Personal Philosophy Project
Essential Questions:
What is the purpose of your existence?
What is happiness and what makes you happy2
What does it mean to live a meaningful life?
To what extent can literature shape your personal philosophy on happiness and meaning?
What is the purpose of your existence?
What is happiness and what makes you happy2
What does it mean to live a meaningful life?
To what extent can literature shape your personal philosophy on happiness and meaning?
Through this project and my work for it, I developed several new insights on my own purpose. When I entered this project, I already had a notion on what my purpose was, but through reading other philosophies and perspectives, I realized my philosophy was flawed. In order to counteract this, and partially due to my unwillingness to admit fault, I worked to append my theory and reconcile it with the observed realities of the world around me. In order to find my own philosophy, I studied the underlying values of other people and other religions. I read more on Nihilism, the will to power, and even Rastafari values. Through this study, I found several new understandings. I now understand that not everyone has the same purpose, there is no "one size fits all" philosophy. This realization was rather shocking to me. All of my life I had assumed that there was some secret to life and once someone figured it out, everyone would be able to live together and be happy. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. In order to reconcile this with my own philosophy, I created a system of three purposes in which I believe every person can be categorized. I needed to do several things in order to make my system effective, and that is to encompass the ideals of ultimate happiness, altruism, genetics, the probability argument, and the will to power.
I also encountered several deep questions, such as:
Do I want to be a good person, or do I just want to make myself and others believe I am?
Is there truly a purpose for everyone?
Is everyone equal?
Should happiness be the ultimate purpose of life?
Why do we keep trying to live even though we will one day die?
I also encountered several deep questions, such as:
Do I want to be a good person, or do I just want to make myself and others believe I am?
Is there truly a purpose for everyone?
Is everyone equal?
Should happiness be the ultimate purpose of life?
Why do we keep trying to live even though we will one day die?
Korematsu V.S. U.S. (1944) Mock Trial
This project was centered around Japanese American internment camps and the specific experiences of Fred Korematsu. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American who refused to go to the camps; he was captured by the authorities and brought to trial under the supreme court. The project began with learning about the the U.S.'s causes for entering into WW2 and the Japanese internment camps, and culminated in a mock trial of the Fred Korematsu v.s. U.S. (1944) case, as well as a civil case on the legality of the orders which sanctioned the internment camps. In the mock trial, students were either lawyers, who built the defense and prosecution arguments, witnesses, who needed to memorize a specific person's connection to the camps and provide testimony as that character, or judges, who learned courtroom etiquette and decided the outcome of the case as presented by the lawyers. I was a prosecution lawyer, and thus needed to understand constitutional arguments, courtroom etiquette, and other facets of the legal system.
The trial itself was a very even one. Both teams (prosecution and defense) presented very compelling evidence, but in my opinion, prosecution won. This was largely due to the direct examinations of J. Edgar Hoover, and Munson. These two witnesses' testimonies were essential to the prosecution's main argument, that the internment camps were not the least restrictive means, were essential to this end. J. Edgar Hoover was the director of the FBI, and testified that the actions taken by his department directly after the Pearl Harbor attacks were deemed sufficient to completely disable all Japanese espionage and sabotage attempts. Munson then corroborated this statement through his analysis of his report. Munson was hired by FDR to assess further risk of radicalism within the Japanese American population; Munson found that there were virtually no risks within the population (or no more than within other racial groups). Due to these expert testimonies, and their proof of an alternative and highly effective measure which neutralized the threat, I believe that the prosecution won.
With this in mind, the defense did have some very compelling arguments, and a strong case. The most compelling portion of their case was the closing statement. The defense's closing statement was leagues better than that presented by the prosecution. In this statement, the defense presented that their evidence proves the camps and statutes passed strict scrutiny (which they did not), and reviewed all remaining holes they could find in our case. This combination left a very strong preference for the defense amongst all listening, due to the rhetorical weight of it (in isolation).
Overall, I really enjoyed this project, but was on edge for most of it. Early on in this project, I became very fired up about human rights, and the government respecting all people. I was heavily invested in this idea, and angry with the American government, both now and in the past. I viewed the trial as a way of venting this. And so, I wanted to win the trial. I wanted to not only prove the internment camps ( and by expansion the actions of the government today) unconstitutional, I wanted to destroy the defense's case: to make it seem absurd for the idea to even be conceptualized. This made me very nervous about the trial and how I would win the case to the extent I wanted.
