It's hard to believe, but I find myself needing to admit it. I have no qualms admitting that our society is full of criminals. And I know that there are also a bunch of jobs that are criminal. But doesn't it seem odd that our society would encourage criminals and unlawful professions? We encourage that which we condemn!
Let me prove this with a fictional character, Joe. Joe's dad has no knowledge of Joe's existence. Joe's mom works two jobs. They live in downtown Chicago. Joe goes to a poor rundown inner-city school. He tries really hard and manages to get good grades, despite the pressure to try drugs and join a gang. He even gets into a college. He managed to avoid all of society's attempts at making his life poor. His mom doesn't have the money to pay tuition, though, and Joe never does go to college. Instead he gets a job that barely pays enough for food. And thieving offers much more than he is getting now. So Joe is a thief because he had no other options. Then, he is put in jail for doing what we pushed him towards. Society finally got him.
So why is Joe society's fault? We allow these schools to stay poor, though we have the money to change that. And his education should have been spotted over the rich kid with no aspirations who gets married and never works. Society encouraged his poor childhood by encouraging his father's absence. And society encouraged that absence with Joe's existence. It does this encouraging by pressures, whether financial, emotional, or physical, applied to whoever necessary to make sure someone stayed inferior.
Society let Joe suffer because that served society better. We all want to feel superior over others. That is a simple fact of life. And that cannot be achieved if someone isn't worse than someone else. We want people to be worse than us because if we help them become like the rich than the rich are no longer superior. And those in power do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power.
From Joe's point of view, he was dealt a bad deck of cards. And from the rich in society, it was his fault he wasn't successful in life. But from my point of view, looking in as a third party, Joe got dealt a bad deck of cards, and the rich did the dealing. Joe's mother looks on and sees his failure in life her fault. But the university sees it as money saved on a lost cause. But from my point of view, I know he didn't fail, and it was money lost on a kid who could have been the next president.
I know that the people running society, government and those with wealth, don't think they are doing anything wrong. They want to make sure they can stay president, or remain the wealthiest. They think they are simply giving their son the best chance, or their city the best odds at being liked, and without hurting others. They don't realize who suffers from their actions. But that doesn't make it right.
I understand I must come to grips with this inconvenient truth. I know why it bothers me. It seems a flaw. You don't punish a kid for eating ice cream when you put it in the bowl for him. Why doesn't anybody do anything about this problem? We just look at one another and pretend everything is fine, and that is what angers me! How can I accept this?
I feel there is only one way to do so. Accept the truth so that I can deny it. What I mean is by admitting this flaw in society, I can make sure that in my lifetime I do everything possible to undermine this evil characteristic. Give to charity. Sponsor more scholarships. Fix the school system. Because even if I know this theory is fact, I will be at unease with it unless I respond. Unless I make this inconvenient truth, that society encourages that which it condemns, a convenient falsity, I will be sick to my stomach with disgust.
I would like to respectfully disagree with Austin's point of view on society's actions. He says that "Joe's" misfortune was due to society and ultimately put him in jail, but society can't provide a perfect world for everyone. To believe and expect this would be unrealistic, society didn't cause this, rather how he acted in his circumstances did. For one, there's always a choice, he didn't have to steal, there are laws that push for a certain accessible standard of living within the workforce. Also, he states that society allows schools to stay poor, but there are so many ways that these schools are improving and movements being issued that they do. Albeit they don't meet a "suburban" standard, but in any situation some will be greater than others, not because they "want to be superior" rather they want the best for their area. Austin also states that "Society encouraged his poor childhood by encouraging his father's absence", I believe that society actually looks down upon leaving a family, that it's discouraged. Society didn't encourage it, rather situational choices were made and resulted in Joe's bleak life. Austin then says, "Society encouraged that absence with Joe's existence", again it's unrealistic to believe that society caused Joe's father to leave and then to put Joe in that situation so he suffers, all to have a sense of superiority. Society's heart often goes out towards cases such as these (i.e. charities, political movements,affirmative action etc.). Nobody gets a good feeling out of this suffering, that they feel better about themselves. Simply, subordination is inevitable in any given culture or society, because of competition, yet competition in life does not necessitate the lowering of others simply the bettering of one's self. It's unfair to put society at fault for situational issues.
