The church raises money for the community, not the globe. They might say they stand with those peasants or they may pray for those peasants, but that doesn't do anything to fix the underlying cause of the "suffering peasants."
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, those who actually do something about the suffering peasants largely fall into two categories 1) those who bring the suffering into the limelight in the hopes that other good neighbors will help or 2) those who use their own financial status to bring economic opportunity to the "remote country." However, these two motivations aren't infused with Christianity. The reporter, or documentary filmmaker might think they're making a difference by portraying the suffering, but that doesn't always solicit action--mostly because action, usually requires money. That brings me to my second group of those who attempt to alleviate the suffering which are capitalists. They would argue that using those peasants to make their goods and sell them around the world will benefit both the capitalists and the peasants. Obviously, this economic incentive has little to do with Christianity. So sadly, I don't see Christianity as a solution to alleviating peasant suffering in a remote country.
I definitely agree with your assertion about neighborliness. I agree that many of the people who do something about suffering peasants fall into the two categories you described. However, I believe that in the modern day, there is a third category that is becoming more prominent. A third category of people are those who go out into the "remote country" and volunteer in efforts to alleviate hardship or bring more opportunity there. Though it is true that in order to go out into the "remote country," you must have economic ability, but I think that this category is different from simply giving money to the "remote country." It's hard to tell whether this third category is Christian. They are helping the "remote country" directly, but they are also using their own financial status to travel there and to help. In most ways, I agree with you in that Christianity is not the most common solution to alleviating peasant suffering.
DeleteYou bring up a great point here with the idea that people may not be helping the suffering peasants for the right reasons. Those reasons actually being legitimate and not for some economic or false intent. It is sad to see how many people volunteer with the intent of helping themselves. It is similar to how some kids will go to these remote countries so they have a story to tell on their college application.
DeleteI agree with Porpora that people associate responsibility with action more than with knowledge. For instance, if a parent tells a child to be responsible, the child probably hears that as that they need to act, not think, responsibly. Knowledge is a responsibility because what one does with the things they know can have very good or bad consequences. If a person is aware that another person has done something terrible, it is his or her responsibility to let someone of authority know. I do agree with the statement that one should not be blamed for what they do with their knowledge as long as they have good intentions.
ReplyDeleteAnother great example! I agree that the best way to establish knowledge as part of responsibly is by starting with people while they are still young.
DeleteBut what if letting the authority figures know leads to something more terrible? Meaning, what if a student makes a mistake but is willing to fix it without the authorities getting involved? And what if getting the authorities involved would lead to expulsion or something too extreme for the mistake made?
DeleteI think Propora’s assertion is a bit harsh, but also true. He says that humans need to take more responsibility for consuming knowledge. More simply, he is trying to say that we cannot settle for knowing “enough” knowledge and must further ourselves and attempt to know as much as possible. Sometimes, people settle and are satisfied with knowing enough to “get by.” However, our society will run more smoothly and we will avoid mistakes if we do in fact try to learn as much as possible and be better rounded. If each person is able to understand several aspects of society rather than one, we can avoid mistakes and have a more smooth and well-run society.
ReplyDeleteI find Porpora's assertion to be very interesting because it opens up a new sense of responsibility. Not just taking responsibility for one's own action, but he also calls for people to take responsibility for the knowledge they have. He says that by taking action with a limited amount of knowledge but in good faith, is not free of blame. That it is the responsibility of the individual to is to gain a wealth of knowledge and to use that knowledge to conduct themselves accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gaining a wealth of knowledge can promote responsible action, but I also think that gaining such knowledge is not that easy. Therefore, I think responsibility should be to a degree based off of acting on good faith, which is less idealistic.
DeleteIn it’s conventional sense, neighbor is used to refer to a person physically near to someone else. However, biblically and even through our social adaptation of the word neighbor has become any person in need of another's kindness. People rarely think of those who are not present in their everyday lives. However, people are also not completely ignorant of the condition of “suffering peasants in a remote country.” The realization of these peasants struggles is one thing, but taking action and forcing oneself to commit to a larger responsibility than just knowledge of the problem’s existence is another. It is difficult to expand one’s worries to encompass more than that which directly affects him or her. The holocaust was horribly denied by the United States in our unwillingness to end the enormity of deaths. As soon as the violence and its ensuing destruction escalated, we had a responsibility to defend the innocent people. We failed at this, though. The impact of a person’s suffering should not change based on his or her geography.
ReplyDeleteThe one phrase that seems to ring loudest whenever the word responsibility comes to the forefront is, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” In tandem with the belief that knowledge is power, it follows that knowledge is responsibility. From this notion several seemingly paradoxical obligations arise. On one hand, knowing that an atrocity is unfolding should equate to the realization that one must do everything possible to end that atrocity. On the other hand, if one knows that stopping that atrocity could lead to another wrong, to what knowledge are we responsible? Additionally, even if our intentions based on that knowledge are pure, to what extent should we be held liable for their consequences, negative or positive?
ReplyDeleteI think that once we realize that preventing an atrocity can also lead to another wrong, it is necessary to evaluate the outcomes based on morality rather than expediency, which, unfortunately, too many people do not do.
DeleteI think another point to make is that while we can say that with knowledge comes this responsibility, it's not something easily enforced. Whether it is because you don't have the means or simply the motivation to provide help, it is really difficult to condemn someone for not acting on their knowledge when that is such an internal and individual process.
DeleteI agree with your points, Jon. I think people need to act in some way though, maybe so they can somehow interrupt that atrocity, even if they do not completely stop it.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porpora that we often fail to connect knowledge with responsibility. People have a tendency to emphasize action and overlook what we have in our minds that may have caused the action. We believe that if we do what we think is right, we are never truly responsible if we make mistakes. It is not unreasonable to expect that people have a certain level of knowledge, and therefore should make the right choice in a given situation. If they choose to act incorrectly, they must be held responsible up to a certain extent.
I agree with you. I'm thinking about the fact that it might be hard to determine whether an action is blameworthy or not because you will never truly know what the intentions were of the person who committed the action. Maybe we should be responsible for all of our actions, regardless of intent because it is so hard to determine it.
Delete