Adopted in November, 2001, the Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Convention on the Protection of Underwater Culture Heritage only came into force in 2009 when the 20th nation, Barbados, ratified it. Designed to complement the 1982 UN Law of the Seas (which failed to mention shipwrecks) the purpose of the convention is to emphasize “the need for preservation, management, scientific management, and public education of underwater culture heritage.” (Staniforth) And by underwater culture heritage, the Convention means, “all traces of human existence having a historical or archaeological character that have been partially or totally underwater for at least 100 years”. Since 2009, 20 more nations have ratified this convention adding up to a total of 40 nations, of which major seafaring nations like UK, France, Russia, China and the US are not included. States are responsible for ships in their territorial waters but for wrecks in international waters a number of "interested parties" could be involved.
In September, the UK Department for Transport awarded Odyssey Marine Exploration the salvage contract of 200 tonnes of silver, worth up to £150m, from the SS Gairsoppa, which was sunk by a German U-Boat in 1941. The UK Ministry of War Transport paid an insurance loss of approximately £325,000 at the time for silver bars lost with the ship. Under the salvage contract, the British government will take 20% of the net yield, but Unesco argues that the contract rebelled against the nature of the convention, to which the British did not sign.
As defined by the Webster-Merriam dictionary, archaeology is defined as,”the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities and remains of the culture of a people.”Archaeology is the study of past human culture through artifacts. Archaeologists are not interested in the artifacts themselves but rather, the relationship between these objects and the things that can tell us about the people who made and used them. (Staniforth) That being said, professional archaeologists do not engage in the buying, selling and valuing of artifacts, as commercial exploitation (treasure hunting) is considered “unethical and detrimental to maritime archaeology” The issue at hand is that the attitude towards exploration of wreck is widely out of line with the attitude people treat towards heritage uncovered on land. These priceless human footprints are part of our common heritage in the same way as heritage on land. "The looting of the tombs of Tutankhamen is now considered unacceptable, so why the looting of shipwrecks is considered acceptable?" says Unesco's Tim Curtis. The convention was created to address this issue, to raise awareness about the importance of preserving our underwater heritage as much as our heritage on land. The nations that have agreed to ratify the convention represent only 5% of the world’s coastline, a number very insignificant.
Why aren’t the major seafaring nations agreeing to ratify this convention then? Robert Yorke, chairman of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, states that the real reason the government and the Ministry of Defense in particular, is not ratifying the convention is because of misplaced fear about the implications of the British warships around the world. Under the Military Remains Act 1986, specific British warships are protected and prohibited from foreign interference. The British are afraid that by ratifying the convention, those ships will be taken away and placed under foreign care. But instead of aiming to protect their heritage, such as that on the SS Gairsoppa, they signed a contract that allowed Odyssey Marines to board the cargo vessel and destroy what they should be protecting and preserving.
This issue also raises important ethical question of, “are archaeologists considered unethical when they engage in the buying, selling, valuing of artifacts?” Archaeologists are supposed to work towards the preservation and management of archaeological resources and to treat human remains with dignity. Sanctions are apparently in place for professionals who do not follow the lines of these terms. But more than that, treasure hunting is destroying what we know as our underwater heritage. When the objective is to uncover as much “loot” in the shortest amount of time possible (as the robot divers are very expensive, around $50,000 (£32,000) a day), they can’t possibly afford to go through the artifacts one by one, as a detailed excavation would involve, because that could take years. But in this way, much information about the cargo and the crew is lost, and much information about our past is left uncovered.
I believe that nations worldwide, especially the major seafaring ones, should agree to ratify this convention because preserving our heritage and culture should be a priority to every human being. Instead of agreeing to divide and go after our history as if it’s something that’s only significant in its monetary value, we should fight towards protecting the heritage of our ancestors and respect the ones that came before us.
Recently, one of the four branches of Singapore's PS Café banned children under 13 years of age from dining there, while the other 3 branches are “children-friendly”. According to CNNgo, Mr. Edward Lee, the chain’s business development manager said that “while it was a difficult decision, it was implemented from a practical and safety point of view”. The children are banned for "disturbing the peace" by being too loud or mischievous. For some, the ruling seems to separate families and does not seem fair, while others find it reasonable as they find it tedious to dine with screaming children. Other restaurants around Singapore have done the same by banning children under a certain age, such as the Kuriya Penthouse and Gunther's Modern French Cuisine.
The issue may bring up a few questions. Do restaurants have the right to ban certain customers from dining in the premises? Is this not a violation of freedom? Is it discriminating? Is age the true problem? The ways of knowledge involved are language and sense perception. As expected, the decision resulted in different opinions addressing these questions.