ReplyDeleteAren't those charities simply to make us with wealth feel better about what we have done? Isn't it for social benefit rather than for the betterment of society? And did Joe really have a choice? He didn't have to steal, but then he would not even have enough money to keep himself alive. And why was he born without viable options? It wasn't his choice. It was due to his parent's situation. And that line just keeps going. What was the initial reason for that poverty? Society. We want poor people because we become richer. Do you think that those of the highest caste in India would want to just give up that power? It is society.
ReplyDelete1. That statement is incredibly presumptuous, the giving that's involved is because they feel the need to help the less fortunates' situation. Also, even if the giving is for the wealthy to "feel better" about themselves, it still doesn't refute my point. Society still encourages the giving for those less fortunate, even if it's for the motive you state.
ReplyDelete2. Joe did have a choice, there's always a choice. He could have found an alternate method instead of resulting to breaking the law. Maybe get multiple jobs, and you're assuming that the job Joe obtains provides 0 life sustenance, when in fact most jobs even those available to those in Joe's situation, do.
3. We want to become wealthier, but in no way do that through making another poorer. It's not all relative, it's a personal gain. And making somebody poorer doesn't make one wealthier. Also, I highly doubt people in positions of power feel the need to oppress others because they fear the lowest class will rise up. And this is the U.S not India. We don't hold a binding caste system like they do.
Okay so assume Joe works more jobs. Now he is above the line for medicaid and can't afford health insurance, which he needs even more because of his fatigue from these multiple jobs.
ReplyDeleteYou do become wealthier if someone becomes poorer, because the gap between you and that other person is greater, so you seem wealthier.
Castes-You think that people living on the north shore would be willing to live in a one story small house if it meant that less people would be homeless? Perhaps ostensibly they would agree, but really they would be angered.
Your views are simply close-minded. I guess society already got you.
Austin,
ReplyDeleteI believe some of your reasoning is flawed. First of all, Joe did not have to be a thief. People make choices and there are always other options. Society didn’t dictate, "Joe, be a thief". Even workers at McDonald's are required to be paid a minimum wage. It is not opulent but it is not illegal either. Welfare is an option that is better than committing a crime. Lastly, universities do not look at the poor and "see money saved on a lost cause". Colleges are now providing more grants and scholarships specifically targeting those who are bright enough but do not have financial resources.
In addition, I believe two major points are hyperbolized, first being that our society encourages criminals. Society may show the poor its affluent side, promoting jealousy, but it also fights crime with police, lawyers and jails. It provides welfare, health insurance and disability payment for those who cannot support themselves. The other major exaggeration is constantly using the word “society”. The term “society” also includes those in Joe’s situation. If anything, it would be the rich that should be targeted as the enemy for not supporting society’s needs. Even with the rich as the targets, it is false to believe that they want to keep the poor down, rather they are more vested in keeping themselves rich and thus don’t spend for societies gain, only their own. Lastly, I do not agree that society encouraged Joe’s father’s absence. Again, he made a choice, he left, and that is his fault, not society’s. It is unjust to blame society for encouraging criminal behavior, when a significant portion of society is giving to charity and trying to fix poverty and poor education.
You've just created an unrealistic double bind assuming that Joe can't make a living and get healthcare or can have the necessary funds for life and not have insurance. This is not true however, where minimum wage implants are there in order to provide a certain quality of life, so they can have a means of basic living and care. Joe doesn't have to resort to stealing.
ReplyDeleteAnd relative wealth provides no true gain, those in power and wealth don't "feel better" about not making any gain for themselves.
And on castes, your argument again is not applicable to this conversation because you assume that wealth is a trade off. There's absolutely no reason or logic behind this- People on the north shore can live in their expensive homes and give homeless people homes and shelter. If anything it's only applicable to the personal greed not hurting another, having personal wealth does not mean bringing another down. You're view is stuck on unreasonable blaming upon society, and a false "tradeoff", in class your argument for Joe's dad leaving was, because society told him to leave through Joe's birth which is a paradox..... WHAT? the general concensus is that this makes no sense whatsoever, as does this whole society argument. I guess false reasoning and failure to understand reality got to you.
Ryan you're spot on, I agree
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Bunney, I did exaggerate because I was proving my point, but that doesn't make my argument not true, if to a lesser degree. Also, you too use one word, rich, which doesn't just apply to money, but could apply to knowledge. Your argument would be that you were talking about wealth, as when I said society, I was talking about the educated people in power.
