What Does it Mean to be an Ethical Democratic Citizen?

Key Definitions:

Ethical - being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
Democratic - advocating or upholding democracy; pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.

Citizen - a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection.

To be an ethical democratic citizen means to care about something much greater than yourself. The specific order of the term "ethical democratic citizen" is no coincidence. "Ethical" comes first because it is the most essential factor to consider. "Democratic" is next and "citizen" appropriately follows. When one looks at what each word signifies, it becomes easy to understand why.

When you establish your ethical standpoint, you must remember that you are not the only one living on this planet. Whether you are a relativist or an absolutist, you nevertheless still need to have an open mind. When a decision is made, think of how it will affect your neighbors, your family, other countries, your own country, even your enemies, and mother nature. Thus, the topic of ethics becomes a worldly issue.

The word "democratic" comes second. A country's government is the system in which people use to maintain order over the masses. From a democratic perspective, one would strive for a system that practiced political or social equality. This concept should be the second most essential factor to consider because it is perhaps the most vital element that allows human beings to peacefully coexist in a confined setting.

Last but not least, we have the "citizen" or the individual. Do not be misconstrued, as the individual is just as important as a governmental system and even the world (after all, the individuals are the ones who make a government work; they are the entities that bring life to this world). However, the individual should still be considered last when making decisions as an ethical democratic citizen. You are an ingredient that is needed to make a recipe, and without you, it could come out all wrong. Thus, without first considering how the absence of your consent will affect the entire whole, you are only making selfish decisions.

So we have the world, the democracy, and the individual; all essentials factors to be considered when deciding the fate of mankind. Below is a five-part framework for teaching democratic citizenship:

• The World: the transnational context of human rights, the Open Society, and political order
• The People: the foundation of political community and government
• The Polity: the ordering of civic life, politics, and political systems
• The Government: the formal institutions and processes for public affairs
• The Citizen: The principal actor
  

One of the most important roles of an ethical democratic citizen is to show that you care. Do something. Actions speak louder than words. One of the growing problems that is sweeping through our world today is the epidemic called apathy. No, this is not an actual disease, however, it is an infectious virus that is overtaking many of the minds of today's citizens. Deriving from the ancient Greek word, meaning "without emotion", apathy can not literally take place in a human being, as it is biologically impossible to be without feelings or emotions. Figuratively, too many citizens are roaming without a care in the world. And that needs to change. Below is a video from Youtube in response to apathy:

Each citizen has their own unique role, otherwise the machine called democracy will never work. An ethical democratic citizen will realize their specific role and execute it, even if it means to sacrifice some liberties. I'm not saying that absolute conformity is the answer, just a healthy balance between freedom and cooperation. Just as people in America have to sacrifice some of their liberties to the Patriot Act in order to gain more security against terrorism, democratic citizens have to make sacrifices, too. It's a priviledge to be called a democratic citizen, and it's our ethical choice on whether or not to act on it. What will you choose to do?

"Let's get off our fanies and roll up our sleeves and get to work. So that we may passionately create a perfect world." ~ Isabel Allende

Further Links:

Principles of Democracy

Walking Tour Project

I did my walking tour project in none other than the place that provides families with everyday low prices, Walmart. Given that employees working at this superpower become suspicious when customers start to take pictures of their products, I managed to sneak a few in the cereal aisle without receiving too many odd looks.

I wanted to know what America was promoting families to eat for breakfast. As we all know, breakfast is one of the most important meals of the day. And the staple item present on a typical breakfast table is a bowl of cereal. An ethical dilemma that came up when I roamed the area was the common theme of chocolate throughout the selection. As you can see in the picture, even the popular name brands that previously had no traces of chocolate are now coming out with new versions that have chocolate. Lucky Charms and Honey Comb are two examples, however there were at least fifteen more. I just couldn't help but ask: is chocolate an essential part of a healthy breakfast, or at least a healthy ingredient to start your day off? Or is it just a motivator for the kids tagging along with their grocery-list-driven mothers to beg them to buy the delicious looking cereal. It subliminally makes the kids think that they are getting away with something, because they feel like they're eating candy for breakfast. There are even some cereal boxes that are named after unhealthy snacks, such as Kellogg's S'Morz. Chocolate usually involves high sugar contents, which is unneccessary for breakfast. As quoted from Wikipedia in its history on breakfast cereal: "Cereals with relatively high sugar content are also produced. Sugar-laden breakfast cereals have been extremely popular with children for decades, and many adults also buy them." Thus, I conlcuded that the chocolate theme must just be a ploy to get the sugar-addicted kids to buy their product. Understandable. But ethically moral? Not sure.

