•L.1.F.3.•MeMe•E-Zine•

[7]. Someone has to be in Charge

There are also the problems of racial (Waller, 2008, p. 251) and religious stratification. That there must always be someone in a position of power within religious circles not only places said "heads of the church" in a higher social stratum but said individuals are further exonerated by a closer relationship with God than their congregations. Racial segregation has always been and will ever be a problem as far as societies are concerned in that human beings are continually obsessed with matters of racial superiority, one over another at the very least and/or the struggle for equality by oppressed racial demographics on the other end of the spectrum. In both religious and racial cases, leaders of these differing social assemblages command a great deal of power over large groups of people, said power often given them by the very people they in turn command. In religious circumstances, by and large, the dictates of faith often demand further social stratification by placing an inordinate amount of societal power in the hands of men over women, older members of congregations over the youth (by virtue of religious experience) and even racial stratifications via segregation of congregations (as there are many churches that are "black" as opposed to "white" or of chiefly "Hispanic" worshipers. And how often are "Jewish" persons seen attending "Muslim" services or vice versa?)

In conclusion, the virtuous in any given society are often rewarded before the issue of social equality is addressed because someone has to be in charge in the first place. Societies depend upon their leaderships to enforce laws and man the controls of government that the people are normally loathe to command. By determining who should be in charge in the first place societies already decide the issue in favor of inequality by placing specific individuals in positions of power, thereby creating the initial level of stratification: The differentiation between the Leaders and the Followers. From this stand, all societies initiate the very inequality that they strive to abolish by willingly electing or placing leaders in some fashion or another in positions of power and thus creating an initial state of stratification. Societies may always seek to achieve a state of equal treatment where just rewards are granted in turn for virtuous acts and punishments always equal the crime in question but such a state of perfection can never be achieved as long as the state of stratification exists where people are compelled to be ruled by leaders by choice. As long as there has to be someone in charge the one in charge must wield an unequal amount of social power above and beyond the ability of the people to control their own fates.

Bibliography

Waller, B. A. (2008). Consider Ethics (Theory, Readings and Contemporary Issues) Second Edition.

~o,O)}

People Kill People...

Human beings have rights that no one can deprive them of, according to many political theorists. (Mosser, 2010) Some rights must be held forfeit in the case of extreme behavior, however, especially murder. A citizen, unsatisfied with life, having been fired from his job, in the midst of serious familial troubles as well as battling a chronic drinking problem, etc. etc. etc. walks into a local fast food establishment and unloads a fully automatic weapon into the crowds of innocent customers there. Many people are killed and the culprit is subdued by authorities, incarcerated and sentenced to death.

The inevitable "Right to Lifers" will be seen on television waving picket signs emblazoned with slogans such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill!", while bemoaning ethical questions such as, "...if killing a human being is wrong, and the death penalty is the intentional killing of a human being, then isn't it wrong?" (Mosser, 2010)What if we were to find the home address of the most outspoken proponent of this particular stand and deliver the mass murderer himself in chains directly to said defenders living room, sit the killer on the "Right to Lifers" couch and watch what happens from there? If the defender of the murderers human rights had the keys to the murderers chains would they let the killer loose? Right there in their home? Would they let the murderer stay in their home as a fellow, rights having human being? I wonder...