Though all three of our philosophers see self-conscious thought as impacted by our social position, their particular way of expressing this varies. In the case of Hegel, he exemplifies his ideas with what is now called the Master-Slave Dialectic. In this piece, Hegel argues that when two individuals meet one another, a battle ensues between the parties to see who will become subservient to the other (who will become the master and who will become the slave to the master). In this process, the master establishes his self-conscious by imposing himself upon the slave, who in turn establishes his own self-conscious through his subservience to the master. However, one finds a paradox immediately in the idea of establishing a self-consciousness in relation to the subservience of one to himself - and on the other hand, establishing a self-consciousness in relation to being subservient to the other - as the self-conscious of an object necessarily implies some awareness of self, as a subject, which is separate from the perceived object. Hegel is aware of this contradiction, and so requires that a change in the relationship between master and slave must take place. He does so by stating that the
In this paper, I argue that there cannot be moral progress. I believe that moral progress cannot exist because there are no objective morals by which to judge another set of morals. Some critics of my view will say that, while there may be no objective morals, this does not mean there cannot be moral progression. For moral progress seems possible in relativism and in subjectivism. This is mistaken, because each morality is created by the relativists and the subjectivists themselves. This leads to the conclusion that moral progression cannot be made because, by the relativist's own admission, each moral set of facts are equal and none can therefore be considered better or more progressive than another.
The end of South African apartheid was a resounding human rights victory heard around the world. It was from the years 1948 to 1994 South Africa was under rule of systematic racial oppression that came to be known as apartheid. Twenty-three years after apartheid's abrogation, four major consequences can be noticed in the following areas: education, the economy, racism, and government. These effects were and still are wide ranging.
In 1964, the University of California Berkeley was engaging in what would come to be known as The Free Speech Movement. During this time subversive ideas were plentiful, though not all embraced, especially by federal and local law enforcement. At the same time, a mass of students at UC Berkeley were engaged in passively handing out civil rights literature in an attempt to challenge the status quo. While this would be seen as perfectly acceptable by most standards today, Hollander Savio spoke to NPR News about how contemptible these acts were at the time by law enforcement. According to NPR News, Savio recalls that she watched a former mathematics graduate student being arrested for distributing civil rights literature (Gonzales). Fast forward to circa 2016, so called “safe spaces” are being advocated, or more appropriately characterized as demanded, by the New Left. Safe spaces as defined by The Chicago Tribune are areas which serve to shelter students from speakers and/or topics that may be traumatizing, uncomfortable or offensive (Rhodes, Vivanco). One should be shocked that this censorship and disabling of free speech and open discourse comes from the “descendants” of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Not only has the New Left abandoned one of the Old Left’s defining historical moments, it’s abandoned the idea that free speech is in place to protect a citizen’s right to speak openly about unpopular ideas and that that same right should be granted to all citizens without prejudice.