The Ethic of Market's Incompatibility with Human Society (or Why the Brits Love Queuing)

Sandel is not a Marxist, but he's worried about everything being for sale.  Is there anything he talks about that shouldn't be for sale?  Why or why not?


      Sandel's fear of 'everything being up for sale' is a significant concern, in my view, because there are moral implications for a society that becomes defined by its extrinsic free market value rather than by its intrinsic, social value. The former fluctuates with the material exchange of money, and gives a fair value to inanimate objects like marketable goods, but it can also quantify nonmarketable services in a way that devalues the sanctity of human experiences by devaluing them when measured by privileged price. 

     My position on this issue aligns with Sandel's idea that "market prices simply reflect the ability and willingness of consumers to pay" for a good, rather than serve as a measure of its value for the consumer. A "service" is a broad term, which I will define here as an 'experience which cannot be marketed as a commodity' as opposed to a physical, tangible good. There are certain services which are inherently nonmarketable; their immaterial value should be respected at the discretion of the consumer rather than degraded by those who exploit their accessibility for selfish gain. Such services include the use and appreciation of public experiences: the Yosemite Park campsites, the free theatrical performance 'Shakespeare in the Park,' and Pope Benedict XVI's papal mass. These are inarguably spiritual, emotional, human experiences which are freely/cheaply offered to the public and deserve more respect than being taken advantage of by abusive scammers in the mess of supply and demand. You may put a price on vacationing on a luxury cruise line, but a natural beauty and awe inspired by staying in a public forest should not be capitalized upon! All people deserve equal access to such services, rather than the affluent be enabled through premium means to do so; especially if these are already offered freely to the public as a gift, a federally given right.  The value of hearing the Pontiff speak cannot be measured by the amount of money one is willing to cough up. It is not the same as going to a Knicks game or Miley Cyrus concert, where front row tickets are coveted for the purpose of  pursuing and displaying one's vanity. 


      When my mother returned from visiting England for the first time, she complained of its citizens' stereotypically stubborn obsession with queuing and their quick vindication of any tourist who dared jump the queue. I amusingly make this slightly relevant reference out of admiration for the ethic of the queue: "First come, first serve," as these queue-lovers seem to abide by. Its egalitarian appeal, what Sandel describes as an "ignorance of privilege, power and deep pockets,"  reflects a reverence for the moral valuation of experiences, for the freedom and opportunity that every human being deserves. Yes, it may seem like just waiting in a line...but that in and of itself, the "willingness to wait," adds much more substance to the human experience than the "willingness to pay." If everything was for sale, then our everyday lives would become strictly dictated by money. Is such a cold exchange worthy of representing what is meaningful to humanity?  Many developed countries measure their national success and well being through an economical assessment called Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total monetary value of a country's production through its goods and documented services. It can be measured by tracking citizens' expenditure and documented income. Essentially, the official flow of money is used determine how successful a country is--this is fundamentally flawed because it cannot represent what the intangible idiosyncrasies of living as an American citizen.  A much more humane, holistic approach is the national assessment for well-being in the country of Bhutan, called Gross National Happiness (GNH). GNH focuses on the social progress of Bhutan's people by tracking their "psychological well-being, living standard, health, culture, education, community vitality, good governance, balanced time use and ecological integration" in order to promote overall happiness. 
This may seem impractical in our country, where equal opportunity can be bought when "You get what you paid for." Time is money, right?  (Sorry for digressing!)

A Bhutanese slogan for its national assessment of Gross National Happiness

Sandel

Prison cell upgrades and second grade reading shouldn’t be for sale because the original intentions of these systems become lost; prisoners are no longer given equal treatment and reading is no longer about gaining knowledge.

     When I think of a jail, I think of uniformity; endless rows of identical jail cells, fixed meal times, fixed food, fixed food portions, striped uniforms…everyone is part of a controlled system. Social and economic ranking have been made invisible in these settings because, as a consequence of breaking the law, prisoners’ rights to the luxuries they once knew have been taken away from them. They are all put on the same playing field because they all broke the law one way or another, but once you allow prisoners to live in a clean, quiet, isolated cell, this cycle of equal monotony is broken and suddenly things aren’t fair. Not everyone has enough money to drop $82 a night, and those who do will be looked at with envy and hatred by the poorer prisoners. Now you’re able to differentiate between the rich prisoners and the not so rich prisoners, which is what the system was trying to avoid in the first place. And isn't living in a loud, dirty cell the price you have to pay for breaking the law? Why are there exceptions to this now?

     When a school pays their students for each book they finish, they’re essentially bribing the kids into fake learning. The students aren’t driven to learn something from the book they finish; they are driven to get their promised $2! When a reward like that is dangled in front of seven year olds, they’re blinded by it, not motivated by it. They’re going to rush through the book with nothing but the $2 in their mind when they should be soaking up the words from the book. These children see reading as a stepping stone for money, when really it’s a stepping stone for knowledge and intelligence.

Can this really be how our world really is?

I never would have thought of all the things that cost money in this world. It really opened my eyes to read Sandel's piece, about everything being bought and sold. I couldn't believe that inmates pay extra money to sit there in a cell for the rest of their lives, but if you are nonviolent you can pay extra to have a better cell than all the rest. It’s sad to think of it like that. But we really do pay for all the things we use in this world. So what is free than? The teachers in Dallas pay their students on how many books they read. Is this really where the world is headed? I didn't like reading this; we shouldn't have to pay the kids to read. I know once I learned to read, I never wanted to stop. It opens up a world of new things. You shouldn't have to pay these kids. Also the selfishness of the university in this world that will accept lesser kids due to the fact they have dollars in their pockets, or parents pockets. This gives kids that don't deserve things handed to them basically on a silver platter. Nothing is free in this world and I’m slowly feeling as if one day we will have to pay our parents just to be born. This makes me so angry! Money shouldn’t govern our lives but according to Sandel it doesn’t matter what I think or how I can change it. He thinks economics are the imperial domain of all social life and that it all started with the Cold War, when markets were rebuilding. Consumerism is a big part of the human race but I honestly don’t think it is man characteristic.