YAY: Many of those who agree with the new rule quickly embrace the change completely. All the restaurants previously mentioned are pricey, not as casual restaurants that many parents escape to after a long, exhausting day with their children. CNNgo interviewed Patricia Chong, a mother of two teenagers herself, who agreed with the ban. Her opinion is that if parents pay for a babysitter to take care of their "screaming kids" while they're enjoying their night out, "the last thing [they] want is to encounter it during [their] hard-earned meal or date". In a restaurant like PS Cafe or even Kuriya Penthouse, where the atmosphere is quiet and comforting, a single child crying could break the entire mood. Restaurants do have a right to ban patrons under a certain age, just as formal restaurants have a right to ban patrons that are not dressed in formal attire. It defeats the purpose of the atmosphere they have set for the diners.
NAY: Although there are definitely some benefits to this decision, others question whether or not that is fair. For families who want to enter an environment together (that is, adults with their children), such limitations can provide problems and give them an unwanted feeling within the community. They may feel that they are discriminated against because a family member is of a certain age. The age limit is also an issue. Why 13 for PS Café, or 7 for Gunther's? Does it mean that your children haven't matured mentally until the exact day they have reached their 13th or 7th birthday? Are all 8 year olds "mature" enough that they won't be loud as to disturb the rest of the patrons? The age someone matures at differs for everyone. Some also argue that the restaurants shouldn't blame the children for their mannerisms as it is discriminating. Parents should be held responsible for their childrens' behaviour and should better discipline them because some children cannot help but act that way.
I personally agree with this rule completely. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban children from top-notch, pricier restaurants. They are not as "family themed" as American restaurants like Denny's or Applebee's. They are more likely to be choices for a fancy date or a night away from the quick, tiring lifestyle many adults have. To an extent, I agree the child is not completely to blame, as parents should teach their children proper etiquette for fine or formal dining. However, I'm sure it's difficult to control a child under 7 or so throwing a temper tantrum as it's their nature to do so. If this rule did not exist, it's also unfair for the child. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for the child if he or she was forced to avoid making any noise. Quiet children definitely do exist, but they seem rare, as I have spent too many times clutching my ears in pain as children start screaming in quiet restaurants or even airplanes that I begin to stare down any child that I suspect would burst out crying for no reason at all. These restaurants have obviously put up with screaming children already and maybe even have politely asked some to leave, and I trust that there must have been one too many incidents with children that they are forced to enforce this rule. As mentioned before, only one of the PS Café locations have implemented this ban. Then, children can experience dining at the restaurant at the other locations and the Ang Siang Hill branch can be enjoyed by adults seeking peace and quiet. Perhaps some restaurants can set up a separate room for children (kind of like a "childrens' play area" that can sometimes be seen in McDonald's), but this can be a question of safety to the children since they must always be supervised. Another possible alternative is allowing children at breakfast and lunch time but making it exclusive to teenagers and adults for dinner.
Another similar issue is the prohibiting smoking in certain areas, such as restaurants or even around buildings. Smoking may be pleasurable to the smoker, but not everyone wants to suffer from their enjoyment. Many people agree with this choice, saying that they choose not to smoke because they don't want to damage their lungs, and so why would they want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke? Going somewhere more appropriate to smoke that wouldn't affect the health of others would be a reasonable solution for everyone.
The FLDS Church practices polygamy, with leader Jeffs indoctrinating all girls to worship him, and training them to service men – especially himself – sexually, in order to atone for the sins of the community. Disobedience would result in rejection from God. He has arranged 550 bigamous marriages, has 78 wives, 29 of which are the wives of his father and predecessor, 56 of which are sisters and 24 of which are under the age of 17, thus creating a “pervasive” pattern of sexual abuse. He has a history of drugging women who attempt to flee his territory of control, and freely reassigns wives and children to other men. He has been previously convicted in Utah on two counts of being accomplice to rape, after forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin. After viewing several “horrific” sex tapes and the testimony of Jeffs’s nephew, who accused Jeffs of sexually abusing him as a 5-year-old, it took the jurors less than half an hour to sentence Jeffs to life plus 20 years in prison. Jeffs chose to represent himself, insisting that he was the “humble servant of God,” and that he deserved constitutional protection for representing a religious organization. He frequently invoked religious freedom as defense.
There are several issues involved here: language, ethics, and the limitations of perception. Does the government have the right to interfere with an individual’s religious beliefs, and to infringe upon their rights? What is religion? Are we entitled to judge the practices of a different culture? Should Warren Steed Jeffs have been convicted?
Freedom of religion is the right of any individual or community to believe, practice and worship as they so choose, and is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. It has been established to counter religious intolerance dating back to the Crusades of the 11th Century, including the persecution of Jews and Muslims by the Spanish Inquisition, the Wars of Religion between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the Arab-Israeli Wars, as well as the strong militant connotations almost synonymous with terrorism, that jihad – the sixth pillar of Islam –has accrued over the past few years. But perhaps the most notorious instance is that of the Holocaust, during which Adolf Hitler ordered the mass murder of six million European Jews. These are all examples of groups that have denounced all other religions, attempted to impose their own beliefs on others, with brutal consequences. Thus, to deny Jeffs religious freedom would be to embark towards a world where the discrimination, violence, and inhumanity exhibited by Nazi Germany would be condoned and displayed.
