Machiavelli

Machiavelli brings up the question of whether it is better to be feared than loved. As far as being a leader I think it is more effective to be loved. In order to become a leader one must appear charismatic, at least today it seems that way. When I think of effective leaders the first people that come to mind are those that had total control over their citizens or subordinates. Even if those leaders had immoral intentions, they were able to gain the support of the masses most likely only engaging the fear tactic after they had won the hearts of the people. Hitler was initially able to rise to power because he made promises to the German people when they were extremely vulnerable. He was able to provide protection to those that became Nazis. At first he proved a loved leader, once he decided to implement his plan he used his massive power to strike fear in the people. One man alone can not create fear among a whole continent, it takes an army, which can only be obtained voluntarily.
He says that a beloved leader will not be conspired against, but history has proven that incorrect. For example JFK was an extremely popular president, but there were those that conspired against him. His point that extremely hated leaders must be fearful of everyone and everything is true. This can be seen with the current unrest in the Middle East. Eventually even the most oppressed people will rise against the leadership.

virtue and passion

In Nietzsche's "Morality as Anti-Nature" he says that religion eliminates passion. I understand where he is coming from when he says that. But he was coming from a time where religion put a lot of restrictions on people. Today religion, although many times not presented that way, helps those suffering from the unexplained. Much of my extended family is Catholic and they do not use their religion to judge anyone else but as a source of love for others. For many people their faith is their passion, so Nietzsche’s assumption that religion keeps people from pursuing their passion, most likely comes from the church’s strong hold on people at the time. Today the church is more faith based and less overbearing in people’s lives. Nietzsche also probably saw religion as much more intrusive than the average person because of his father’s and grandfathers’ strong affiliation.

Although it may sound extremely pessimistic I don’t believe anyone is a purely virtuous person. No act is completely selfless. Even the acts that appear to be completely selfless have a hint of selfishness to them. A person may sacrifice something as great as their life in order to help another person but in the end they are gaining respect and admiration for themselves. There are definitely people out there who are more sacrificial than others, but overall there is no purely virtuous person.  

ethics of crime

Like any good Law and Order episode, the excuse of "my brain made me do it", will be given at some point. But then the question remains, if your brain made you do it who should be punished? Where does the criminal mind and the human body that commits the crime become one? People that use the excuse that their biology made them commit a crime should still be punished as the law suggests, since their "biology" would just as quickly allow them to commit the crime again. I believe that most ethics are not hard wired into the brain. There are many cultures that treat women as though they are less than human, which  should be an obvious ethical issue, yet the treatment continues today though. So if ethics were hard wired into humans then in no culture would women be treated unequally. Ethics are a cultural evolution issue, again with women’s rights, every country did not grant women the right to vote at the same time and there are still countries that do not allow women to vote. Ethics are dependent on the progressive nature of culture. Though there are a few ethical concepts that are hard wired into people, such as the “don’t kill your children” kind of ethics. The majority of humans are programmed to take care of weaker things that appeal to a sense of empathy. Though there are a few that do not automatically feel the need to take care of others and do not other’s feelings, those people are considered sociopaths.  

Ethics

It seems as though the main point of this article was to show how circumstances change whether people people act morally or not. I feel as though most people would like to act helpful in situations but it difficult and therefore not worth their time and effort. Like when you pass a beggar on the street, its not as though you don't want to help them, maybe you are in a rush or you don't have cash, it becomes inconvenient to help them.
But I feel as though the question must be addressed, is it possible to do a good deed just for the good of it?As in every time you help someone out you get a certain rush, it comes with self satisfaction. When you do give the beggar money, is it possible that you did it because you can look at yourself as a better person? Or to look better in front the rest of the people that saw you give money? Maybe you will now see yourself as a better person than those that did not give money. I just feel that no good deed comes without some sort of selfish motivation.
Although I also see aspects of ethics such as cheating less destructive than are portrayed. My high school had a culture of cheating, most people could not keep up with the workload if it wasn't for cheating. Even though it was one of the top 100 high schools in the country, the students were no more "ethical" than anywhere else. People were so concerned with their GPA's they would do anything to keep them high. Many people I know go to ivy league schools would stay home on test days giving themselves more study time or copy most of their homework. It's not that any one of us were not smart enough to do the work individually, but our extra-curricular activities combined with many of us working 30 hour work weeks, there were not enough hours in the day to accomplish it all without cheating. Few of our classes were graded on a curve, so this cheating only affected whether we did well or not. Though our ethics may be compromised it was worth it at the time, or so it seemed.

The discourse of the Balinese cock fighting is obvious as it is an underground practice, as in it against the law. Though against the law it is practice deeply rooted in Balinese culture, even those high up in the community practice and participate. It seems as though the official government bodies are the only ones trying to disband the practice. Since the Balinese people practice cock fighting as a discourse community it makes sense that the anthropologist and his wife would become included once they showed an appreciation for the people escaping authority by going with them. Everyone cooperating in order to avoid authority seems like a distinct trait of the cock fighting community, as the woman has prepared a scene to make it look as though her husband and the anthropologist couple had been there the whole time. I am sure there were distinct signals for approaching authority, which is a distinguishing trait of discourse community. When people sacrifice for a group it is taken as a sign of respect, for example many gangs require an initiation most of time violent, and it shows that they are willing to do anything to be part of this group of people. The couple could have just shown papers to authorities but instead sacrificed themselves by running, ultimately gaining the respect of the Balinese people. 

I pledge my honor that I have abided by the Stevens Honor System. Rebecca Lee