Sandel Blog Post-Carl

In Sandel’s writing I believe two things should not be for sale are purchasing the ability to drive in the carpool lane and the ability to pay for your child to have admission to a prestigious university. It is wrong for people to buy their way into anything. People who drive in the carpool lane should have the right to drive in their own lane because they are driving other people to save the planet and not use as many fossil fuels. This shows that in today’s society money can buy anything. People buying admission to a prestigious university is wrong as well because acceptance into college is a reflection of the work that the child has done and it’s a measure of success of that child. If something like this can be bought through a parent’s riches than that speaks volumes about our society. The measure of one’s academic ability is not something that should has a price tag. The only fair way to measure academic ability is with scholarships. A scholarship is a fair way for colleges so asses the price of a child’s work and success.  

Sandel Blog Post Basla

                I disagree strongly with the majority of the rules for the sole reason that they are not necessary. That being said, when people have money, they will be willing to spend it. Is it necessary to spend eight extra dollars to avoid traffic? No. Will people do it? Yes. It is not a damaging purchase to anyone involved, other than more money being spent frivolously. Killing endangered species, such as the hunting of Rhinos for $150,000, would ruin a population of animals, therefore affecting the environment and the people living in it.

                I think the idea of paying money to call your doctor at all hours would end with more and more doctors being on call all the time. The minimum cost of $1,500 is also just low enough to be bought by the middle class, especially if there is an “emergency” of sorts. People desire the specialized treatment versus going to the hospital if they feel like they “deserve” it for the money they are paying.

                The admission of your child to a prestigious university idea is already happening every year during admission.  Admissions look for certain qualities and specific criteria each year. For instance, one year, they may desire a stronger athletic foundation, so they accept the majority of athletes. If a university needs higher academic scores, then they accept those with academia as a priority. If they need funding, they accept the legacy children whose parents are willing to donate. Raising the cost would start several moral conflicts and negativity around the school. Students would wonder who would actually deserve to be there, and the college’s reputation would suffer, as well as those who attend that college.

Aubrey Basla 

What can be bought and sold

I believe that everything on Sandel’s list is perfectly acceptable to be bought and sold. The idea buying someone’s life insurance in order to bet on their life span and turn a profit makes me uncomfortable but that does not mean it is wrong or cannot be for sale. However, that being said, if the person whose life insurance in being bought understands the situation and realizes their family will receive none of the benefits, who am I to say they can’t do it.

Some of the items Sandel mentions on his list I actually feel are quite smart. For half a million dollars and the creation of ten jobs in a high unemployment area, someone can immigrate to the United States. This seems to benefit everyone. The person can come live and receive a green card in the U.S, and an area that desperately needs jobs will have it. Some may argue that this is unfair to the people who wait years to receive their green cards and morally, maybe they are right. I’m not sure. Whether it is moral or not, the fact is we live in a capitalist society and having money gives you an advantage. Another justification for this is they are helping build and improve an otherwise impoverished area and that is important.

I think almost anything can be bought or sold. I feel that as long as both parties and everyone involved understands the transaction and it is not resulting in the direct harm of another person, I think it is fine. 

Blog post

I agree with half of what Sandel is saying in this artical we just read, but I also disagree with part of it. I think it is a little bit ridiculous that just about everything in society can be put up for sale but then again I think it also brings out the competitive nature in us. yes it can get a little bit absurd like placing bets on when old people are gonna die... that is a little immoral if you ask me anyways. but for the most part I think it can definitely be beneficial. I think it can drive society to compete with one another and people always do say that competition brings out the best in people. however with that logic you have to take into account that being rich does not always mean you are successful. if you love what you do and make enough to support your life style sufficiently than it is also said that you feel like you have never worked a day in your life. so then again I don't think it is fair to leave those people out just because they found what they love but it just does not make them rich. so I guess limitations need to be made when things get a little bit out of hand but I like the idea that if you work hard you will be rewarded but we need to make sure we are all on even playing grounds. what I do completely agree with Sandel on is that the integrity of certain things are lost once we put the value of money on them. like he said some things begin to feel like a chore or we lose a sense of self pride for accomplishing something. I think it would be a good idea to some how re-motivate society to earn something because they worked hard for it and it made them feel good rather than just to receive an award at the end.

What's not for Sale?

In my opinion nothing on the list is too far out of question except the idea of buying the life insurance of an old or ailing person. When you really get down to it this act is like placing a bid on the life of the person. That's beyond inappropriate, and has to make the person that the life insurance belongs to feel very insecure because their life has been bet upon.  This bet upon the person's  life probably makes them feel like they're nothing more than a ticking time bomb of cash to whom ever bought the insurance. All they are is nothing more than a number or a new tv or new car, maybe even a new house but a human is the last thing these people consider them. They lose their humanity in a way, they lose a sense of a person and become a digit.


On the other hand this is okay for the fact that people put their insurance for sale willingly. They are in their minds simply trying to help out another human being. Wouldn't it be better someone who's actually helped with that money get it then some random greedy person? I mean the person receiving the insurance still has to pay while the person lives., so it's really like just getting the money you've worked for. I'm very on the fence with this decision for the fact that it kinda dehumanizes the person but at the same time it helps them pay for their life insurance, and will later help the person who pays. It's a very sticky situation but in reality it really comes down to the preference to the two parties.