Furthermore, the government’s involvement in depriving its citizen of one of his freedoms is suggestive of despotic behavior. Citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are prohibited from exercising their freedoms of speech and press, and are exposed only to a limited scope of information that favors the regime. Due to severe curtailing of economic and political freedoms, North Korea also boasts of one of the lowest human rights records on the planet, with numerous concentration camps and the liberal application of capital punishment upon defectors. Admittedly, this is an extreme example and it is highly unlikely that the United States of America will dissolve into anything remotely resembling the North Korean state. Yet it makes the important point that convicting Warren Steed Jeffs for his religious beliefs may be a small step, but one towards a slippery slope of tyranny and oppression – by allowing one individual freedom to be restricted is to surrender the integrity of the American Constitution, which makes the absolute declaration to defend the freedom of speech, of press, of peaceful assembly and the freedom to exercise any religion under its First Amendment. The structure of democratic society would collapse.
However, while arguing that the government has a responsibility to protect Jeffs’s right to religious freedom, the rights of his 78 wives, as well as those of other women – more girls, really – whom he has manipulated into lifestyles of sexual servitude, must also be considered. By simply glossing over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is apparent that Jeffs has violated at least half of the 30 Articles of the Declaration, such as the right not to be “subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” the right “to freedom of movement,” and the right to enter marriage “only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses,” not to mention International Human Rights Treatises such as the one dedicated to “Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” and the “Rights of the Child,” which protects children from abuse or exploitation. Just in terms of numbers, it’s not extremely difficult to deduce whether it is the Texas jurors or Jeffs who committed the greater violation of human rights. Also, the severity of the violation must be considered, and involvement in hundreds of instances of sexual abuse affects a greater number of people and leaves more devastating mental and emotional damage, than introducing Jeffs to celibacy and a cell, even if it does infringe upon his freedom of religion. Thus, I would say that a government may interfere with the freedoms of an individual, if that individual is violating the freedoms of others especially in a way that is physically or emotionally harmful (though I’m not sure you can interfere with someone’s freedoms in a way that wouldn’t be).
Something else that should be considered is whether it is accurate for Jeffs to claim that his religious freedom is being contested. Religion is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a personal set or institutionalized of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices,” in “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.” It is possible that Jeffs actually had faith in his carnal antidote for sin (ironic), because he was brought up to believe that he was a prophet and ordained for preferential treatment. At the same time, though the specific details of FLDS Church doctrine were not included in the article, there is nothing to suggest that God considers it necessary for women to be married against their will, forced to have sex against their will, or that they must be underage. Therefore, Jeffs’s actions do not appear to be directed towards achieving any spiritual end, but instead towards pure, sexual gratification. Again, this cannot be confirmed without entering Jeffs’s mind, but it is a fact that in a “chilling” journal entry seized by authorities, Jeffs writes that, “if the world knew what I was doing, they would hang me from the highest tree,” meaning that he is not unaware that his behavior is condemnable. If this is the case, then his actions were not inspired by religion and deserve no constitutional protection.
Lastly, there exists the dilemma framed in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s quote: “If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.” In other words, human beings have a tendency to reject or demean anything that is different from what we are accustomed to. In her YouTube video, “In My Language,” Autism Rights Activists Amanda Baggs addresses the general consensus that autistic people are inferior because their unique forms of expression (caressing objects, making clicking noises, bodily contortions, etc.) suggest that they are not capable of legitimate communication. Baggs demolishes this misconception by ending her strange video with a commentary in sophisticated English, arguing that though she is obviously a complex and mentally competent individual, this is not recognized until she learns a conventional language, meaning that it is only to conformity and familiarity that we award merit and status. Such evidence implies that our understanding of the world is severely limited and we are therefore not qualified to deprecate everything that we do not understand. Having not grown up under FLDS doctrine, how can the Texas jurors be sure that it is a harmful lifestyle? We must then recognize the possibility that the FLDS Church functions successfully and wholesomely as a community.
The problem with this argument is that sex against someone’s will, underage marriage and polygamy is not as alien to human culture as communicating by rubbing books against faces (“In My Language”). In fact, human history is inundated by such examples: rape has accompanied war before the sack of Rome in 410 to the Nanking Massacre in 1937, in the Middle East, some girls are married when they are as young as 8 years old, the Forbidden City is rumored to have housed thousands of imperial concubines, and the sultan’s harem was typically composed of up to 500 women. Yet these practices are no longer widespread, nor tolerated by most of the world because they are sexist, unjust, and in many instances, cruel. As a species, human beings have experienced these characteristics of Jeffs’s community, and discarded them in order to become a better society. This means that the argument above is not valid and it is highly unlikely that the FLDS Church is anything remotely successful and wholesome. Reports of wives attempting to escape and members of the community defecting for the safety of themselves and their loved ones attest to this fact.
