Some excerpts from first informal writing assignment

On the metaphysics and epistemology of rights:

1) Basic rights are confirmed by religious revelation and experience. Rights are granted when they are fought for and when the oppressors feel morally obliged to grant rights to the oppressed. Experience demonstrates how minorities stick up for their beliefs out of moral obligation.

Moral obligation is also verified through the religious revelation of the Bible to respect others.

Experience shows that we are morally obligated to respect others, constructively accomplishing harmony, equality, and justice.

Critical Questions:

Does experience demonstrate that minorities stick up for their beliefs out of moral obligation? Especially if we refine our understanding of experience to mean sense-based experience, what we gather from the world through our senses - do our senses tell us that minorities stick up for their beliefs out of moral obligation? (What does moral obligation look like/sound like/feel like/taste like/smell like?)

Does experience show that we are morally obligated to respect others, etc.? How so?

2) [referring to bombings, police brutality, etc.] Are each of the examples of unjustice real? To King they are but is there real proof that these acts of hatred were carried out?

We know that these acts were carried out because of the media - TV, and newspapers.

We sense that the acts of hatred are wrong because of moral reason, the way we are.

Critical questions:

Do we know these acts were acts of hatred? Do we see that an act is motivated by hatred, love, etc.? Or is this an interpretation of our sense-experience?

Alternatively, as we watch the use of water cannons to disperse demonstrators -
 

do we see that this is this clearly an act of hatred, and/or

do we see the police enforcing the law (prohibiting marching without a permit) as humanely as possible, and thus do we see an act of justice?



If we recognize that claims

that a given act is an act of hatred or an act of justice

rest on interpretation and judgments of our sense-experience -

the how do we know/learn how we should interpret given acts?

Where does this knowledge/learning of how we are to interpret sense-experience come from?



3) As stated by Dr. Battle, we must support diversity. Each and every person has the right to his own answers and rejection of his answer, especially by the majority, denies him that right.

Critical Questions:

Does each and every person have the right to his own answers? Are all possible answers right?

If there are limits to what answers may be right - or at least tolerated in a pluralistic society - how do we determine those limits?

4) Quote from the Letter:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.

Critical questions:

What fundamental metaphysical assumptions are at work here regarding the reality of justice/injustice?

In particular, what metaphysical assumptions are at work regarding the relationship between

the individual || the whole human community

injustice in one place || justice everywhere

Hint: is reality ultimately

a) made up of atomistic, separated individuals first - so that if a larger collection of such individuals arises, it also arises only second? (On this view, larger wholes are less "natural" and hence less stable than the individual, and always threaten to deteriorate back down to simply disconnected individuals.)

b) made up of a whole first - out of which individuals emerge, distinct from one another but always fundamentally connected to one another?



And c) how would we know?

Arguments offered:

1) ...homogeneity among all members may not necessarily be bad, [but] it does prevent the group from growing and gaining from diversity.

[So why is diversity to be desired?]

Through diversity there is a better understanding of the world.

[So why is a better understanding of the world to be desired?]

This more encompassing understanding is good because it will make people understand and communicate with each other and others more effectively.

Diversity will encourage more support of others for who they are as individuals with specific emphasis on their specific personalities and skills.

It makes them more valued as individuals.

[If you're still not convinced...]

Diversity in a group will also give greater opportunity for everyone to attain their rights which are given by a higher power.

[So why is attaining rights given by a higher power to be desired?]

I believe that it is the right of every human being to pursue happiness, life, and liberty.

[So what does this right have to do with diversity?]

I also believe that these rights are more greatly realized in a group where the diversity of the peoples will help all members to realize what are their rights.

Analysis: the writer offers at least two arguments for diversity. The latter one can be recast this way:
 

Premise: Every human being has the God-given right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Premise: These rights are better realized in a group characterized by diversity

([subargument] because diversity helps everyone realize their rights).

[Implicit/unstated] Conclusion: Therefore, diversity is a good to be encouraged and supported.