What's Not for Sale?

I have to agree with Sandel that enough is enough when it comes to what should be for sale and what is for sale. Most of the items Sandel listed are things people buy because they are either lazy or impatient.  One of the items for sale was to have a person stand in line for you overnight on Capitol Hill so a lobbyist can have their place in line saved for them in the morning and go to the congressional meeting. If you need someone to keep your spot in line for a congressional meeting, then you must not feel so strongly about your cause. However, it did mention that the people saving their spots were homeless, so I guess that makes it a little better, but it is getting closer to buying and selling people. That is getting close to the slavery line. Even though the people are getting paid, it is not like they have any other opinion. If I were homeless and someone said you can make $400 tonight just by saving this person's spot in line for the night, I do not think I could say no. I would need the money. So the idea that they are paying homeless people may sound good to most, in reality they have no better options, which gives it a "slavery" type feel to it. Also, another item for sale is the right to emit a metric ton of carbon into the atmosphere. Basically what this is stating is that it is fine to pollute as long as you have enough money. One of the major problems right now is global warning, but if you make millions, you can contribute to the problem legally. I think that is wrong in every way that people can break the law as long as they have money. I think that is a problem with society and I feel that it should not matter how much you make, laws are laws and people should face the consequences for breaking them.

Sandel Blog Post

I believe that certain things being for sale is an issue and one thing from Sandel’s list that I believe shouldn't be for sale is: “The right to emit a metric ton of carbon into the atmosphere.” I don’t see the value or convenience in a company wanting to purposely add pollution into the atmosphere. It’s a waste of money and it depletes the efforts of people wanting to lessen the pollution on Earth. The companies who opt to do such a thing, shouldn't be allowed to in the first place no matter who is profiting from it. As years go by, problems like this could get worse. Companies would be putting humanity at risk by deliberately adding pollution. They should in fact try to find other and efficient ways to get rid of their pollution. If this can’t be done, countries should try to regulate these practices and try to not let companies do it at all. Anything that could potentially put others at risk is something that shouldn't have money be put in to. Opposers may say that companies need ways to get rid of things and profiting from it is even better, but I just see it as a sign of greed and carelessness for the environment. There is only one Earth and we should be doing actions that are beneficial to its future. Just because there aren't significant effects of this kind of pollution or it may not seem to be harming us now, doesn't mean that it won’t in the long run. Continuing such practices would only be going against the cause.

rob bacovin blog post

I agree with Sandel’s idea that there is too much for sale in our society but I do think that there is a reason for some things being on sale as long as the line in not crossed.  I think that the line is crossed with these things if someone or something is hurt by the ability to buy these things or if it targets the poor in a degrading or harmful fashion.  Like when it comes to upgrading your jail cell for a nightly rate for a nonviolent offender.  This does not cause harm to any other person and does not target the poor.  This creates revenue and targets the rich so I do not see a problem with this.  When it comes to getting paid to be a human guinea pig for a pharmaceutical company, I think that is wrong and should not be for sale.  This targets the poor because no middle class or upper class person will be signing up to be tested on.   But I think it is fine in the example of people being paid to stand in line for lobbyists, typically poor people, because this gives money to people for doing something that is as simple as standing in line.  I think it is not okay for admission to good colleges to be sold to a kid with very wealthy parents because that harms the middle or lower class kid who worked hard for admission to a good college.  The idea that everything can be sold is sometimes good but also it can hurt people or the environment.

Not for Sale

Michael J. Sandel has listed things that people in the modern day can buy. There are multiple things he has listed that I have issues with. One of the things you can by is “the right to shoot an endangered black rhino for $150,000.” The two problems is that it promotes the killing of an endangered species and they profit from destroying the species. The other issue that comes up is that it doesn’t stop poachers from killing the rhinos either. It could decimate the population of the black rhino. Another thing that can be bought is “the right to emit a metric ton of carbon into the atmosphere for 13 euros.” The other problem is similar to the black rhino, it promotes pollution and the government gets a profit. I just feel that the government should focus more on fixing the environment rather than polluting it.

            However there are a few things on his list that I’m okay with. For example in New Zealand you can rent out space on your forehead for advertisement. This doesn’t bother me because it is all personal choice. A similar situation is serving as a human guinea pig in drug safety trials or fighting as private military in Somalia or Afghanistan. Those things are personal choices that each individual can make. There are also the ones that provide good incentives. Sandel lists that in underachieving schools in Dallas you can read a book for $2 or if you’re obese and loose fourteen pounds in four months you get $378. These provide good incentives for people to read and become healthier. My issue is if what is being paid for promotes bad behavior. The ones I don’t have issues with is if the choice is left up for personal choice or if it provides a good incentive.

What's not for sale?

While I agree with Sandel on some points, I feel like there is some room for argument on others.  The major point of discussion is on whether or not it's ok to sell a human body, your own or someone else's.  His main point against this is slavery, and how now, in the 21st century, we know it is completely unacceptable.  While i agree with him on that, I feel that in other examples, mainly the sale of soldiers in private military corporations, there is more of a gray area.  Sandel mentions that it cheapens the sense of citizenship when soldiers can be bought and sold as a normal commodity.  However, I feel that citizenship and fighting for a country can be two separate things.  For many people, being paid to do something they're good at would be a dream job for them.  Offering one's self as a soldier is no different, they get paid to provide a service.  Some might object to the thought of being paid to fight a war of dubious morals, but it is up the the soldier, the one who provides the service, to determine which jobs he's willing to take, much like any private service provider.

