FINAL EXAM

1. B
2. D
3. B
4. C
5. C
6. A
7. C
8. B
9. A
10. B
11. A
12. A
13. B
14. A
15. D
16. C
17. D
18. C
19. D
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. A
24. D
25. C
26. D

quiz

1. d
2.a
3.a
4.c
5.virtue of legality, virtue of validity, and functional competence based on rationally created rules
6.d
7.c

Junius Pamphlet

Germany is under a personal regime, with strong initiative and spasmodic activity, with the weakest kind of parliamentarism, incapable of opposition, uniting all capitalist strata in the sharpest opposition to the working class. It is obvious that this live, unhampered imperialism, coming upon the world stage at a time when the world was practically divided up, with gigantic appetites, soon became an irresponsible factor of general unrest

I chose this passage because Germany, its people and its leaders have been described as being the aggressors of World War I and as being the aggressors’ period. Their reputation is of being very barbaric and troublemakers. I think this statement kind of lends a sympathetic ear to Germany’s situation. Just by saying that Germany is under a regime with ulterior motives sets the stage for a defense. Germany is under extreme duress because of their selfish leader not because they are a people that are aggressive and barbaric by nature. This statement is placing blame on the regime which I think a lot of literature regarding Germany forgets to do. I think most people tend to lump Germans into one category. This is why the idea of Nihilism and Dadaism are important in Germany’s history and growth as a society.

Nazism Assignment

What lessons if any are there from the Nazi regime? I would argue that it seems sometimes that the extreme anti-Semitism of the Nazis is almost overemphasized to make them appear more distant from today’s society. Obviously nothing like the Holocaust would ever happen in this country, but are we really safe from everything the Nazis represented? Do we not have people who like to separate “real Americans” from the rest and constantly talk about “taking our country back” and resort to all sorts of hyper-patriotic slogans? Do we not have those who exploit scapegoats as a way of directing attention away from other problems? Do we not have those who manipulate people through the mass media the way the Nazis perfected mass manipulation through the media? Is our country not continuously at war or in a state of preparation for war as a means of disposing of its surplus war production? Do the military producers in this country have a disproportionate influence over government? Does our government not possess the means to keep the population under surveillance and detain individuals even without trial? These are all aspects of the Nazi regime as well. Supposedly the first thing the Nazis would do when they conquered an area is to set up a public address (PA) system. The Nazis employed propaganda and tried to manipulate the masses in their own country and in occupied areas as well. The following film is a propaganda film entitled “Triumph of the Will”, (Triumph des Willens) made in 1934 and a reference to the Nietzschian notion of the “will to power”

I disagree with the statement "Nothing like the Holocaust has ever happened in the United States." I believe that slavery was just as horrendous. I mean taking a people from their native land and relocating them against their will is just as demeaning and horrible. There is a whole diaspora in the United States that are still suffering from the effects of this relocation. But I do agree with the other questions that were posed at the end of the lecture.  We very well have those issues that Germany had. Our economy isn't in the best shape. There are groups The difference between Germany and the United States is that we are a multi-ethnic/ racial society. The principles of this society embrace the differences or have attempted to embrace these differences with an ideal called Democracy. Therefore, democracy does not allow the chance for a potential leader to benefit from the explotiation of a group based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, etc.

