Race and Racism 545 Fall 2014 (A. Nouvet)
About this class
Champlain College, Fall 2014
This course will introduce students to the concept of race from the perspective of biological and cultural anthropology. The first part of the course focuses on the distribution of human biological variation and compares this variation to contemporary ideas about race. The second part traces the historical development of the concept of race, the role that slavery, colonialism and science have played in the dissemination of the belief in race, as well as modern ideas of race. The third part of the course will explore the reality of racism through case studies from various countries, with a focus on Canada. A consideration of the effects of white privilege and how racism can continue to exist in democratic societies will also be undertaken.
1,121 | 2 | 0
906 | 1 | 0
776 | 1 | 0
420 | 0 | 0
520 | 1 | 0
662 | 0 | 0
1,707 | 3 | 0
535 | 1 | 0
354 | 0 | 0
498 | 0 | 0
766 | 2 | 0
682 | 1 | 0
694 | 2 | 0
1,585 | 5 | 0
5,969 | 13 | 0
321 | 0 | 0
1,493 | 4 | 0
890 | 3 | 0
1,183 | 2 | 0
806 | 1 | 0
Your topic is really interesting and I really enjoyed reading about the article you chose and how a utilitarian would judge this situation. Looking at this case from a virtue ethicist, we can say that Emma Czornobaj is a “good” person, as she shows signs of positive traits, which Aristotle calls “virtues”, such as compassion and friendliness. However, one could also argue that compassion and friendliness towards animals such as these ducks she stopped for are different than the compassion and friendliness towards humans, causing a problem as to whether or not Emma Czornobaj is really a “good” person or not from a virtue ethicist's point of view. Hence, a major flaw in virtue ethics is it’s incompleteness as it may need to rely on another theory to help answer certain questions like the one mentioned above about whether or not Emma is a “good” person.
Your post was very well written and descriptive. You gave multiple view points on the euthanasia debate which made for a strong post. Deontological ethics is the belief that by rule if your intentions are believed to be moral when you act than it its morally correct based on duties and rules. In this case, Canada should not pass a law on making euthanasia legal or not and leave it up to the reasoning of the individual to do what they believe to be moral. Morality is not based on consequences.
Your post is good because it is straight forward and to the point. It address the issue, explains it, and then your opinion is given. I believe that these big companies must do what will bring the most happiness to the largest amount of people. In the long run, harming the environment will bring pain to the planet so I take a utilitarian point of view and believe that making companies environmentally friendly would be the best decision because it will bring happiness to everyone long term.
Your title was really appealing which made me want to read the rest of your work. Virtue ethics is a theory supported by Aristotle and Socrates that focusses on defining what is a good life and what makes a good person rather than questioning what are good acts. It relates to your news summary since Virtue Ethics would consider Linda Solomon’s act as ethical since she did it by pure generosity and generosity is a positive character trait which make her a good person.
You touched an important issue since bullying is a major problem in our society and many people prefer to not talk about it (but it is important to inform people). The theory of Deontological Ethics fits well with the issue of bullying since deontologists focus on a duty to avoid or practice certain actions. Many people look at the issue of bullying from a deontologists point of view since they believe that we have a moral duty not to bully. Even if bullying one person helped five others, bullying is always bad. Bullying is immoral and each and every one of us have a moral duty not to bully.
I think your summary touched an important subject in our society. Homelessness is present in practically every city in the world and it is a subject that is sometimes put aside since many people have the false belief that homeless people are in that situation since they do not work hard enough like everyone else. From your post, I think that you are looking at the issue of homelessness from a Utilitarian point of view. Utilitarian theory aims to create the most happiness and pleasure and looks at the consequences of acts instead of the motive, which fits well with your approval of the “Homeless Bill of Rights”. Giving access to food and shelter would increase the overall happiness of a lot of homeless people so it is the best thing to do.
After thoroughly reading your post, I can clearly see some ethical dilemmas being raised. Although Makayla could have received treatment for her cancer and ultimately have survived, she ended up dying at home while receiving traditional treatments instead. An ethical question that could be asked here is: “Is the ultimate survival of an individual more important than their traditional beliefs?” Makayla ultimately chose to follow her tradition instead of continuing with chemotherapy, which had way better chances of keeping her alive…Some may say this is moral, and others may disagree. This was a very intriguing post to read because it somewhat relates to my latest post about allowing young children the right to die, which is the reverse of yours, but still ties-in with the whole “to live or not to live” dilemma. Check it out if you’re ever interested: http://newsactivist.com/en/news-summary/flacks-ethics-winter-2015/should.... Overall, great post! :)
I strongly agree with Amelie E-D that we should not trust Nike. The post was very well written and straight forward to the point which was good. Nike is a company who mass produces their products in factories outside of America so they can lower the workers conditions and treat them horribly. The problem with Nike is they do an amazing job of advertising their product so most people want to buy their products but do not know how bad their production system really is. This creates an ethical dilemma where people want to save money to buy their products cheap but do not want to support the poor working conditions that take place in the production of the Nike product. Do they value their saving money or stopping poor working conditions in other countries more? Many would think the decision is a simple one but disappointingly most people choose to save money.
I am going on a volunteer trip overseas next year, so topic like this one really interests me. Your explanation of the problem and its effects on the workers was really clear and precise. The problem you are describing brings a dilemma since many people agree that things need to be change and the companies who hire those workers are doing really bad things, but on the other hands, many also agree that without those companies, men would not have a job and would not be able to feed their families. The dilemma is to choose between the health of the workers or the health of the rest of the family.
I believe that your analysis of this issue was spot on. I do agree that hockey is an emotional sport, and many of the fans are bound to get emotional as well, but racism has no place in hockey. Fantastic players have originated from all places and races of the world. There is no race in hockey that is superior that another and therefore race should not be used as a weapon to emotionally injure a player who has excelled.Subban once told a reporter that “As far as I’m concerned, I’m looked at as a hockey player. If people want to be ignorant and want to look at me as something else then they can. I’m a hockey player. I’ve played hockey all my life. It’s a sport that I love and I’m not worried about anything like that” (Article Below). This incident was an example of people made uneasy by being beaten and tried to reassert their dominance by putting Subban down using one of the only weapons they had left in their arsenal. This not only resulted in those involved to look foolish but also showed how some people react when their dominance is threatened. Subjects as delicate as race should not be used against players of any sport because their race does not help or hinder them in any way and therefore has no relevance in the world of sports.
There no collaborative classes