Another product Sandel mentioned was "the right to pollute", referencing the practice of buying "carbon credits", which allow a country or company to ignore environmental restrictions and emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  He argues against this, and sets it up as a means for corporate giants to recklessly pollute and expand their profits.  However, I see them as the opposite, an incentive for countries and businesses to lower their emissions and pay less for these credits.  I think we should expand on this concept, and find more ways in incentivize better habits.

Sandel Blog Post

I agree with Sandel that it is a cause for concern to have everything for sale, especially the things on his list that one can buy that only serves the purpose of more convenience. One example of this is patients buying their doctors cell phone number. If people need immediate medical advice and/or appointments they can get it from a number of other places. Yes, given going these places, such as an urgent care center, the emergency room, 911, etc., aren’t as convenient as calling your doctor whenever, I still think it’s a wrong and misused usage of the resource. Doctors have lives outside of their work; part of the reason we have other medical resources set in place is so that doctors don’t have to work 24/7. If you need an appointment the same day you call your doctor and if it’s not an emergency, then that’s just for the persons convenience. Even if it was an emergency calling and/or going to your doctors right away I think would be sort of a waste and not a good idea. This is because only hospitals and emergency rooms care for emergencies most of the time, so most likely your doctor won’t even be able to directly help you; therefor you’re paying for an in between step that’s pretty unnecessary in cases like this.

                An objector might say that it would save money in the long run; that even though they’re paying a large amount of money every year for this service, it’s still not as much as having to use another service. Or if it is more or equal, one might say that it’s worth it for convenience sake.  What I have to say to this is, in general I believe having your doctors cell phone number is in a way an invasion of their privacy; you are over using the resources that your doctor has instead of using other sources of medical care. 

Blog post #4 - Post by late Thursday night, Feb. 26

Post to the blog by late Thursday night, Feb. 26, about the extract I emailed you by Michael Sandel.  Sandel is not a Marxist, but he's worried about everything being for sale.  Is there anything he talks about that shouldn't be for sale?  Why or why not?

Remember that the first sentence of your 250-300 word blog post should be the thesis statement of your whole post.

Place your post on the blog's main page (not as a comment to this post).

I think that the poem “Love’s Philosophy” is important. It is important because it makes one think about how we are not alone in this world. It gives earthly actions that show a relation to love and then goes on to tastefully describe how everything and everyone in the world are connected/one. Each stanza correlates the work of the Earth, the simplicity of it, and how human interaction can be the same. There is also a strong use of personification. For example, “See the mountains kiss high Heaven, And the waves clasp on another…” The personification makes the poem easy to understand in the sense that it provides a mental picture of these actions causing one to think of the relating human action. It also explains how natural our interactions with one another can and should be.  For example, “The fountains mingle with the river and the rivers with the Ocean…” then goes on to say, “In one spirit meet and mingle. Why not I with thine?” This means that if nature can simply/naturally go about and mingle and mesh with each other, then it shouldn't be hard for us to do the same. Love is what binds us all. It is what binds our aura to this earth so that we can try to live in harmony. Shelley writing this poem is sort of like a reminder that if nature can continue and go on naturally, we can do just the same and it’s our love that will keep us here.

To the Moon p. 162

I choose the poem “To the Moon” for a couple different reasons, one of the main reasons being I love the moon. I mean between it and the sun I would have to go with the moon. Plus the moon won’t cause me to burn in 3 minutes flat. That’s my record for fastest sun burn. Anyway, onto more interesting reasons why I picked the poem “To the Moon” is because it shadows the human life cycle. This depiction is shown mainly in the first stanza and a little in the second stanza. The way that I see it the moon is personified. It mirrors a human female forever searching for her life partner. As the moon goes through its cycles so does a human, growing and getting dimmer with age. I also see in the first paragraph that the moon is lonely and feels like an outcast among its fellow stars which are similar in appearance. It circles the earth day in and day out to see if it can find its forever moon. And as the moon continuously encircles the earth it starts to become dimmer which indicates sadness as mentioned before. In the last two lines of the first stanza, it states that the moon is a joyless eye that finds no object worth its constancy. It is one of a kind but this is not what it desires.       

One of the other reasons that I adore the moon is because even when shrouded with eternal darkness it shines through to depict that even in hate there is love; even in darkness there is light and where there are enemies there are friends. As the sunsets it takes all the hopeful feelings and brightness away from the world leaving darkness and despair in its place. However the earth is not without the light of guidance. The moon takes over and provides a ray of peace. It shows that there is still light at the end of a tunnel and if you follow its light you will find your way.  

Sonnet

The blog post said to, pick a poem from our collection English Romantic Poetry, and defend why you think it's important so I chose, the Sonnet (p.149). The spoke to me because I always think of how the world works and to live each day in the moment because you never know when that day could be over and you would be lost to eternity for all time. In the first line it talks about “Lift not the painted veil in which those who live”. So I feel like it is hard for some people to not liver in the moment because you might miss something extraordinary and if you do live a bit sheltered you are missing out on a world of beauty and you may never ever know the feeling of having the wind on your face or the smell of the salt water against the rocky shores of an tropical island. You will miss the simple things in life that make things great and worth living for. It really showed a sense of inner freedom and the idea that we all have a right to a life of not looking through rose colored glasses. This poem is simple with an edge, a deeper end to an all in world of possibilities. But you have to be willing to stick out your neck for someone or something completely and completely life changing in every way, such as eating Chinese in china on the day of Chinese New Year. You never know what you will get until you risk to know.

