There is a consistency between the need to kill a loved one’s murderer and that of being against capital punishment. Said consistency finds basis in the emotional involvement of the news recipient in the matter at hand. In addition, their ability to think rationally when faced by the circumstances plays a role in the level upon which everyone acts on their emotions. The idea of losing a loved one because of natural causes or an accident is hard for every person to process. However, having a life of one’s loved one taken in the hands of a murderer is even harder, if not impossible, to accept. Consequently, in the instance of a murdered family member, it is safe to argue that the need for vengeance and retribution are the leading emotions among those left alive. It is important to note that, a loved one need not be one’s family member as lovers, and close friends may influence the same reactions. Hence, at the knowledge of harm befalling those close to the recipient of the news, there are several possible reactions. Shock may be first and, as the brain processes the news, anger comes next followed by righteous retribution. At this point, if a person acts on their immediate emotions, it is possible for them to carry out the aforementioned threat and kill the murderer.
The views on capital punishment vary amongst people. Again, the level at which a person is emotionally attached to the circumstances is a great determinant of the overall reaction to the death penalty. In other words, if the convict on death row is a stranger, almost all of the public shall be uninformed of the situation unless they develop a particular interest in the case. For instance, if television stations carry the news of the execution, the public gains interest because of the awareness. In such a case, rather than appear heartless, almost everyone shall pity the inmate and even imagine the emotional turmoil their relatives are experiencing. The reactions find basis in the unemotional attachment of the recipients. In other words, people do not know the murder victim or their family members and close relatives. However, they know the murderer because he or she is on the news, wearing prison uniform and heading to their death. At this point, sympathy is a plausible feeling thus the notion of being against the death penalty. After all, people empathize with their fellow human beings leading to the previously mentioned instance of sympathy for a convicted murderer.
Therefore, based on the emotional attachment of the speaker, the need to kill an individual who harms their loved ones and that to speak against the concept of the death penalty are acceptable.
Watching pornography entails the act of viewing movies in which people engage in sexual intercourse as a form of entertainment for the spectator. Otherwise referred to as Voyeurism, the watching of pornography does not call for the participation of a third party. However, one can choose to masturbate to attain sexual gratification like the actors. Nagel’s definition of sexual perversion finds basis on three categories set by the philosopher (9). First, the sexual practices or desires must be unnatural for them to be perverse (Nagel 9). Finding the basis on the understanding of pornography, one can achieve sexual gratification alone or without the buildup of mutual desire. The second category finds basis in the notion of using unnatural objects as a way of gaining satisfaction (Nagel 9). However, if intercourse takes place without any form of adornment then it is not perverse. In this case, the philosopher calls for the utilization of natural means, thus, gaining a connection to the first step. Finally, yet importantly, is the understanding of sexual inclinations such as homosexuals who are attracted to members of the same sex (Nagel 9). When unnatural sexual inclinations are present, then the sexual act is perverse.
The watching of pornography is a tricky subject in relation to Nagel’s explanations. Pornography provides sexual stimulation to the viewers by enacting desirable sexual acts but fails to offer any degree of intimacy to said viewers. Consequently, the nature of a pornographic film is the first determinant of whether or not the act is perverse. For instance, if the pornographic scenes contain bisexuals, the use of sex toys, or masturbation, then the film is considerably of the perverse nature. In other words, unnatural sexual acts, such as masturbation, include the self-gratification of a lone person thus meeting part of Nagel’s criteria. At the same time, the use of toys meets the use of unnatural objects and can encourage the same in the mind of the spectator. Pornography encourages both acts especially when an individual watches such films alone. The final characteristic of a sex pervert revolves around the sexual inclinations of the same. In this case, when a pornographic film entails same gender sex relations then it is of a perverted nature. It is also safe to argue that masturbation is unnatural as the act entails self-gratification, which in turn, leads to sex inclinations. Hence, when a person chooses to masturbate, they seek satisfaction from themselves instead of a partner with equal desire.
Therefore, there are no means of determining the perversion of pornography in Nagel’s analysis. The confusion is present because there are many factors in play in the determination of the perverse nature of the act. There is the type of pornography film, the viewers, and the final effects of watching the movies.
In “Martin Luther King, Jr., and the American Dream” Meyers affirms civil disobedience “as a means of protesting unjust positive laws” (8). Consequently, it is important to note that King’s assessment of civil disobedience found basis in the fight for basic rights including the rights to vote (Meyers 9). Edward Snowden‘s actions meet King’s criteria of civil disobedience as his actions were a revelation to a breach in most of the privacy of most of the United States’ citizens. Harding’s article show Snowden’s mistake as coming clean on the interception of telephone calls the United States’ government at a global scale (How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA Contractor to Whistleblower). About Snowden’s actions, an act of civil disobediences is evident in the sense that, the aforementioned interception of phone calls is a violation of privacy. The declaration of human rights entails a right to privacy in which citizens can maintain a degree of secrecy in their lives as long as they do not disturb the peace. In other words, people have a right to make private phone calls, and a breach to this right is a breach in the general rights entitled to all humans.
A possible counterargument to the actions of Snowden is the nation’s need to protect its citizens, and a phone call interception could aid in such an endeavor. For instance, with the war on terror, there is more pressure on the United States government to prevent terrorist’s attacks. Similar to many people in the Twenty-first century, terrorists use phones to communicate, and an interception of such a phone call might help prevent the devastating outcomes of an attack. However, the problem arises in the violation of privacy. It is different to walk into a supermarket, knowing there are Surveillance Cameras, and still decide to go on with grocery shopping. Going into one’s home means that said person has gained some privacy from the outside world. Intercepting phone calls violates the ideology of privacy and in turn, a violation of basic human rights. In addition, the actions of Snowden are not selfish in the sense that, he disclosed the truth to create awareness among American citizens. In addition, the responses to the reports show a majority of the American citizens raging over the violation of their privacy and their lives.
Thus, Snowden’s actions do qualify as civil disobedience as understood by King. While the latter fought to have rights to vote, the former fought in favor of simple phone calls without the listening in of those in power. Hence, Snowden’s action did break his employer’s trust but gained that of many more for his deeds. In addition, said employers went against the trust of the United States’ citizens, therefore, warranting Snowden’s actions.
Works Cited
Harding, Luke. "How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA contractor to whistleblower." The Guardian 1 February 2014. Web.
Myers, Peter C. "Martin Luther King, Jr., and the American Dream." First Principles Series Foundational Concepts to Guide Politics and Policy No.50 (2014): 1-21. Print.
Nagel, Thomas. "Sexual Perversion." Soble, Alan. The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings Fourth Edition. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2002. 9-20. Print.
