Weekly Blogpost #22

Friday, February 14th 2014

Reflections on Today's Class "Controversial Debates"

Today, we talked about different controversial topics, those that are bound to raise an array of opinions in any class or among any group of people. Furthermore, the two questions that we addressed during the second half of the class were, in my opinion, very closely related: "Is there one life that is more valuable than another?" and "Can one deny rights to other based on their actions/behaviours?" (or at least something along those lines).

Most of us, if not all, were of the same basic opinion. "No, there is not one life more valuable than another as all lives are of equal value" and "No, it is not right to bar people from their fundamental rights". Georgy was the only person who had guts to challenge the majority's opinion by defending his country's position on the issue of "gay propaganda" in Russia. Many people, especially our dear Francisco, loved to shoot him down. And many good arguments were made, from all the various positions that arose. However, one question did come up to my mind: Is it possible to have equality despite differences?

As I had said earlier in class, I believe that all lives are valuable. Not because it is embodied in a human or plant or animal, nor because it is that of the president or celebrity or friend or family, nor any other reason except because of its essence. Life is life, and there is nothing that can be substituted for it. Throughout history, people have been placing prices on different life forms, whether on prostitutes or slaves, or food, or flowers for the backyard. People have been saved, others have been killed, based on what would it best for a country or humanity in general or another point of reference. This is a truth in the world, and I don't think there is a way for us to change the way that we have shaped it. Yet, theoretically, all lives are of equal value. And the reason is because all lives are life. The greatest present, a miracle that all living organisms have been gifted. On a similar note, I believe that all people should be granted the same rights. It is unfair for people to suffer the denial of their rights based on the precedents of others (i.e. the children of past dictators), or based on differences they cannot help from having (i.e. people with disabilities or with different inclinations). Rights are to be granted to every living being and should not be taken away UNLESS there is a good reason, based on the individual's actions or a given circumstance in which the denial of certain rights would be for the better.

The problem lies in the capitalized word, "unless". Who is allowed to determine the use of this word, who is allowed and can rightfully use this derivative? Who can be granted that "power" without making it unfair to others? People are individuals, all different in their own ways, all unique. It is therefore difficult to come up with a norm without infringing upon different beliefs. What might be right for one person may not seem so apparent to another. It is almost, if not completely, impossible to bring "happy justice" to everybody. There is always a difference that will arise, a little minority who will disagree. For example, going back to the Russia example, Georgy said that anybody who is practicing the spread of propaganda is violating a law. He also claimed that there is no freedom of speech in Russia. People lashed back, saying that the limit on speech is a violation of a basic human right. I do not agree with limits on speech either. But who are we, individuals who are not even Russian citizens, to say that the Russian government is doing wrong? If the UN, or some other big and influential organization, to try to enforce upon Russia the repeal of such laws, wouldn't it limit the power of the Russian government as well? Wouldn't it be some kind of violation as well?

I guess that my question is, who has the ultimate power? Our class discussion ended up open-ended, as expected for any debate of this sort, but I also wonder. The infringement of rights, the valuing of one life more than another, don't these happen in an attempt to strive for security and peace? If no limits were placed, couldn't there maybe be more wrong happening? It is not possible to find a "happy justice" for all, because there are always differences. Were all these differences considered, would there actually be any laws left? (This is relying on the assumption that we should be governed by documents outlining our rights and laws, but who says we should rely upon those, then?) If no decisions were made, would we maybe not be living in some sort of anarchy and chaos? At the end of the day, we are not living in a utopia, a world of harmony where everyone agrees with one another without doing "bad".

But then, again, I guess there is no wrong with imagining and dreaming. Dreams are made to help us strive towards a better future. Dreams are there to help us hope, and, well, to dream. And who knows? Maybe, one day, we will reach complete harmony. Someday, somehow.