Based on these conclusions - that the government may override the freedoms of its citizens in order to protect the freedoms of others, that Jeffs's actions deserve no constitutional protection, and that the lifestyle he advocates has been tested and found wanting by our ancestors - I would say that Jeffs should definitely be convicted for his crimes.
Relevant examples include the controversy of outlawing abortion or euthanasia: in order to protect every person’s right to live, abortion and euthanasia is prohibited in numerous states. At the same time, this is a violation of a woman’s rights to her body, and every person’s right to die a dignified death.
At Cern, the world’s largest physics lab, results suggest that subatomic particles have gone faster than the speed of light. Unless the study is proven otherwise, modern science as we know it will never be the same again. The speed of light is known to be the universe’s ultimate speed limit, and based on Albert Einstein’s theory of spatial relativity; modern physics depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it. In the course of the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles arrived at the destination 60 billionths of a second earlier than they would have if they travelled at the speed of light. Although this is only a minute difference, it is a consistent one says the lead researcher. “The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 16, 000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery.”
Apart from being a potentially ground-breaking discovery that will render many research based on the speed of light being the limit obsolete, Cern’s research also addresses in regards to epistemology, the justifications of knowledge. How do we know that what we know is, and will always be true? Do age, education, culture and experience influence selection of data and formation of knowledge claims? How can we decide what ought to be checked further? Based on this research, it seems that man’s notion to what constitutes knowledge and legitimate information is flawed, and prone to sudden outbreaks like this, in which data from a research puts decades of studies under jeopardy.
Issues being debated
-How do we know that what we know is, and will always be true?
-Do age, education, culture and experience influence selection of data and formation of knowledge claims?
-How can we decide what ought to be checked further?
In the field of science, everything that we allegedly ‘know’ comes from inductive reasoning – reasoning that evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations. There are four steps to inductive reasoning, observation, analysis, inference, and confirmation. The assumption that inductive reasoning is based upon, is that a constant, or at least a constant range, exists. This contrasts directly with what is being debated in that unless we continuously experiment, we can never say for certain that the data is accurate enough for a legit conclusion. In the article, Cern says that their research has “reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery”. Cern does a good job in choosing language wisely, in that his use of semantics makes it so that readers know that it acknowledges the potential deviation and even regression to the mean. But the question still stands in that we have no way of knowing if the level of significance as dictated by the scientific circle is significant enough for application. There are always outliers to an experiment, and this article fails to discuss them except briefly, and very vaguely.
This leads to the question of whether or not there is a certain bar of significance that must be crossed for data from an experiment to become applicable. The realistic answer is never, because it is outside of human capacity to be able to take sets of data for an infinite amount of years, and condense that to a period of two to three years. However, if all discoveries have reached a level of significance as approved of the scientific circle, we can rest assured that we are as certain of particles being able to exceed the speed of light, as we are certain of global warming. I believe that all scientific experiments can never reach the level of certainty amounting to that of ‘precise’, or ‘accurate’, and the ideal situation, would be to have these experiments constantly running, with the results constantly being recorded and analyzed. That way, we can be the most certain with our assumptions, because we know that the study is still being conducted, and will continue to be conducted, so any minute change will be discovered immediately.
This issue is very similar to the discovery of tevatron particles, in which the results from the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) could not be confirmed by its other detector. The two articles share the same underlying issue in regards to justification of knowledge in that the flaw of inductive reasoning is exposed for public scrutiny. Fermilab based their results from one Collider Detector, and published their result without confirmation with others, and was soon proven to be just experimental error. Basically, the issue of justification of knowledge is what is being disputed in that there can never be enough results to prove a point. We only know what we find from doing experiments.
According to CNN, a university student in Iran called Puyan Mahmudian was rejected for a Masters degree in the University of Amirkabir. The reason behind this was not due to academics, in fact, he scored the sixth highest marks in his year group in entrance exams; instead, it was his political background. In the year of 2007, Mahmudian had previously been kept in solitary confinement for being the editor of a student magazine that was critical of the government. Many people like Mahmudian were in jail for 50 days suffering both physical and mental torture. After 80 days, they were forced to videotape a confession inside prison announcing their apologies to the president for defaming Islam and to sign a guarantee that they wouldn’t continue any political/social/cultural activities once returned to university. During the 50 days of imprisonment, Mahmudian went on a hunger strike for 11 days to be allowed to make one phone to his mother to tell her he was okay. Even though the judiciary admitted that these students had nothing to do with the forged publication, the Middle East Director of Human Rights Watch, Sarah Lean Whitson, pointed out that the Iranian authorities used the flimsiest of pretexts to arrest student journalist.
