Morality and Politics of Justice project reflection...
The assignment of this project was to explore how morality and politics play into the involvement of justice in America’s society. Throughout the content learning period of the project, students studied four philosophies: Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Deontology, and Rawls’ Justice through Equality. Assignments like Skitessons, where students had to represent the various philosophies through creating a skit, gave students an interactive way to learn. Learning about these philosophies enabled students to see how morality can be subjected to different perspectives, ideas, and opinions. Creating this awareness was important, because the next step in the project was to analyze the morality of the Stop, Question, and Frisk policy that has been a recent event and discussion among the nation. Students had to answer questions such as why or why not Stop and Frisk should stay as it is or be resigned from the New York Police Departments duties. As questions arose from the previous philosophies learned, students also had to consider the Constitution and if Stop and Frisk was violating certain Amendments or American rights. To conclude the Stop and Frisk section of the project, a seminar was conducted. As the final outcome of the project, students had to choose a present U.S moral and political issue. Some examples of the issues that students chose surrounded Genetically Modified Food, gun rights and policies, as well as whether or not it should be acceptable to genetically modify your child. Students also learned the basic concepts of rhetoric and how pathos, ethos, and logos play a large part in how people react to the information they are given. They were given three weeks to research and write their Opposite Editorial piece, and a week to create their visual. An example of all three rhetorical devices, application to a philosophy learned, how it involves the Constitution, and a solution to the issue had to be integrated into the op-ed. Two rhetorical devices, a quote based on one of the philosophies studied, and integrated symbolisms were all required in the visual piece. The idea of the project outcome was to find a way to create justice through applications of moral philosophies and constitutional rights.
I’ve come to learn through this project that forming perspectives on political issues or moral dilemmas is something that should be done with caution and awareness. I’ve learned that to act upon a decision or to do “the right thing,” you must not be opinionated on the subject, but instead informed. I now believe that there can be a very polarized difference in being informed and being opinionated. With this in mind, I feel that I am now able to look at how our nations political parties have debilitated the government and how the American people involve themselves in it. It seems to me, in a sense, that once a person has a belief to stand behind that’s supported, a destructive bias can develop. This bias and chosen ignorance has the ability to fuel opinions that blind us from the truth of a situation or circumstance.
I was vaguely aware of how people use rhetoric before coming into this project and how it can persuade people. Yet as I learned about the specifics, I realized how it could be used as a crutch for media and the government, and it opened my eyes to how I consume it. As for how I express my own beliefs, I would rather no consider how I use rhetoric. To me, consciously using rhetoric gives a certain sense of insincerity to what I’m trying to express people. This insincerity stems from the feeling of trying to make people feel a certain emotion or realize a certain thing. Attempting to imply the exact same perspective onto someone else using rhetoric, I feel, is imposing your views on someone else.
When looking at the rubric for the political campaign poster, I believe that Integration was the category I was strongest in. This involved having a quote from a philosopher that embodied my perspective of justice in my op-ed, and whether or not in enhances/illuminates the message of the visual piece. Most importantly I feel that my poster is cohesive in the manner of how the quotes integrate with the perspective, and incorporates the devices of rhetoric in a successful manner. The arrangement, aesthetics, conciseness, tone and clarity through how direct the message of my issue was as explained in my artists statement. I was able to make this my strong point because I had a vision from the very beginning that I stuck with throughout the entirety of the project. Specifically for the visual piece. If I had thought of a different way to represent my issue I probably would not have been as successful.
When looking at my Op-Ed, I feel that I was strongest in the category of evidence. The evidence I provided in my piece helped solidify the issue as well as make the paper more concrete in general. The evidence I provided was strong and clear as well. For example, I explained that 54,000-67,000 people are victims to modern slavery. This is a clear but troubling fact that people can grasp, and it adds an amount of shock to the paper, which therefore makes the readers more engaged, (hopefully).
I feel that I was the weakest in Moral and Political philosophy content because I was concentrating much more on the actual issue of agricultural slavery rather than how political and moral philosophy plays into the solution and justice. That wasn’t my main objective in the piece; my main objective was to inform people about the issue at hand, not on the philosophical part of it. Which is where my points in the rubric will probably weaken. Yet I feel that this is something that I chose to do, and could not refine further because its based more on the content than the actual structure. I could refine my op-ed through simplifying sentence structure and taking out unnecessary sentences. With my visual piece, if I were to refine it further, I would create a more exciting background. The background at the moment is black, and I feel that if I added a design or tessellation of some sort it would make it much more interesting. There’s definitely a simplistic side to it, which I would have to keep in mind if I was to refine it further and create a background.