A Song to the Men of England

The poem A Song to the Men of England is important to me because of its cry for men and women to stand up and not take being oppressed. This poem encourages men to take a stand and fight against the forces that try and keep them down, or take what they work for. I enjoy things along these lines because of the encouragement it gives people. With this a movement could even possibly be started because it causes people to feel their chains and want to fight them off. To me nothing in this world is worse then when a people is oppressed and losses the inhabitation to fight off the chains and shackles that the over lord power has on the oppressed people. When it comes to inspiration for the underdogs, I will always have a soft spot in my heart like most people would, but for some reason this poem slightly spoke to me. Also, this poem has importance to me because of the power it has and the emotion that it fills you with. This poem fills you with the passion and power to stand up for yourself and take back what the majority has taken from you, and that's what poetry is supposed to do. Poetry is to fill you with a multitude of feelings from depression, to anger, to even pure joy. If it isn't able to do such it really isn't a good or an "important piece of poetry. Then again I could be completely wrong and be over analyzing everything in this poem, but that is yet another great beauty with the ageless art.

Blog post 3

"Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau"

I feel that this poem is important because it shows how our perceptions of the world can be both quick to change, and hard to let go of.  Here, William Blake mocks philosophers like Rousseau and Democritus for choosing to believe in the hard sciences rather than God's power.  He taunts them, telling them that, whatever it is they think, it is ultimately insignificant and meaningless in the grand scheme.  He claims that their ideas are nothing but grains of sand, which will eventually come back and fly in their faces when they see they are wrong.  With Blake attempting to discredit philosophers like Voltaire, we see how hard it can be to give up our perceptions of the world and what we know about it.  Anything that run contrary to our beliefs puts us out of our comfort zone, and makes us irrational.  We see that Blake offers no real argument against Voltaire and Rousseau, rather offering various insults.  At the same time, we see how often it is that out perceptions change.  Blake compares their ideas to grains of sand in a desert.  While Voltaire and Rousseau were two of the more famous thinkers, they were certainly not the first, and they are definitely not the last.  We find that their ideas are one part of the vast collection of human thought throughout history.  This poem is important, because it reminds us that to always be open to ideas that are out of our comfort zone, and to stand by these ideas, even when other people mock them.

A Poison Tree

I felt that "A Poison Tree" was an important poem because it shows the bond and strength that friendship entails. The guy was clearly upset about something that happened with his friend, but instead of holding a grudge, he told his friend and they worked it out. On the other hand, the guy he had a problem with that he was not friends with, he did not tell. Instead of the  feeling just going away, it grew bigger and bigger until it was much more of a deal than it should have been. He ended up killing the guy over an issue that, if he knew the person, he would have talked out with and would have diffused the situation instead of going to extremes. I think it is important too because this also applies to the world we live in today as well. Just recently, a guy killed his girlfriend because he thought she was cheating on him. If they had just talked it out, I do not believe he would have gone to such extremes. A lot of problems that people have with other are solely because they have an issue that grows so big and out of control that it ends up being detrimental when they could have talked it out much earlier.

The Dungeon (pg 62)

The Dungeon is Samuel Coleridge commenting on the way society goes about treating its prisoners. Coleridge debates if a prison or a dungeon is truly the best way to reform/rehabilitate a person who offends against society and this argument is still alive in many forms today. Prisons have been around for a very long time and they seem to make perfect sense; when someone causes harm to someone else or the greater populous, we take them out of the population so they cannot continue to do harm. Coleridge argues that taking these people out of society and surrounding them with other criminals is only causing more harm to that person whereas they should be receiving some sort of support or help. According to Coleridge, prisons deform souls to a point where they were better people before they entered. Colridge’s answer to this problem show the person all the good in the world and all the world has to offer and eventually, the soul in question will be touched by love and beauty and not wish to cause any more harm.

While I may not fully agree with Coleridge on how he thinks prisoners should be helped, I do agree that there is something wrong with the system we have been using. I feel in many aspects prisons are used as a deterrent or forced retribution where they should be used to rehabilitate and help prisoners be able to become productive members of society. I realize there will be outliers and not every can or wants to be helped but that does not mean that everyone who ends up in a prison must be punished so severely.

Rob Bacovin


Blog post 3


Character of the Happy Warrior






                
                      I chose the poem "Character of the Happy Warrior".  When I think of why a poem


would be important I think that it is because the poem says something that is meaningful to who is


reading it or to everyone.  This poem is about a warrior who is everything that a warrior and


man should be.  I think this poem is different from some of the other ones in the collection.  It seems


like a lot of the other poems in this collection are more on the sad and gloomy side.  This is one


reason why I think this poem is important.  The poem goes on talking about this warrior who "every


man in arms should wish to be".  I think this poem is important because it talks about qualities we all


should strive for in our lives.  I think this poem gives good guidelines on how to be a good person. 


The title states that the warrior is happy and I think this is important because the poem is saying that


these virtues and beliefs will lead to some sort of happiness. 

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner pg. 63

“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge tells the story of a sailor and his journey through the Pacific Ocean and his troubles during the adventure. It provides us with the concept of having an albatross around one’s neck. The sailor kills the albatross that he believes is bringing the fog while they are sailing, when in fact it was bringing them wind. As a punishment to remind him of his wrongdoing he says that, “Instead of the cross, the Albatross / About my neck was hung” (67). With the wind no longer moving the ship, the crew of the ship beings to starve and the albatross is hung around the Anceint Mariner’s neck to remind him that he is responsible for the death of his crew and he is punished by watching them die when he is forced to stay alive.