Some ethical aspects that I found to be positive were the cheaper versions of the popular name brands that Walmart made available to the consumers. Frosted Mini-Wheats, Smacks, Cocoa Puffs, and Honey Grahams are all examples of popular name brands that Walmart and Hannaford have replicated, packaged differently, slapped on a different name, and then sold them at cheaper prices. They taste the same too, as I have tried many of them. I am glad that Walmart provides this alternative to the consumers because it is frustrating sometimes to see an overpriced monopoly-product make most of its profit due to its popularized name. I enjoyed seeing General Mills advertise its whole grain theme. Whole grain, as opposed to chocolate is a healthy ingredient to start your day off with. It was also nice to see Wheaties still associate itself as the "breakfast for champions", as it blatantly displays an athlectic star on its cover to try to persuade kids into thinking that they'll be able to succeed too.

One of the common misconceptions that a consumer might have while walking down the cereal aisle is that cereal is all you need in the morning. They think that you can just buy a box of cereal and you're good to go in the morning. But even when looking at the cereal commercials, you realize that there are more factors to a full and healthy breakfast. You know that image; the manicured hand pours the milk into the cereal, sets it down on a place mat that is also weighted down with a glass of juice, a saucer with two slices of wheat toast and jam, and an orange on the side. Maybe the cereal aisle at Walmart, which is misinterpretted as the "breakfast" aisle, needs to somehow direct the consumers to the other essential breakfast ingredients. Of course, any American that makes the time to at least sit down and have a bowl of cereal as opposed to nothing is making a good start (studies show that some breakfast is healthier than no breakfast). But then again, when we are mislead into thinking that sugar-laden cereal with milk poured over is all that we need to start our day, we are consequentially starting the day off with an unhealthy mindset.

Security vs. Civil Liberties

Question: What is an ethical democratic citizen's response to this question of security vs. civil liberties as detailed in this program?

Has data mining become inevitable? If we want more security, do we have to give up some of our freedoms? In this FRONTLINE episode, Larry Mefford, former assistant FBI director, believes that we do: "I always said, when I was in my position running counterterrorism operations for the FBI, 'How much security do you want, and how many rights do you want to give up? I can give you more security, but I've got to take away some rights. …' Personally, I want to live in a country where you have a common-sense, fair balance, because I'm worried about people that are untrained, unsupervised, doing things with good intentions but, at the end of the day, harm our liberties."

An ethical democratic citizen's response to this should be accepting, yet aware that we're being watched. And in being aware, we are then letting the government and National Security Agencies know that we are observing them. As long as they stay within their boundaries, that is to say, that they do not use or distribute our personal records for commercial or financial purposes, then it should be alright with citizens. Thus, "what happens in Vegas, will stay in Vegas", only if those happenings are legal and do not threaten our country's safety.

Let's face it, as ethical democratic citizens, it is our responsibility to obey the laws of the Constitution. And by all means, that does not mean that we have to do everything in an ethical manner. It's alright to do unethical things at times (gambling, partying, breaking the speed limit, etc.); that's the beauty of freedom in America. If the NSA or government ever issued those recordings of us doing unethical things to the public, then that is violating our rights. However, the government is currently using programs and surveillance to protect our country from terrorists, and unless we want another 9/11, then we must sacrifice some of our freedoms in order for them to take the necessary precautions to stop the Al-Queda.

Many argue that it goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that we each have a right to be searched only when presented with a warrant. But since 9/11, the government has been "moving away from the traditional legal standard of investigations based on individual suspicion to generalized suspicion." Former White House privacy adviser to President Clinton, Peter Swire says: "Check everybody. Everybody is a suspect."

Of course, people who have nothing to do with terrorism will be mistakenly violated and intruded upon. The government and FBI admit that their technology and security programs are not perfect, therefore it will be inevitable that innocent people will be affected. But if we fight back, we are only making it more difficult for the government to legally find Al-Queda terrorists before they strike. But once the government begins to turn these "national security" programs around for other purposes when terrorism is no longer a threat, then the ethical democratic citizen should speak out. Think of George Orwell's novel, 1984, where the term "Big Brother is watching you" was coined, referring to the invasive surveillance systems used in the book. Yet, when do we draw the line? What if it is too late when we finally realize that the NSA's programs have turned into the telescreens in Orwell's novel? My only answer for that is: if we stay educated about the current issues around the world (and that we care instead of succumbing to the epidemic going through America called apathy), then we will together make things right in an ethical democratic way.