If I had one more week to work on my project, I would refine my image through creating a nice frame for it, and for my op-ed I would refine the sentence structure and paragraph formatting to make the it more cohesive and organized. Specifically, I would definitely refine my thesis statement so it fitted the rest of my paper. I felt that my thesis statement was a little disconnected. Also, create a stronger hook for the beginning as well. This would make audiences want to read it, (obviously) and I would generally feel more satisfied with the project. Yet overall, I’m fairly happy with the outcome of the project and how it flowed.
I’ve come to learn through this project that forming perspectives on political issues or moral dilemmas is something that should be done with caution and awareness. I’ve learned that to act upon a decision or to do “the right thing,” you must not be opinionated on the subject, but instead informed. I now believe that there can be a very polarized difference in being informed and being opinionated. With this in mind, I feel that I am now able to look at how our nations political parties have debilitated the government and how the American people involve themselves in it. It seems to me, in a sense, that once a person has a belief to stand behind that’s supported, a destructive bias can develop. This bias and chosen ignorance has the ability to fuel opinions that blind us from the truth of a situation or circumstance.
I was vaguely aware of how people use rhetoric before coming into this project and how it can persuade people. Yet as I learned about the specifics, I realized how it could be used as a crutch for media and the government, and it opened my eyes to how I consume it. As for how I express my own beliefs, I would rather no consider how I use rhetoric. To me, consciously using rhetoric gives a certain sense of insincerity to what I’m trying to express people. This insincerity stems from the feeling of trying to make people feel a certain emotion or realize a certain thing. Attempting to imply the exact same perspective onto someone else using rhetoric, I feel, is imposing your views on someone else.
When looking at the rubric for the political campaign poster, I believe that Integration was the category I was strongest in. This involved having a quote from a philosopher that embodied my perspective of justice in my op-ed, and whether or not in enhances/illuminates the message of the visual piece. Most importantly I feel that my poster is cohesive in the manner of how the quotes integrate with the perspective, and incorporates the devices of rhetoric in a successful manner. The arrangement, aesthetics, conciseness, tone and clarity through how direct the message of my issue was as explained in my artists statement. I was able to make this my strong point because I had a vision from the very beginning that I stuck with throughout the entirety of the project. Specifically for the visual piece. If I had thought of a different way to represent my issue I probably would not have been as successful.
When looking at my Op-Ed, I feel that I was strongest in the category of evidence. The evidence I provided in my piece helped solidify the issue as well as make the paper more concrete in general. The evidence I provided was strong and clear as well. For example, I explained that 54,000-67,000 people are victims to modern slavery. This is a clear but troubling fact that people can grasp, and it adds an amount of shock to the paper, which therefore makes the readers more engaged, (hopefully).
I feel that I was the weakest in Moral and Political philosophy content because I was concentrating much more on the actual issue of agricultural slavery rather than how political and moral philosophy plays into the solution and justice. That wasn’t my main objective in the piece; my main objective was to inform people about the issue at hand, not on the philosophical part of it. Which is where my points in the rubric will probably weaken. Yet I feel that this is something that I chose to do, and could not refine further because its based more on the content than the actual structure. I could refine my op-ed through simplifying sentence structure and taking out unnecessary sentences. With my visual piece, if I were to refine it further, I would create a more exciting background. The background at the moment is black, and I feel that if I added a design or tessellation of some sort it would make it much more interesting. There’s definitely a simplistic side to it, which I would have to keep in mind if I was to refine it further and create a background.
If I had one more week to work on my project, I would refine my image through creating a nice frame for it, and for my op-ed I would refine the sentence structure and paragraph formatting to make the it more cohesive and organized. Specifically, I would definitely refine my thesis statement so it fitted the rest of my paper. I felt that my thesis statement was a little disconnected. Also, create a stronger hook for the beginning as well. This would make audiences want to read it, (obviously) and I would generally feel more satisfied with the project. Yet overall, I’m fairly happy with the outcome of the project and how it flowed.