ReplyDeleteBoth of you: I agree not everybody stuck in a bad situation stays there and can't escape the bonds that are placed around them by society. But when they escape, it is not with the help of society, but simply personal effort.
Only 27 percent of those making under 10,000 go on to college.
We only reach 50 percent once 50,000 dollars is made.
http://www.myfinances.co.uk/cut-your-bills/news//cost-living-general-issues/born-poor-stay-poor-$408153.htm
That article describes why the poor stay poor, and how it is a result of poor education.
Alex, I said, "Joe's dad left because of Joe, who was only born because of Joe's dad." That is a paradox, but it does make sense. I also said that society created the pressure that made Joe, and his dad leave. That pressure was social, also known as peer pressure.
Right, Joe doesn't have to resort to stealing. But what ultimately cause him to steal? Influence. Influence by his surroundings, both people and places, his parents, and his DNA. All of those influences are societal except DNA.
The reason we donate is because if we let everyone stay poor, we don't have anyone to rule over who is worth anything.
I know it is inconvenient, but it is true. Come to terms with it.
First off, society doesn't encourage fathers to leave when a child is born, it's from an own doing, it's not encouraged rather effectual from your point of view meaning that the circumstances cause it not as a pressuring of society to leave. And again, society looks down upon leaving a family how is that peer pressure? nobody wants desertion. Your flaw comes in your theory that society wants their family to be poor when by your argument it's effectual through society encouraging a birth that causes this not as a purpose driven pressuring and not for him to leave. You fail to support your own argument because you can't because it's not true. Also, you continually state that there's some pressure but you never explain it because it doesn't make sense. And, society doesn't make you have kids but moreso leave, it's a choice.
ReplyDeleteAnd you say influence caused him to steal, what people encourage him to steal? his own desperation not others. If I'm a storekeeper, i don't want him to steal, my dad's gone and it's unfair to presume that his mom wants him to steal, and the list goes on and on. Joe doesn't have to resort to stealing.
Austin, the reason we donate is to help these people, not so we rule over nothing, you were saying before it only makes us feel better and that we want these people dirt poor, but now you're changing? Explain your changing warrants. And you're assuming the worst in people, again, that we don't give for humane reasons, you've just trashed all charities and institutional programs, yet I've seen you support them.I'm not saying you're right, but that sounds incredibly hypocritical to me, doesn't it? If anything (by your argument) society got to you.
It's not inconvenient, because it's not true.I suggest you look deeper into this and look at the flaws in your argument, instead of continually pushing empty claims that don't have explained warrants.
So many failed rebuttals, where do I start?
ReplyDeleteInfluences isn't limited to people and places, those were a few I suggested. It is ignorant to say that outside influences isn't what caused him to steal, though I don't think that's what you were saying. Rather than list out those obvious influences I'm sure you know of, I'll explain how those influences are societal.
Society is defined as, "an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization". The social group I'm referring to is that of educated rich people in power, who definitely have a distinct culture. They influence people like Joe regularly and easily, though they do not realize they do so. They influence those people simply by continuing to live as they do. In essence, it is rich inertia that keeps poor people poor. Our kids are able to get the best education and grow up with healthy and organic food in a nice house, all of which allow that kid to grow up smarter and in better shape. That kid can than get a better job than a poor person who can't compete with that rich kid resumé, and in turn get a higher salary. That rich kid then has kids, who grow up like he did and the cycle continues. Where is there room for a poor kid to come into that cycle?
The poor kids who are successful, are usually successful because the are able to get rid of some of the negative influences holding them back. Perhaps I should identify the influences.. That kid gets rid of the influence of the past, and decides to not let what his life is supposed to be get in the way of what he wants it to be. He gets rid of the influence of the snooty rich telling him he isn't good enough. There are countless influences, all of which are societal.
You say I have changed my argument. My argument has not changed, only my method has.
I do not trash those charities. I am glad that some poor are able to get out of their bad situation by the gracious acts of others. But the reason others are gracious is also an action due to outside influence, caused by society, or other rich people.
If it helps, think of it as a robot maker planting a specific idea in one of its computer chips.
"To what degree do I understand that which I am about to reject." Just because you don't understand my argument, don't think it isn't true.