Laws and Social Values

Laws can not change social values. The majority of the people agree that laws and regulations are very important to establish a strong country. The laws should not change the ethics and morals of the society. The social values should be considered to regulate the law. If a pregnant woman is rushed to a hospital by a taxi driver, the driver might go up over the limited speed to ensure this baby’s safe delivery. The police might stop him to give him a speeding ticket because the driver broke the law. If this man went to the court to explain the situation to the judge, The judge would consider the purpose for speeding.   

On the other hand, soldiers are obligated to kill and protect during a war. Killing is against the law but the case is different during a war. One of the soldiers who served in
Iraq was obligated to kill a group of young children. This decision was not his choice. He was in a situation where if he did not kill these children, his troop would have been destroyed and he would have been killed by Iraqi soldiers. Although killing is against our social values, war time is the time when a soldier has to kill to protect his nation. Speeding is against the law; however the law is fair enough to consider the social values.

The War

 

Citizens who enjoy a country’s benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nation in times of war. An individual is the unit of the society. The country’s population enjoys all the possible benefits which the government offers. These benefits are established to provide a better life. Having affordable health insurance, a well established educational system, and a reasonable tax value are things which the politicians are working hard to make possible.Although we might not all agree with the reasons for war, most of us realize that we have a very important role if our nation is under an attack. We must act as a one. We should not be dependent on the government to do everything during war. Young man and women must volunteer for military duty. Others might volunteer to help wounded victims at hospitals; in addition, a wealthy individual could offer some money to support other individuals or the war effort. Some families might share their houses with refuges as a shelter.On the other hand, if our country attacks another nation for some reasons that do not have a direct effect on our lives, individuals do not have an obligation to volunteer to protect another nation. Some governments or politicians think that we have to declare a war on other countries to show the world how powerful we are. In this case, not all citizens are supportive of the government’s decision. People know how much the war costs. It costs not only money, but also lives. If the government suggests increasing tax values because of how much the nation spent on the war, a majority of citizens would strongly disagree. In this situation, the government should not blame these people for not being helpful.We can not deny how valuable our support to our nation is. However, if our nation attacks another nation for an unreasonable purpose, people should not be obligated to help. Being supportive during war time is not an easy action. Citizens should be able to choose whether they support the war decision or not, especially when the possible war price is losing a loved one.      

 

Intertextuality, Interpretation and Ideology

 When I red the required reading assignment I did not realize how beneficial and interesting these topics were until I attended the last week class. Although intertextuality, interpretation and ideology seemed to be very complicated words when I red them for the first time, the way that our instructor, Michael McGinnis, explained them in the class was well organized. He was able to provide us with clear definitions to understand and apply them.

   

According to that discussion, intertexuality was defined as a relationship between texts. One example for this was “Save the Bay” and “Pave the Bay” Although these two sentences were slightly different; they were related and dependent on each other. An active intertexuality applied to two texts when the relationship between them was known and recognized by the reader. It called the reader’s attention. A passive intertexuality was not necessary an opposite of an active intertexuality. A passive intertexuality was more about an indirect and a less recognizable relationship between texts.

Interpretation was explained through comparing three different texts for three different writers. Everyone of the text writer had a different method to define interpretation. Kermode suggested that the reader should know about the text before he or she reads it in order to understand the meaning of it. Sontage was against the interpretation. She described it as reductive and violative.  Eco’s writing presented the interpretation in form of the intention of the text.

Ideology was the easiest topic. It was defined as the categories that we belong to. These categories are race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion, class, age, and nationality. When the instructor asked a question about what we thought a terrorist’s ideology should be, one of the student broke his silence and gave a clear answer to the question. This situation made me ask myself this following question, does someone’s behavior verify his or her ideology? or does someone’s ideology determine his or her behavior?

    In conclusion, these three terms are helpful because they will help us to think critically whenever we read a book. In addition to this, we will be able to build up our reading skills and abstract more out of the text.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!