The area of knowledge discussed here are ethics and human rights. The idea of violating some ethics raised a question: Do we treat a man differently based on his political background, academics, or neither? Basically, the moral issues of letting a piece of paper determine a man’s future? In the article, it showed that Mahmudian, an extremely hard working student, was rejected by the University of Amirkabir due to his false criminal records. However, how did a college applicant administrator assume that he/she had the ability to predict that Mahmudian would be a negative influence to the school environment? Relating this idea to the fact that humans perceived concrete facts far more seriously than a verbal translation, it showed that one bad record that wasn’t even fully investigated had the power to destroy Mahmudian’s academic career. Again, was it possible to say that one could decide to like or detest another person just by their personal background information? Based on this incident, the answer was yes, however, that wasn’t necessarily true.
Speaking of human rights, the right to have the freedom of speech was extremely controversial. Based on the facts presented in the article, Mahmudian wrote articles that expressed the student’s opinions on the government; as soon as they realized that the Iran authorities felt offended, they circulated forged editions of their publications containing offensive articles. When the students were sent to court for their charges, the Judiciary admitted that these students had nothing to do with forged publications. In other words, all of their articles published in the student magazine only presented opinions on the pro and cons of the government and not just emphasizing the cons. Also, regarding the solitary confinement that Mahmudian went through, it violated some human rights as well. Based on the human rights in Iran, free speech, press, and assembly does not exist. Iran is basically a fundamentalist religious regime that contains no secular concept of law whatsoever. Following this set of human rights in Iran, it was reasonable to say that Mahmudian got what he deserved. However, comparing this situation in the United States, the American Declaration of Independence clearly stated that human rights like freedom of speech was recognized ever since 1776.
In my opinion, Mahmudian was absolutely innocent. Speaking out and presenting his own thoughts to improve the government through a student magazine was a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, regarding the ethics in the area of knowledge, I think that a man should not be judged just by a piece of paper. There were several characteristics of Mahmudian that couldn’t be described explicitly through language; perhaps, the only way to truly understand him was through communication over a long period of time to determine whether of not he would be a negative influence to the University of Amirkabir.
This issue was very similar to the debate of whether or not certain shows that contains a large amount of sexually explicit language should be banned or not. For instance, according to “The Telegraph” news, it said that Russia government suggest Russia children to avoid American cartoons like South Park, The Simpsons and Family guy; instead, Russia children should watch programmes teaching them patriotism, family values, and the importance of sport. Basically, both issues presented itself with an issue addressing the fact that there was never a precise definition for human rights because it was varied in different countries.
Klare and Edda Belly-dancing, a photograph by American photographer Nan Goldin, depicts two small girls dancing, one of them naked. Both of their legs were spread out. This was displayed as part of a 139-image collection in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. This piece was removed from the gallery by police, and it is up to the Crow Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to prosecute under the 1978 Protection of Children Act that prohibits showing "indecent" photographs of children. There is debate over whether this art piece is pornography or not.
The question: What point-of-view defines the true message, nature, or theme of a piece of art? The view of the creator? Or the view of the audience? In this case, while the artist might purely intend to capture a
realistic moment of children playing around, some of the audience sees it as sexual, and could appeal to people that are sexually-attracted to children. However, if the artist does not intend the piece to be pornographic, does that mean it's not pornographic? Or is the reaction of the viewer more important?
The area of knowledge involved is The Arts . For art, it again goes back to the question of what defines art. When something is labeled "art", does it mean it is free of all crime? Art can be literally anything. In the Goldin case, the art piece is bluntly a photo of naked children. By context the photo breaks the law. However, the artist is using it to convey thoughts. Goldin is an renowned photographer, and many of her works feature nudity with deep themes of love, gender, emotions, and at times sexuality. Her works are exhibited in many places and nobody had a problem with it until this case. Indeed, even if the piece is meant to have sexual themes, it's still different from being pornography. To force a line of different out of this case, we can say it's "a picture that conveys playful emotions with child nudity" against "a picture of naked children that pedophiles might like" As the photo is inside an art gallery, people stand on the side of the first definition and call it art. Yet, the other side, will only practically see the context as "indecent" and call it dangerous pornography. In the middle, people will say whether it is art or not, as long as the reaction in views are potentially harmful, the artist should be held responsible. This again ties back to the question of whether the audience's views are more important or the artist's.
The ways of knowing involved are Sense Perception and Language. In Sense Perception, we have the case where not everyone is seeing the same thing with Klara and Elda Bellydancing. Some people, like fellow artists, could probably easily understand the deep emotions and special themes behind the photo. They see beyond the context of the photo. Then we have those we see the context and rage, calling it pornography and harmful. Also, potentially, there will be pedophiles out there using this photo in their advantage. People with different backgrounds will have there own way of seeing things and giving
opinions. The question is, who's opinion is the most important?
In Language, this case ties with the definition of the words of theProtection of Children Act. What defines "indecent?"What is the level of this indecency? Just in the context of the photo? Or where the photo is from and where it is taken? What even defines a photo? Can really we interpret the law literally and seize the piece of art purely because of it's context? Or do we have to consider these other aspects?