The trial itself was a very even one. Both teams (prosecution and defense) presented very compelling evidence, but in my opinion, prosecution won. This was largely due to the direct examinations of J. Edgar Hoover, and Munson. These two witnesses' testimonies were essential to the prosecution's main argument, that the internment camps were not the least restrictive means, were essential to this end. J. Edgar Hoover was the director of the FBI, and testified that the actions taken by his department directly after the Pearl Harbor attacks were deemed sufficient to completely disable all Japanese espionage and sabotage attempts. Munson then corroborated this statement through his analysis of his report. Munson was hired by FDR to assess further risk of radicalism within the Japanese American population; Munson found that there were virtually no risks within the population (or no more than within other racial groups). Due to these expert testimonies, and their proof of an alternative and highly effective measure which neutralized the threat, I believe that the prosecution won.
With this in mind, the defense did have some very compelling arguments, and a strong case. The most compelling portion of their case was the closing statement. The defense's closing statement was leagues better than that presented by the prosecution. In this statement, the defense presented that their evidence proves the camps and statutes passed strict scrutiny (which they did not), and reviewed all remaining holes they could find in our case. This combination left a very strong preference for the defense amongst all listening, due to the rhetorical weight of it (in isolation).
Overall, I really enjoyed this project, but was on edge for most of it. Early on in this project, I became very fired up about human rights, and the government respecting all people. I was heavily invested in this idea, and angry with the American government, both now and in the past. I viewed the trial as a way of venting this. And so, I wanted to win the trial. I wanted to not only prove the internment camps ( and by expansion the actions of the government today) unconstitutional, I wanted to destroy the defense's case: to make it seem absurd for the idea to even be conceptualized. This made me very nervous about the trial and how I would win the case to the extent I wanted.
Written Work
Cross Examinations:
Karl Bendetsen:
Served as a Captain. Joined the war effort in 1940. In 1941 he was promoted to major and became assistant to the Judge Advocate General, Major General Allen W. Gullion.
Served on the war department under DeWitt.
He was a major architect of the DeWitt Report.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Karl_Bendetsen/
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Final_Report,_Japanese_Evacuation_from_the_West_Coast,_1942_(book)/
Questions:
Is it true you held a major role in the drafting of the DeWitt Report?
(yes)
Is it true that the original version of the DeWitt Report was released to Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy on April 19, 1943 for review?
(Yes)
Is it also true that the version released to the public in 1944 was edited to omit the statement “ It was impossible to establish the identity of the loyal and the disloyal (within the Japanese populus) with any degree of safety. It was not that there was insufficient time in which to make such a determination; it was simply a matter of facing the realities that a positive determination could not be made, that an exact separation of the 'sheep from the goats' was unfeasible.”?
(Yes)
Are you aware that this omitted statement is contradictory to official statements released from your Department stating that there was no time to differentiate between enemy and friend amongst the Japanese populus?
(Yes)
Are you also aware that the submission of fraudulent documents to a government institution is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
Closing Statement:
Your honors, my team and I, like you, have nothing but concern for the safety of the american people in our minds and hearts. All american people. The legality of executive order 9066, exclusion order no. 34, and the actions taken by the wartime department are in clear violation of both the Liberty clause, and the eighth amendment. The actions taken under these orders are horrendous violations of the rights of tens of thousands of innocent americans. The defense claims that the actions taken under these institutions were in the interest of national security. Maybe that ideal was in fact at the center of the imprisonment of thousands of innocents, but then why did the War Department deceive the public and ignore the counsel of experts such as the director of the FBI and the Naval Intelligence Agency, who both advised that there was no realistic threat from the vast majority of imprisoned japanese persons? Why did the War Department doctor public documents to support their own claims and not the word of law? I don’t claim to know the precise reason your honor, it may have been DeWitt and Bendetsen’s hatred for the Japanese people, the people’s descent into blatant racism after the Pearl Harbor attacks, the general spread of war hysteria, or most likely, a combination of the three. In any case, the cause is irrelevant. What is however, is the fact that the actions taken under executive order 9066 and exclusion order no. 34, and the orders themselves are in clear violation of not one, but two facets of the constitution. With this in mind, what is Korematsu’s offense? Defying a law that is against the law? The pursuit of one’s rights in the face of corruption, which was Korematsu’s only actions, is not only protected under, but encouraged in the constitution. The prosecution beseeches you, rule these orders unlawful, and allow the innocents to return from the concentration camps they are being held in. The prosecution rests.