ASSIGNMENT

But first, let us free ourselves from a quite trivial falsification: namely, that ethics may first appear in a morally highly compromised role. Let us consider examples. Rarely will you find that a man whose love turns from one woman to another feels no need to legitimate this before himself by saying: she was not worthy of my love, or, she has disappointed me, or whatever other like 'reasons' exist. This is an attitude that, with a profound lack of chivalry, adds a fancied 'legitimacy' to the plain fact that he no longer loves her and that the woman has to bear it. By virtue of this 'legitimation,' the man claims a right for himself and besides causing the misfortune seeks to put her in the wrong. The successful amatory competitor proceeds exactly in the same way: namely, the opponent must be less worthy, otherwise he would not have lost out. It is no different, of course, if after a victorious war the victor in undignified self-righteousness claims, 'I have won because I was right.' Or, if somebody under the frightfulness of war collapses psychologically, and instead of simply saying it was just too much, he feels the need of legitimizing his war weariness to himself by substituting the feeling, 'I could not bear it because I had to fight for a morally bad cause.' And likewise with the defeated in war. Instead of searching like old women for the 'guilty one' after the war--in a situation in which the structure of society produced the war--everyone with a manly and controlled attitude would tell the enemy, 'We lost the war. You have won it. That is now all over. Now let us discuss what conclusions must be drawn according to the objective interests that came into play and what is the main thing in view of the responsibility towards the future which above all burdens the victor.' Anything else is undignified and will become a boomerang. A nation forgives if its interests have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has been offended, especially by a bigoted self-righteousness. Every new document that comes to light after decades revives the undignified lamentations, the hatred and scorn, instead of allowing the war at its end to be buried, at least morally. This is possible only through objectivity and chivalry and above all only through dignity. But never is it possible through an 'ethic,' which in truth signifies a lack of dignity on both sides. Instead of being concerned about what the politician is interested in, the future and the responsibility towards the future, this ethic is concerned about politically sterile questions of past guilt, which are not to be settled politically. To act in this way is politically guilty, if such guilt exists at all. And it overlooks the unavoidable falsification of the whole problem, through very material interests: namely, the victor's interest in the greatest possible moral and material gain; the hopes of the defeated to trade in advantages through confessions of guilt. If anything is 'vulgar,' then, this is, and it is the result of this fashion of exploiting 'ethics' as a means of 'being in the right.'

There is more to being right than just being right. This was my first thought after reading this passage. It thoroughly explains the use of morals, ethics and objectivity. People tend to use their morals as an excuse as to why they did or didn't do something. There is a point that is stressed that you can't justify doing something wrong by blaming someone else. And there is also the distinction that morals have nothing to do with facts. Ethics are used in way that focuses on the facts of the past meaning there is questionable behavior on the part of the questioned. With this becoming the focus point, the objective is lost. Which leads way to the part where having objectivity is discussed. Being objective helps both parties prepare for the future.

I really liked this saying besides the overall quote " A nation forgives if its interests have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has been offended." This reminds me of the way the world treated Germany after World War I. Essentially, France, Britain and Russia wanted to humiliate Germany. Their honor had been offended because they gained a bad reputation as being the aggressor. You can see this resentment and anger during World War II when Hitler comes into power. You can say that France, Britain and Russia were so bent on being ethically correct by punishing Germany that neither of this countries could see into the future. The only country that was being objective at this time was the United States or more so Woodrow Wilson, who in his Fourteen Point plan warned these countries not to strip Germany of their pride. This is an example of what he was trying to say.

reflection

Assignment

First Chapter:

Article 1

The German Reich is a republic.

State authority derives from the people

This statement is straight to the point. It is giving responsibility for its being to the German people. This is letting them know that they are part of the government and they will be listened to.  I chose it because I thought it was significant that this was the first thing mentioned. They are giving their citizens an honorable mention and it sets the tone for the rest of the document.

Second Chapter : Life within a Community

Article 119

Marriage, as the foundation of the family and the preservation and expansion of the nation, enjoys the special protection of the constitution. It is based on the equality of both genders.
It is task of both the state and the communities to strengthen and socially promote the family. Large families may claim social welfare.
Motherhood is placed under state protection and welfare.

It is very exceptional of a government to take special interest in the areas of family and community settings. This shows that the government has a genuine concern for its citizens.  It is a really beneficial move to promote the togetherness of family. If the government is invested in the family from the beginning of conception than it will possibly prevent the greater need for social welfare programs. For instance, the United States’ constitution or any other legal document does not encourage marriage. It is not an important concept which is why the divorce rates are so unbelievably high and why there are so many families in disarray. This chaos within American families kind of disrupts the social structure of the family. You have blended families; you have nuclear families, then single mothers and sometimes single fathers. Everyone’s needs are different which means the government has to spend more time and money to meet those needs, whereas if they had invested in strengthening the family then they would be in a better state.