On the side where the "true message" of a piece of art should be what the artist intends to convey, there is the question of what defines a "true message." An artist creates art to make a statement. Even simply "just making something that looks good" conveys the statement itself. The "meaning" the art piece bears is inside the mind of the artist. It will be that one clear and unique idea. Even if the artist explains the meaning of the piece to an audience, the ideas inside the different minds will still be different. This again, deals closely with sense perception. What the artist sees inside a piece is not what another person sees. However, the art belongs to the artist and is created by the artist. The "creator" knows best. In the mind of the creator, where there are many different views and beliefs, the piece of art could perfectly conveying the message. To repeat, the message is clear under the mind of the artist. If we want to measure how well the art piece conveys a message, we can say that it conveys very well, if everyone understood the state of mind of the artist. It works out very well. Only the artist shares the special relationship as the creator with their art. Compared to everyone else, the artist is the only one with the position. He or she has the perfectly unique mind that uniquely understands the art piece. In that sense, whatever the artist feels what their work is saying should be the truest meaning. In Goldin's case, as the photograph is about playful emotions, people should understand and respect that message.
As the purpose of art is to make a statement to viewers, what the audience think should be the most important. Everyone will think differently from a piece of art. If the audience can't see the meaning directly with an explanation, they simply cannot see it. It is not their fault that they do not think the same thing as the artist. As the art piece is for conveying messages to many different individuals, it fails in the sense that it is not living up to the purpose. The audience has no responsibility to think and feel a particular way the artist wants. The artist has to do that himself/herself. In Goldin's case, the art piece seems erotic to many people, and they can't see the other meanings. Also, most people are disturbed by the context of naked children, so deems it as pornographic. Because of these views and the Protection of Children Act, the police removes this photograph from the gallery. The argument is as long as the content is sensitive and resembles pornography to people, it should be something potentially harmful and needs to be seized. Again, this piece offended people and to them broke the law - that's how they perceive the piece. If the audience's view is more important, that means as long as many people feels that this piece is pornographic, then it is. Also, as this piece will be under trial, the view of the judge - yet another audience - will be very important.
In my opinion, I do believe that the audience's thoughts should be respected, however, their thoughts shouldn't be considered of a higher value than that of the artists. Everyone's interpretation varies, and there is no right or wrong answer. This means that those who are more sensitive and views the art piece as pornographic are not on the winning side. Their thoughts don't overpower what Goldin intends. Goldin's true message from the photo also don't rule over, but should be protected. The art piece is in a gallery, not on a pornographic magazine. It is not intended to be pornography at all. If people have problems with it, then they shouldn't come in contact with it.
This question of whether or not something is intentional or unintentional can connect to other real-life cases, such as the issue of oversight law. As oversight is the unintentional failure to notice or do something, which results in committing a crime, there is the question of how much fault is in the person if his/her intentions did not mean to commit crime. Like Goldin's case, where she does not mean to produce art that seems like pornography, there is the question whether or not there should be prosecution in order.
In a report by CNN a decade ago, it was noted that in 1998, a year after the physicianassisted suicide was legalized in Oregon, a breast cancer patient asked her doctor to prescribe her medicine that would end her life. She was the first person go use the physicianassisted suicide method to end her life in order to end her pain by ingesting the prescribed medicine. Many other states then started to review the law and even attempted to legalize it.
There are very obvious arguments both for and against the legalizing of physicianassisted suicide.
The arguments for include:
1. People should have rights to control their own lives and to make decisions for themselves
2. Death is a better option than enduring unbearable pain
3. If having the right to refuse treatment (and causing death) is an option, then it is the same as asking for medicine to end one's life
4. Bringing assisted suicides out into the open may raise awareness of the issue as they happen anyway regardless of whether they are legal
The arguments against include:
1. Taking any life is an immoral act that neglects human rights
2. The process may be abused with people without family support or without the means to survive (who will be forced to choose death as an alternative)
3. Doctors may be wrong in estimating how much time an individual has left to live
4. The public losing confidence in the medical profession as they could solve all problems by killing off patients
5. The doctors would be breaking their Hippocratic Oath (which makes them swear not to give or suggest high dosages of deadly drugs to anyone)
Some areas of knowledge included here are ethics and human rights. When it comes down to making decisions, knowledge issues ultimately include an individual's ability to use reason and logic in conjunction with their emotions to make "good" decisions for themselves. When it really comes down to it, laws have no control over how much an individual values his/her life or how he/she will make decisions. The issue also comes down to how words such as "human rights" are defined, which has a root in language. The nature of language hinders any absolute meaning as there is always connotation and denotation that can be debated about every single word.
As of now, human rights is defined as "rights fundamentally belonging to all persons" according to the Merriam Webster dictionary. In order to fully comprehend the meaning, the word fundamental also has to be defined. The word is defined as "serving as a basis supporting existence". According to these definitions, human rights is a notion that should be taken seriously and adhered to under all circumstances.