            This poem is important because it provides a moral and an important idiom for the English language. This poem provides a moral to not kill innocent creatures and to love all of God’s creations, when Coleridge said, “he prayeth best, who loveth best / All things both great and small; / For the dear God who loveth us, / He made and loveth all” (81). In this Poem Coleridge provides us with a moral to the tale of the Ancient Mariner that we can all learn from. He provides the idiom of the albatross that is still prevalent in literature and popular culture today in novels such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Bastille’s song “Weight of Living, Pt I”. Because Coleridge provided a story that is still deemed important today in our popular culture and literature and because the moral of his story is still relevant in our society “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is an important poem.  

CIE Blog post 3

                The Poem I have decided to write about is “My Heart Leaps Up” by William Wordsworth. I chose this poem because it delivers a short but simple message that I believe is extremely important but is often forgotten as we grow old. The message I am talking about is not letting the inner child in you die once you become older. Do not let the things that use to excite you and fill your days with joy escape your life. Because as we become older and our lives get more complicated I am sure that all of us could use anything we can to brighten our days, even if it is just a little bit. I also think that, at least for me, this poem kind of relates to the stage I am currently at in my life. In my first year at college, leaving home for the first time, leaving all my friends and family for the first time it can be really easy to feel like I am growing up real quick. And with all the responsibilities that being at college and on my own for the first time brings you have to start to be mature and handle your own responsibilities. Sometimes you forget you are still only 18 years old and really in the prime of your life. when I read this poem I remind myself to relax a little bit, remember to embrace all the small things that make me happy in life, and be a kid.  

'A Poison Tree'

This poem is important because it has a universal message and it’s constructed in a way that supports the storyline. In this poem, the speaker is first angry with their friend, who they confront and relinquish their wrath, and is then angry with an enemy, who the speaker does not confront, and therefore their wrath grows. The speaker cries about the wrath, which makes it build even stronger, but he conceals this with smiles and tricks the enemy into thinking everything is ok. Eventually this anger creates a poisonous apple that the enemy eats and dies from. I think the message is to “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” The key stanza of this poem is the first one: “I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow.” We don’t know why the speaker was angry with these people; maybe what the friend did was easily forgivable, while what the enemy did was inexcusable. All we know is that the speaker presented his anger to his friend, talked it out, moved on, etc., but kept his anger concealed from his enemy. By giving the foe a false sense of security (“And I sunned it with smiles”), the speaker was actually one step ahead of them because he was able to manipulate (“And with soft deceitful wiles”) the enemy to win / pay revenge. The poem has an AABB rhyme scheme and every line is either seven or eight syllables long, so ‘A Poison Tree’ has a beat and is calculated, just like the speaker’s actions toward his enemy are.

"Auguries of Innocence"

"To see the World in a Grain of Sand

and Heaven in a Wild Flower

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour"

Blake presents a never-ending sets of paradoxes  whose imagery juxtaposes all that which is innocent and natural in the world with the unnatural and corrupt introduced by Man. His 'auguries' serve as a metaphorical omen to the disastrous dominant reign that mankind has exerted upon nature; and, in between the lines, the oppression that society has put on those who are innocent and forgotten. The significance of this poem lies in the inevitable consequences that await humanity for its cruel mistreatment of nature, which Blake believes severely strays away from what it means to be human, "He who shall hurt the little Wren // shall never be beloved by Men."

I personally find great meaning in the first stanza (quoted above) because it reminds me of how glorious, the seemingly trivial parts of the universe are, yet often overlooked by most. It serves as a wonderful motto for the appreciation of beauty which pervades the natural world. These days, most young people walk outside with their heads down, staring at the artificial light of smartphone screens.  Even I wonder to myself, how often do people look up at the sky anymore? Would anyone in our CIE section care? In this technological age, there is a widening gap between humans and the environment, accompanied by an increasing desensitization that we have to the existence of this gap,  our indifference to how the Earth is treated. The omen is resounded by environmentalists, climate change activists and naturalists alike--by assuming ourselves as "planetary managers" of the Earth, humans are greedily taking most of its resources in a manner that is inefficient and could have devastating  repercussions for the future of this species, our children. If we covered all of the globe with skyscrapers, would that be ok? A frightening question arises from this corruption of innocence, of whether human morality would be degenerated.

Pawel Kuczynski

"The Garden of Love"

What is important about this poem is that the Garden of Love is reminder to remember our loved ones that have passed on.  In the first stanza it says “A chapel was built in the midst, Where I used to play on the green. … An I saw it was filled with graves, And tomb-stones where flowers should be;” This poem is reminding readers to remember their dead ones, and that their dead ones are loved ones. It is saying don’t just abandon or forget them. Their tomb-stones should have flowers every once in a while to show that they have not been forgotten. The poem then goes on to say, “And binding with briars my joys & desires.” This line shows that there are things left behind when a loved one dies. Deceased love ones, in this line, are our memories. It is that when we remember them, our thoughts are full of joy and happiness to be with them. It is that the memories about deceased loved ones are joyful, remembering how much fun we have. However, they are also full of desires. The desire to have more time with them, to ask them questions that only they can answer. This whole poem is important because it reminds the reader to think of their loved ones and remember them. It is reminding the reader that a graveyard is a “Garden of Love” because everyone there is a loved one for someone else. It is reminding the reader to respect how their deceased ones and to not forget them.