Karl Bendetsen:
Served as a Captain. Joined the war effort in 1940. In 1941 he was promoted to major and became assistant to the Judge Advocate General, Major General Allen W. Gullion.
Served on the war department under DeWitt.
He was a major architect of the DeWitt Report.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Karl_Bendetsen/
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Final_Report,_Japanese_Evacuation_from_the_West_Coast,_1942_(book)/
Questions:
Is it true you held a major role in the drafting of the DeWitt Report?
(yes)
Is it true that the original version of the DeWitt Report was released to Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy on April 19, 1943 for review?
(Yes)
Is it also true that the version released to the public in 1944 was edited to omit the statement “ It was impossible to establish the identity of the loyal and the disloyal (within the Japanese populus) with any degree of safety. It was not that there was insufficient time in which to make such a determination; it was simply a matter of facing the realities that a positive determination could not be made, that an exact separation of the 'sheep from the goats' was unfeasible.”?
(Yes)
Are you aware that this omitted statement is contradictory to official statements released from your Department stating that there was no time to differentiate between enemy and friend amongst the Japanese populus?
(Yes)
Are you also aware that the submission of fraudulent documents to a government institution is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
Closing Statement:
Your honors, my team and I, like you, have nothing but concern for the safety of the american people in our minds and hearts. All american people. The legality of executive order 9066, exclusion order no. 34, and the actions taken by the wartime department are in clear violation of both the Liberty clause, and the eighth amendment. The actions taken under these orders are horrendous violations of the rights of tens of thousands of innocent americans. The defense claims that the actions taken under these institutions were in the interest of national security. Maybe that ideal was in fact at the center of the imprisonment of thousands of innocents, but then why did the War Department deceive the public and ignore the counsel of experts such as the director of the FBI and the Naval Intelligence Agency, who both advised that there was no realistic threat from the vast majority of imprisoned japanese persons? Why did the War Department doctor public documents to support their own claims and not the word of law? I don’t claim to know the precise reason your honor, it may have been DeWitt and Bendetsen’s hatred for the Japanese people, the people’s descent into blatant racism after the Pearl Harbor attacks, the general spread of war hysteria, or most likely, a combination of the three. In any case, the cause is irrelevant. What is however, is the fact that the actions taken under executive order 9066 and exclusion order no. 34, and the orders themselves are in clear violation of not one, but two facets of the constitution. With this in mind, what is Korematsu’s offense? Defying a law that is against the law? The pursuit of one’s rights in the face of corruption, which was Korematsu’s only actions, is not only protected under, but encouraged in the constitution. The prosecution beseeches you, rule these orders unlawful, and allow the innocents to return from the concentration camps they are being held in. The prosecution rests.
The Morality and Politics of Justice
Should The Government Regulate Pricing of Life-Saving Drugs?
In this project, we were tasked with investigating both sides of and forming an opinion on a social issue. In order to do this, we first studied moral philosophies. Through the study of Utilitarianism, Deontology, Kant's philosophy of equality, and Libertarianism, we formed moral perspectives. Once we had found which philosophy we most agree with, we then investigated modern social issues, and chose an issue or question we identify with or find interesting. We investigated arguments for both sides of this issue, and formed our own opinion based on the arguments for each side. We produced Op-Ed pieces for our original opinion on the issue, the pro side of the issue, and the con side of the issue. After we fully investigated the arguments on both sides of the issue, we produced a final piece on our opinion on the issue, after investigating it fully.
The creation of my written pieces, I had to make several adjustments and refinements, but for the most part my first or second drafts were A quality. The several refinements I needed to make were in the categories of Thesis, Argumentation, and Proof Reading. In all three of my written pieces, I needed to entirely rewrite my thesis. My first drafts were always too wordy. The length of, and the presence of unnecessary words in, my thesis made the key points diluted. In response to this, I made my thesis more concise in every case. The thesis which needed the most refinement was for my Op-Ed on the con side of the issue. My thesis for this section was much less focused than my other two thesis. I originally stated a statistic in my thesis, which I removed in order to improve the sentence structure. This was the piece which also needed the most refinement in the category of argumentation. I originally held views against this perspective. Due to this, I found it much more difficult to form compelling arguments against governmental regulation of life-saving drugs. In order to balance this article out, I decided to approach this perspective as offering a solution other than government regulation. I did research into other countries' approaches to regulation and policies to not argue that reform was needed, but that there is a better method of reform. The third area which needed refinement was my proof-reading. I have a tendency to capitalize random words and create unnecessary and superfluous roundabout phrases. In order to refine my sentence structure and phrasing, I read my essay backwards. By reading every sentence in isolation, I was able to catch nearly all sentence structure errors. I then read through several times for less obvious mechanical errors, and after several more iterations I was able to eliminate all mechanical errors.