Ironically, due to the origin of human rights being after the Nuremberg trials, there is no legal status for human rights. It was merely a pledge made by members of the United Nations. Some of these arguments are based on human rights, which were arbitrarily defined by humans. Over time, human rights have also changed and are sometimes even defined differently for certain minority groups. So even if the human rights were adhered to from beginning to end, there could still be fluidity in what is being adhered to as the definition of human rights changes. This also portrays the failure of words to communicate rigid ideas as words are just representations of what is being communicated. Therefore, the side arguing for legalization of physisianassisted suicide's first point and third point become invalid. The side arguing against legalization's first point is also invalid.
Looking at this issue through human rights, the argument against physicianassisted suicide is more valid. Although argument five against the issue has the same issue with words and definition mentioned above, arguments two, three, and four are not based on language but based on logic and reasoning. It is only logical that patients without great means of survival will choose death as an alternative as that is their easy way out. It is also a fact that doctors may be wrong in estimating how much time someone has left to live as they even admit it themselves. Following, it is only logical that the public would lose some confidence in the medical profession as all they see is people being put to death by their doctors as an easy solution to their sicknesses.
A similar issue would be Catalonia stopping their bull-fighting tradition in order to highlight their independence from Spain. Catalonia is a part of Spain that does not wish to be a part of the country, but is a part of it due to borders defined by humans. They stopped bullfighting last month as a gesture to differentiate themselves from the rest of Spain, although they are still defined as part of the country. They even have their own dialect, Catalonian Spanish, instead of speaking conventional Spanish. The issue here is similar to the one with human rights as both of these pertain to lack of clarity in definitions.
Is Taiwan an independent country or is it a part of China? This controversy that has been debated for decades questions whether or not Taiwan should be an internationally recognized country. The conflict resides in the fact that the Republic of China (ROC) government of Taiwan sees Taiwan as an independent country with full sovereignty, whereas Mainland China sees Taiwan as a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and does not officially recognize the ROC that the PRC defeated years ago. The ROC is branched into two major parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The areas of knowledge focuses mostly on history, and the ways of knowing uses reason and logic to interpret history, as subjective as that may be. In 1895, the Qing dynasty relinquished their rights over Taiwan when it lost to Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War, in which Taiwan subsequently became a Japanese colony until the end of WWII in 1945. In 1911, the Xinhai Revolution took place in which the nationalists lead by Sun Yet Sun overthrew the Qing Dynasty, establishing the KMT ROC. In 1927, the Chinese Civil war took place between the PRC communists and the KMT nationalists. The war was consecutive and was interfered by Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. After Japan was defeated in 1945, the civil war resumed and ended in the defeat of the KMT in 1949, in which Chiang Kai Shek fled to Taiwan with his supporters.
Both the PRC and the ROC believe in the One China Policy, which rests on the idea that there is only one China (Mainland+Taiwan), however, each of them believes itself to be the legitimate government. The PRC of China believes in the One China Principle – Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The notion is that since Japan’s defeat in 1945, Taiwan had been restored to the ROC that overthrew the Qing dynasty, and because PRC defeated the ROC in 1949 and Japan did not sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty officially relinquishing its rights over Taiwan until 1952, Taiwan belongs to the PRC. As Yu Shuning, Spokesman of the Chinese Embassy in the United States of America, states, “…. What was also true is that in 1949, that Republic of China which had been ruled by a corrupt and despotic Kuomintang regime for 28 years was overthrown in another popular revolution…since then, China has been represented in the world by the People's Republic of China with its national government in Beijing, and the "Republic of China" has since become defunct…”
Although the KMT also believe that China and Taiwan share the same national entity, it also believes that the Taiwan, the ROC, is an independent country. The KMT argues that the ROC is the founder of “China” itself, and it was the ROC that had lost its Mainland Chinese land; hence, China is/should officially be a part of Taiwan. Although former KMT President Hui amended the ROC constitution in 1991 so that it only applied effectively to the Taiwan Area, current KMT ROC President Ma has re-asserted claims on PRC mainland China territories as recent as late 2008. The notion is that since Japan’s defeat in 1945, Taiwan was put under the administrative rule of the ROC of China. Despite the CPC overthrowing the ROC, the ROC did not vanish; the ROC exists, and it exists in Taiwan, with more than twenty-three million ROC citizens as living proof. Furthermore, the Cairo Declaration, clause eight of the Potsdam Declaration, was signed in 1943 in the written agreement of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender – “All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China.”