"When I have fears that I may cease to be" A.Basla Blog 3

I believe that "When I have fears that I may cease to be" (p.228) presents some of the most relatable content despite any circumstances. The poem is about the narrator's fear of not being able to accomplish the goals on his checklist before his death. This is quite fitting, due to the fact that John Keats, the poet, unfortunately died young. His fears may stem from the loss of his loved ones from a young age as well. As a poet, one of his obvious worries is to not be able to write all the things he desires and get all of his thoughts down in his own crafted words. Another fear mentioned is the fear of not having this “unreflecting love” or that of “high romance.” His lack of fame and acknowledgement does not go unnoticed by Keats, as it is something he fears he will never get before his death. He pictures the way in which we will watch his life from a shore alone, seeing all the things that he was never able to achieve sink before him.

            I think this poem is incredibly relatable because everyone has this thought, or else they wouldn't try to do anything with their lives. No matter what the things sought after are, we intend on trying for something. Death is our conclusion, and we want our pages full before we reach that point. Keats has always been my favorite poet for his darker and meaningful poems that are conveyed through flowery and purposeful language. I find this poem to be an excellent example of his way of expressing our common fear. 

"I wandered lonely as a cloud" (pgs. 43-44)

I believe this poem is important because it’s applicable to everyday life and makes me think a lot about how I perceive the world. When I was flipping through the book this title caught my attention, and when I read it, it was fairly easy to read and interpret. I think this is because Wordsworth is describing the feared but attainable unknown of our thoughts and actions in the world and how we perceive and present them to society and ourselves.

Because “important” is a subjective term, in this context I’m going to define it as something that can be meaningful to one’s life. I think the main idea that Wordsworth is addressing in this poem is fulfilling loneliness through realization, acceptance and changing.

My interpretation of the “plot” of this poem is as follows: in the beginning he’s expressing lonely thoughts, than he’s following them and realizes that they are everywhere, but mainly in good, relaxing places, and finally he accepts these lonely thoughts and now thinks that they are a part of being happy and okay with yourself in life. Why I think this plot line is applicable and important to lots of peoples lives in general is because I think we all feel lonely at times and wander off, thinking about what to do, where to go, etc. We realize overtime through experience, time and maturity that sad thoughts happen but don’t have to consume us; that there should be more good than bad and that we can take sad and bad situations and deal with them and perceive them in a happy, healthy way. I think that is exactly what Wordsworth is doing with this poem—following his lonely thoughts, accepting them, and being okay and happy with himself in the end of his journey following those thoughts.

Blog post #3 - Post by Tuesday, Feb. 10, 9:00 PM

Post to the blog before Tuesday, Feb. 10 at 9:00 PM.  Pick a poem from our collection English Romantic Poetry, and defend why you think it's important.  (What is meant by "important" is part of what you should state and defend.)

Remember that the first sentence of your 250-300 word blog post should be the thesis statement of your whole post.

Place your post on the blog's main page (not as a comment to this post).

Ashley's Rights

I believe that Ashley's rights would have been violated if she was a perfectly capable human being that was able to consciously make the decisions for herself. Just like how people can violate other's rights I believe it is possible for us to violate or own rights especially if we aren't in control of our body or know our rights. From what I understood about the article the surgeries were made to benefit not only the caregiver but Ashley herself. Up to a certain point I believe that depending on your age (this is an idealistic view) you kinda forfeit your rights to your parents. This is a belief made with the hope and assumption that the parents are responsible and truly care about the child. In that case I believe they would do anything they need in order to make sure that their children are safe and healthy. At that young of an age children do know what they want but not always what they need and at such an age what they want may actually be harmful to themselves. only when they are older do they understand the value of a life and how to preserve it. I believe it is at that point that they would be able to make decisions for themselves; however in the article I believe that it says Ashley mind has not grown past the level of a toddler's even if she physically has grown mentally as a human she is still a baby which is why I feel the decision should stay within the parent's hands.

Ashley's Rights

I feel that Ashely's rights were not violated. The surgeries would be considered inhumane to me if she was a normal girl, but because she has very little mental and physical capabilities, it makes it much more easier and convenient for her parents to take care of her. Plus, Ashley does not have the ability to make tough decisions like this for herself; her parents have to do everything for her regardless of what size she is. It is much more convenient for Ashley's parents to take care of her at a smaller size than try to transport and take care of a grown women from about 16 years old until the rest of their lives. Her rights were not violated because it was done for Ashley's well being. Being smaller allows her parents to be able to take care of her with less struggles of taking care of a grown up. The surgeries were done without the consent of Ashley, but she obviously would not be able to have a say because she cannot think at that level. If John Locke had a say in this case, he would not even consider Ashley to have rights because she does not have the mental capabilities that most people have. So if her parents want to stunt Ashley's growth in order to better take care of her in an easier fashion, then I do not believe Ashley's rights were violated.

Ashley's Rights

Given the circumstances of Ashley’s case her rights were not violated. Ashley is a minor living with her parents as her primary caregivers and with her physical disability and her mental condition, the decision for the surgeries was her parent’s rather than hers. Her rights would be violated if she was eighteen or over and was fully capable of making her own decisions. Also, her parents made their decisions in her best interest. While some might say the decision to keep her at a smaller size was a violation of her rights and was for the convenience of her parents. While it is true that it is more convenient for her parents to have her at this size; however, their convenience has to be a factor in the decision making process because if it is more difficult for them to transport her and bathe her then it can make them do it less which in turn would prevent them from caring for her as well and keeping up her basic hygiene. As for the other surgeries which some again say violate her rights were also done in her best interest. Some said the surgeries were inhumane and violated her basic right to gender identity. This is true it does partially take away a large part of her identity; however, if it is for her protection and for the convenience of her caregivers so that they can take better care of her then it is acceptable. While arguments can be made for both sides of the case it, Ashley’s rights were not violated.