What makes a Good Society?

In Rob Reimen's podcast, he seeks out the qualities that make up a good society. But before he attempts to answer this question, he first goes on a fact-finding mission to find out what society we are actually living in.

One example that Rob Reimen uses in order to analyze our society is an essay done by Paul Valéry; a French philosopher and poet who wrote after WWI about "The Crisis of the Human Spirit".

Reimen goes on to quote Valéry's philosophy;
"It is the human spirit that distinguishes us from animals. It is because of the human spirit that we can transcend our physical instincts, that we have an idea about past and future, that we have the power of imagination, that we can have empathy, that we have some idea about what is good: truth, justice, freedom, and so on and so forth. But Paul Valéry notes that the human spirit of morale men got mixed up. And he writes: 'We have become less sensitive and addicted to noise and excitement, and because we are less sensitive we are constantly in need of stronger means in order to satisfy our own sense of excitement.' "

Reimen then compares the movies of John Wayne to the current action-adventure movies of today (Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise films). Suddenly, movies which were once exciting in the 60's are now considered very, very boring.

"The same on the level of sex. It is not that long ago that even a nude part of the lack of woman could arouse a lot of sexual excitement. Believe me, that is no longer the case. So, it is like drugs. We are addicted to it, we need more of it, it has to be stronger." Thus, the mass media understands that the only way to gain our attention is by flashing the words "Breaking News!" in front of our faces.

Finally, Reimen conludes that Paul Valéry is the first one to make a connection between a society that is focused on entertainment all the time but is constantly living in fear and panic.

I cannot help but to agree with Valéry's theory of Western culture, particularly America. With so much technology and communications, the world becomes much smaller. News that is happening thousands of miles away is now everyone's business. With all of this information, people are forced to summarize it. Consequently, they must prioritize their values. They realize that AIDS in Africa are killing thousands, that Global Warming is a growing threat, and that illegal immigrants are changing the economy, along with all of the other matters in their own life. The information is definitely overwhelming, and as a result the people become less sensitive. Hundreds of years ago, the "breaking news" of the day was that Ms. Jonas' cat was stuck up in a tree. Back then, people were ignorant to many of the horrific wordly events, only being exposed to one or two in a lifetime. But now, it is a common event; world catastrophes happen every day. As a result, society looks to escape, and technology of Western Cultures fulfills this escapist appetite.

Perhaps a large reason that Americans have become less sensitive is due to our decrease of community relationships over the past decades. Dr. Joel Wade writes an article regarding good societies. Although he notes that America has succeeded in establishing some form of democracy into the government (a system so that all the people are represented, a.k.a. a key trait to a good society), he also notes that the government has turned into a pampering-machine. Since our government does most of the caretaking, the quality of caring for your neighbor becomes less demanding. Consequentially, only the large, catastophic events force us to come together. We become less sensitive and brush off the problems that we see everyday in our community, subconsciously believing that the government will come to the rescue.

Premise and Conclusion

Anti-Relativism

Premise: When humans do compassionate acts towards others, it causes their conscience and/or brain to feel good.

Conclusion: Thus, this proves that doing compassionate things is ethically right, making it an absolute truth among all humans.

Relativism Short Essay

a.) Define what the philosophic concept of relativism is
b.) Pose and analyze a hypothetical situation based on your position on Relativism
c.) Explain why Relativism is or is not a reasonable approach to ethics

Relativism is, as defined by Wikipedia, "the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture." In the dictionary, relativism is "any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. " Thus, with this ideology, there are no basic human rights, no absolute truths, and there are no moral standards. Truths are relative to the individual. No one moral system has the right to impose its beliefs over another moral system. Key words such as pluralism (truths instead of Truth) and anti-absolutism come into play. There are three types of relativism:

• Cognitive Relativism (Truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
• Moral/Ethical Relativism - All morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
• Situational Relativism - Ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

Some aspects of Relativism are justified. Cultural beliefs of what is right and wrong are different and, indeed, they should be; it is our differences around the world that make us individuals. America's great diversity is something that we are proud about. Thus, if the world issued a lengthy list of moral standards that everyone had to follow, we would be denied of that diversity, and ultimately, our individuality. For many culturally accepted beliefs, other societies have no right to impose on these cultures that what they are doing is wrong. For example, in Kenya, women must wear skirts and men must wear pants. A Kenyan woman seen wearing pants would be considered as being unethical. Whereas, in America, women wear "men's clothing" all of the time; it has been culturally accepted for many years. America cannot say that Kenya is in the wrong, nor can Kenya say that we are in the wrong. In this case, moral standards are relative to the social group or individual.