Like the KMT, the DPP also believes that Taiwan is an independent country. However, the DPP believes that Taiwan and China have separate national entities, in which the ROC’s territory consists of Taiwan and its surrounding smaller islands. The party does not believe in the One China Principle and aims to officially break away from China and be internationally recognized as an independent country with full sovereignty. The DPP strongly believes in democracy and its core value of self-determinism. As more and more people see themselves as Taiwanese, the DPP legislator, Yeh, says, “Whether Taiwan should go independent or seek unification with China must be determined by its 23 million people, and the majority's decision must be respected”. According to The China Post, President Ma stressed in the past that he would not discuss unification during his presidential tenure. DPP spokesman Cheng points out that it is self-contradictory for Ma to "not talk about unification but accept a one-China framework." However, Ma explained that Taiwan is already an independent nation, thus there is no reason to engage in a struggle for independence. Another idea that supports the DPP ideology is the irony in how the CPC/PRC uses the same coercion to drive out the ROC in 1949 and to lay claim over Taiwan in the recent years. When did these people have a say and why is it that the world supports oppressive force over self-determinism? Perhaps, a more empathetic approach would be to view America-England relations. For example, America and England share similar roots, but are the English and the Americans are ethnically the same? No, they are not. Taiwan and China also have cultural and political differences from the past (ex. Japanese rule), for they’ve each had or developed new accents, customs, language, schemas, personality, attitude, taste, and way of life (i.e. freedom). There is a new national pride developed amongst the people of Taiwan, hence, the DPP believes in Taiwanese independence and wants to preserve Taiwan’s cultural identity by separating from Mainland China.
I’ve met Taiwanese people whom identify themselves, ethnically, as Chinese (understandably more common amongst the older generation). I’ve also met many Taiwanese people whom remain neutral in their political attitudes towards China-Taiwan relations and are unsure of their ethnicity. Last but not least, I’ve met a considerable number of people whom view themselves as Taiwanese, sprinkled with a few extremists here and there (more common amongst the natives as well as the younger generation). As a Taiwanese, the way I see it is that we ARE the original “China”. Why? The Qing dynasty ended and the KMT governed China until it was forced to relinquish Mainland China due to its defeat against the Communist Party of China (CPC). Hence, personally, I can peacefully accept that Taiwan is the ROC, but not that it is part of the PRC. Technically, the provinces in China should be provinces part of Taiwan, the ROC, and should follow our political and social system. However, Mainland China has much changed since 1949, which is why the DPP won for two elections in a row, showing that from the years 2000 to at least 2004, the majority of us Taiwanese citizens no longer had the desire to restore PRC to the ROC. Arguably, the KMT, lead by Taiwan’s current president, Ma, won the DPP in 2008. However, the reasons behind the defeat of the DPP in the 2008 legislative election were mainly due to our Ex-DPP-President, Chen Shui-Bian’s despicable family scandals in 2006; other important factors include the increase in China-Taiwan hostility (i.e. military threats) as well as the stagnation in Taiwan’s economic growth in the twenty-first century (i.e. tech crisis). The fact is that China’s economic growth was and is rapidly increasing, and given our economic situation, Taiwan cannot turn a blind eye to this conspicuous truth as it is not in our best interest to further hinder cooperation (i.e. business/trade) and provoke war. Hence, until we have the resources and power to defend ourselves and solely depend on other markets outside of China, we should remain peaceful with China and/or find alternative ways to gain our independence. This, however, does not mean unification: as KMT’s leader, President Ma’s “three nos” policy for the next seven years states – no unification, no independence and no use of force. We are, after all, the Republic of China on an island called Taiwan. We should not, however, be a part of the PRC Mainland China as we officially are now.
ROC was the official government of China for a good sixty years. However, Yu Shuning Spokesman of the Chinese Embassy states, “….the status of Taiwan as part of China's territory has never changed…” (If so, then how does one explain the Treaty of Shimonoseki?) “…nor has the Government of the People's Republic China ever given up its jurisdiction over Taiwan”. Hold on, Chairman Mao has never ruled Taiwan, therefore, the PRC does not have the option to give up something that they never had. How is it then, that Taiwan is a part of the PRC? Because the United Nations said so in the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971, when it expelled the ROC from the UN and recognized the PRC as the only legitimate reprehensive of China to the UN? Because even the United States, who is so big on democracy and anti-communism, stands on China’s side due to economic self-interest? As President Ma stated at the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents' Club (TFCC) press conference in 2010, "Taiwan is not like Hong Kong. We are an independent country with full sovereignty. Taiwan's future has to be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese." I agree with KMT President Ma’s “three nos” policy, however, I do not support a complete unification with the Mainland Chinese like the conservative KMT does. Similarly, I agree with the DPP’s rightist idea of democracy and self-determinism, however, I don’t support full Taiwanese independence either. Complete unification would mean one official PRC government and a loss of Taiwanese culture and identity (ex. traditional Chinese), unless China would one day be able to see ROC as their official government again (extremely unlikely). Complete official independence is, although ideal, nonetheless unrealistic at this current moment, and would not be auspicious to Taiwan’s economy or national security.
Taiwan has been unable to gain complete independence from China, and the chances of doing so in this generation are slim. However, this issue keeps coming up because of the resentment towards Chinese, especially through direct interaction such as meeting Chinese tourists. Other real-life cases in which a state or province officially wants to establish independence and rid foreign government claims would be the Tibet-Mainland China relations.