Does The Ashley Treatment violate Ashley's rights?

Ashley X, known by her parents as their "Pillow Angel." 

Ashley's rights would be violated, if she had the mental capacity to exert the full extent of her rights. This would seem to be a troubling statement; as if to say: Ashley, as a disabled individual, has less rights than that of a normally functioning human being. However, Ashley will always have the mind of a three month old girl, incapable of thought processes that would lead to making her own decisions. In many developed countries, it is widely recognized that 'normal' children are too young to make their own decisions until the age of 16-21; and often, parental consent is required for many activities which are not already set by a legal age limit due to a child's poorly developed sense of judgment. In Ashley's case, she could never be able to make her own decision, so her parents have the right to govern her as long as their decision are made in her best interest in regards to her health and well-being.

 As her caretakers, Ashley's parents can make decisions for Ashley without her consent. They were acting in her best interest: instead of "abandoning her to the wolves," (as Peter Singer describes the Western culture's raising of children to flee from the nest into the adult world) they are improving her quality of life in the future. Ashley is not the same as other children--she will never be able "to grow up," to mature from her infantile mindset, and therefore would be incredibly unprepared for the struggles that arrive with female adulthood. The treatment protects Ashley's health and happiness, by preventing the onset of the menstrual cycle and other complications. It could be said that Ashley has had her reproductive rights taken away from her--however, mothers with profoundly irreparable brain damage would be a harm to their child, as they are unable to take care of themselves. It could be said that Ashley's ability to have the freedom of gender self-identification would be taken away; however, she is again not of the mental capacity or self-awareness, as other children wouldn't be at that age of psychosocial development, to understand such a concept.

Therefore, as an individual who will always presumably be a child, I think Ashley's rights are not violated because they do not encompass those of a fully functioning, mature adult. I recognize that Ashley is a human being, with the ability to feel emotion and have good taste in Italian music (I read she likes Andrea Bocelli); however children do not have the same rights as adults and do not earn an expanded sense of dignity until they grow older. I do not think the Ashley Treatment degrades Ashley or hurts her dignity--if anything, her dignity is recognized by amount of care put into sustaining her life, the fact that she is still alive and has people who prioritize her life.

 It would be unjustified if it was a treatment fundamentally for cosmetic purposes but this seems to come from a basis that it would benefit her health, as the medical benefits are evident. Rather, an objection would be that another possible motive exists: of physically retaining the innocence through a child's body, by preventing her from growing for the sake of the parents not having to face the psychological consequences of what would be an inevitable dilemma. The concept of the "pillow angel" exemplifies this possibility in their having personal motive for the treatment, outside of their specific care for Ashley, because the fear of the ultimate realization that the individual they see with their eyes as their child is in the body of a full-grown woman...to them it could be embarrassing for Ashley's perception or, they reason, traumatic in terms of the ways she could be taken advantage of.

In conclusion, the Ashley treatment would be a violation of Ashley's rights if she was conscious enough to understand and refuse the operations her parents decided to have had performed on her. Yet, her condition itself prevents such comprehension. The treatment serves to aid her and add means of substance to her life; in no way does it physically or emotionally harm her or her range of feasible freedom given the mental incapacity she is in.

Pillow angel

The issue of whether or not it was right for Ashley's parents to give  her all of the procedures that they put her through is a huge conflict. In my opinion the parents were in the complete right for putting their child through these procedures simply because they were only doing so for her comfort. Every thing that they did was to make her life easier and more comfortable for her. The reduced height procedures were to make her more comfortable and making it easier to transport her so that she could be more part of the family. Also the height reduction would keep her from undergoing the pains of growth which would be miserable for her. The breast reduction surgery was necessary because of her families history of large breasts and the growth and development of such would out her through a great amount of pain and discomfort. Her comfort was of up most importance because of her state that she was in. With her not being able to move or talk she needed to be in the most comfort especially since she would never be able to communicate her pain. This situation would have been completely different if Ashley weren't in the mental and physical state that she was. IF she was able to communicate but not able to move I'm sure she would still want everything that happened to her so that she would be comfortable. Her parents were just always looking out for her and making sure that she could be as comfortable as possible, which in no way was violating any rights of hers or in anyway making her parents selfish.

Blog 2 - Ashley

If Ashley had been completely mentally healthy and her parents decided against her will to go through with the treatment, then Ashley’s rights would have been violated, no question. But because Ashley has the mental capacity of a three month old and is incapable (from what I understand) of speaking, thinking, etc., she is under complete control of her parents, and they chose to go through with this treatment to IMPROVE Ashley’s life, therefor I don’t think her rights were violated. Ashley’s parents want to freeze their daughter in time and essentially keep her as a child forever, so that 1. her mental and physical ages are closer together and 2. so that they can care for her more easily. From what I understand, Ashley’s condition will never improve over time, period. So stunting her growth can only be seen as beneficial to me because it almost ensures that she will be well taken care of by her parents and by caregivers after her parents pass away. As for the removal of Ashley’s uterus and breast buds…it gets a little dicey. I don’t personally see the benefit of going through all that trouble just to avoid POSSIBLE menstrual discomfort and POSSIBLE breast discomfort. One of the parents’ reasons for removing her breast buds was that she would have had large breasts and that “’could sexualize Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.’” Seriously? I think instead of pulling these arguments out of their asses, the parents should have just stated that they felt it would be best for Ashley to keep her prepubescent body and kept it at that. But the bottom line is, the parents thought this treatment would benefit their daughter who cannot speak for herself, and I have to respect their decision.