But what if a culture found it socially acceptable to murder citizens past the age of 60? This culture feels that elderly have no further purpose in life, and accordingly so, they murder them to relieve their society of "useless entities". Most of the elderly victims feel otherwise; they want to live, however their opinions are snuffed out as someone comes along and kills them. Don't we have a right to impose our moral standards on these people to show them that they are being unethical? These people are oppressing the elderly citizens by not considering their side of the situation. They are ruthlessly killing elderly people because they feel that it is right to do so. I believe that there are lines that societies cross. And when that line is crossed, people are justified to do something about it, otherwise, chaos will ensue. Sure, it's okay for cultures to believe that it is unethical to eat meat, but it is another thing to believe that it is right to murder people for unnecessary reasons. Those elderly, along with everyone else in the world, have basic human rights, one of which is the opportunity to live. No man has a right to deny them of that opportunity.

Relativism alone is not a reasonable approach to ethics. If the world was full of relativists, then we would live in complete anarchy. People who thought murdering was acceptable would consequentially go on murdering rampages. Meanwhile, people would just go "Oh, that's okay, if murdering is relative to their beliefs, then they have every right to do so." For human beings to coexist, it is essential for us to know that there are some absolute truths among us: water is wet, fire is hot, and we all deserve some basic human rights, regardless of where we are in the world. It is also essential for humanity to have some relativism in them: culturally different moral standards are okay, just as long as those differences do not deny us of our basic human rights. I guess to sum it up, a reasonable approach to ethics would have this balance of relativism and anti-relativism; people have a right to their own opinions, but when those opinions turn into actions that threaten our survival, then something must be done. As quoted by Urd Yggradsil in a BBC News article;

"Society changes, it has to to survive. This, by definition, means that all societies that want to prosper over long periods of time are 'relative'. If you lived in an 'absolute' world, we would still believe slavery was fine, that monarchs were divine beings and we should never leave our place."

Thus, if we all adapt to the universally accepted smaller truths as times change and if we at the same time abide by the larger Truths, then we might be able to prosper forever.

Further Resources:

Watch this video to see how relativism works in some cases but fails in others.
Watch this video to see how relativism has played a role in the decline of well-behaved children.

Question 2--Has your educational career helped you experience Paideia, in that you have formed an attention to the meaningful as opposed to a focus on the trivial? Address this question with a particular focus on your future as a citizen, in terms of your ability to attend to meaningful issues of democracy versus trivial "news of the day" (such as who won an Oscar, what is the #1 movie, who will win the World Series?)

Paideia was, to the Ancient Greeks, "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature." (see http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Paideia). When taking the American educational career into consideration, we must begin to wonder whether it is teaching us to find our true form, or whether it is guiding us down a path permeated with trivial, unmeaningful facts.

For me, my educational experience has been anything but unproductive. I have a lengthy resumé; classes such as english, health, geometry, calculus, physics, and even spanish are all boast-worthy contestants. I can tell you the name of the general who led the 20th Maine Regiment into the Battle of Gettysburg, I can recite Brutus' funeral speech in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and heck, I can even find you the limit of f(x) as x approaches negative infinity. Yes, I've done my best in making the most out of the education offered to me. What more could you ask for? If the American Dream was a novel, it would include chapters such as: Go to School and Get Good Grades, Graduate, College, Successful Job, Retirement. The first two chapters of my quest are almost completed. Yet, I begin to wonder, where are those chapters that touch on life's key concepts such as integrity, purpose, and meaning? Why isn't the high school student required to take courses that entail ethics, philosophy, environmental awareness, or community involvement? My educational experience has been productive, but the products are (for the most part) trivial, unmeaningful facts. I've learned the most of what it means to be a democratic citizen through the experiences with my family, friends, and anywhere else outside the classroom. Much of our time spent as a youth is in the classroom, so, we can see how this lack of Padeiaic knowledge may serve a problem.

"Please, as you pursue your prosperity, don't forget magnaminity - greatness of character." (Cornel West). Hopefully, the American educational system might one day focus on this pursuit. We need to look back at the ancient Greeks; the inventors of Socratic questioning. Our vastness of facts and knowledge that we strive for is a great thing, but it is when we learn how to apply that knowledge to the situations in life that makes it greater.