There is absolutely a middle ground on this issue. My part four project actually deals with this idea. In part four, I compiled a list of proposed solutions to the problem, and allowed the public to vote on which issue they felt was best. My three proposed solutions were to have governments regulate pricing, nationalize the pharmaceutical industry, and allow for insurance companies to lobby for drug prices. Each of these solutions have varying degrees of respect for the free market, and varying moral appeals. The idea of a solution I have not included here is entirely possible, but I felt that these three solutions are the most likely to succeed.
When I originally started this project, I was all for government price regulation. I assumed that this was an ideal solution, and that it was all that could be done. While I still believe that government price regulation is a valid proposal to eliminate price-gouging, I now don't believe this is the best solution. Through investigating issues opposing my stance, in part three, I realized that the blow-back from regulations would be quite large. This revelation changed how I saw those who are opposed to regulations in this case. While I previously assumed that the majority of people who did not wish for regulation were simply corrupt or neoliberals, I now realized that there are complexities to this issue and that those who disagree with me may have valid reasons to oppose this issue. Through my research into part three, I found a new respect for those who disagree with me on this issue and that valid reasons to oppose what I believed as obvious exist.
The creation of my written pieces, I had to make several adjustments and refinements, but for the most part my first or second drafts were A quality. The several refinements I needed to make were in the categories of Thesis, Argumentation, and Proof Reading. In all three of my written pieces, I needed to entirely rewrite my thesis. My first drafts were always too wordy. The length of, and the presence of unnecessary words in, my thesis made the key points diluted. In response to this, I made my thesis more concise in every case. The thesis which needed the most refinement was for my Op-Ed on the con side of the issue. My thesis for this section was much less focused than my other two thesis. I originally stated a statistic in my thesis, which I removed in order to improve the sentence structure. This was the piece which also needed the most refinement in the category of argumentation. I originally held views against this perspective. Due to this, I found it much more difficult to form compelling arguments against governmental regulation of life-saving drugs. In order to balance this article out, I decided to approach this perspective as offering a solution other than government regulation. I did research into other countries' approaches to regulation and policies to not argue that reform was needed, but that there is a better method of reform. The third area which needed refinement was my proof-reading. I have a tendency to capitalize random words and create unnecessary and superfluous roundabout phrases. In order to refine my sentence structure and phrasing, I read my essay backwards. By reading every sentence in isolation, I was able to catch nearly all sentence structure errors. I then read through several times for less obvious mechanical errors, and after several more iterations I was able to eliminate all mechanical errors.
There is absolutely a middle ground on this issue. My part four project actually deals with this idea. In part four, I compiled a list of proposed solutions to the problem, and allowed the public to vote on which issue they felt was best. My three proposed solutions were to have governments regulate pricing, nationalize the pharmaceutical industry, and allow for insurance companies to lobby for drug prices. Each of these solutions have varying degrees of respect for the free market, and varying moral appeals. The idea of a solution I have not included here is entirely possible, but I felt that these three solutions are the most likely to succeed.
When I originally started this project, I was all for government price regulation. I assumed that this was an ideal solution, and that it was all that could be done. While I still believe that government price regulation is a valid proposal to eliminate price-gouging, I now don't believe this is the best solution. Through investigating issues opposing my stance, in part three, I realized that the blow-back from regulations would be quite large. This revelation changed how I saw those who are opposed to regulations in this case. While I previously assumed that the majority of people who did not wish for regulation were simply corrupt or neoliberals, I now realized that there are complexities to this issue and that those who disagree with me may have valid reasons to oppose this issue. Through my research into part three, I found a new respect for those who disagree with me on this issue and that valid reasons to oppose what I believed as obvious exist.