Intelligence personified?! KoNeko's textbook

[KoNeko]

Moira, Moira, Moira. Here's my essay about the involvement of black soldiers in the American Civil War- finally! The following is just an essay preparation we had to do- sort of like an expository so the lecturer knew what we would be writing about, but I thought I'd put it here so you get an insight as to the angle I'm taking. Happy reading!

========================
The American Civil War- essay preparation exercise[/u]

Despite the fact that its events occurred over a century ago, the American Civil War was an event which has helped shape much of how we perceive the world today. Concepts such as freedom, identity and democracy that we take for granted were pertinent issues being debated and were influential to the turning points of the war.
Because slaves and blacks in general seem to have an ongoing relevance throughout the Civil War, I have decided to base my essay on how blacks contributed to the Union War Effort, whether it be as civilians or members of a colored regiment.
Given that the Southern states were slaveholding, and there was legislation prohibiting slaves from reading and writing, it would probably be difficult to obtain firsthand slave accounts from around the time of the war (and prior to the Emancipation Proclamation). However, there is evidence that black freedom from slavery was somewhat in the hands of the blacks themselves, as “our freedom might have slipped through de (sic) two houses of Congress and President Linkun’s (sic) four years might have passed by and notin; (sic) been done for us. ” However, there are still other sources of firsthand information from other blacks, such as free blacks in the North, soldiers or even prominent figures such as Frederick Douglass.
Primary sources that are available for this topic are ex-slave accounts and, more predominantly, military documents, such as letters, diaries and orders . The extracts of the orders that I have obtained were those from the War Department used to authorise the training of “volunteers of African descent ” into the First South Carolina Volunteers of the Union army. The relevance of the extracts is that they show the introduction of black soldiers into the Civil War as a major turning point in the tactics and organisation of the Union and the Confederacy armies. For example, both sides would now have to consider whether black troops should be treated the same as white and if so, would a black soldier have “earned the right to citizenship ”? It appears that these issues have not been explicitly expressed in the military orders, but as a result of them, and the subsequent creation of colored regiments, wider concepts of the war and citizenship, identity and emancipation would have certainly be raised.
The document itself, dated August 1862, is quite simple: due to its official nature the language is unequivocal and merely informative; hence it will be supported in the essay by more personalised accounts of the war (e.g. diaries etc.). From the evidence it appears that General Saxton initially requested permission to use black troops and the document is the reply to his request. The fact that Stanton (Secretary of War) justifies the allowance of black troops by the size of Saxton’s original army and the “inability of the Government… to increase it” suggests an inadequacy in the Union’s original military tactics. This is because the reason that more troops would be needed is that original soldiers would have been killed or injured. It may also be due to the fact that the government had given the states powers to organise local troops . The Union including blacks is also an indication that there would have been a shortage in the numbers of white troops available. This in itself shows the effect of war upon the Union.
In researching the essay many different aspects of the war will have to be addressed. Mostly it will be concerned with blacks in the military but how black civilians contributed to the war effort, if slaves in the South had any effect on it (e.g. by sabotaging Confederate equipment or escaping etc.) will also be relevant. To a lesser extent the military, legal and social implications and how white Union soldiers saw the black troops etc. will also have to be considered. As a result of the vast range if issues, an equally diverse amount of material will be required (possibly becoming detrimental in the case of libraries and shared resources). Attached is a briefly annotated bibliography of some proposed secondary sources.


Contemporary documents and texts

Barker, A., The Civil War in America, Anchor 1961
• Gives a general factual overview of the civil war but doesn’t seem to have anything on issues.

Douglas, W.O., Mr. Lincoln and the Negroes, Antheneum 1964
• Contains court judgements, documents and speeches with a narrative. Appears to be quite useful, although if focuses mostly on slaves.

Levine, B., Half slave and half free: The roots of Civil War, New York, 1992
• Explains the relevance of slavery and the position of blacks to the origins of the Civil War

Levine, L.W., Black Culture and Consciousness, New York 1977
This is more of a study of the sociology of the slaves’ society and the effect of emancipation on them and anything really historical.

Mabee, C., Black Freedom: The nonviolent abolitionists from 1830 through the Civil War, MacMillan 1970
• Contains some information about black abolitionists which might be useful

McFeely, W.S., Frederick Douglass, Touchstone 1991
• Appears to be a biography on Douglass and doesn’t seem to offer much historically

Mohr, C.L., On the Threshold of Freedom: Masters and Slaves in Civil War Georgia, Georgia 1986
• Focus will mostly be on the chapter entitled “Black Georgians and the Union War Effort, 1861-1865” which mostly concerns Southern slaves

Other sources
Genovese, E.D., “The Slave States of North America”, in Cohen D.W. & Greene, J.P., Neither Slave nor Free: The Freedman of African descent in the slave society of the New World, Baltimore 1972
• Concerned with the treatment of slaves in the Confederate states mostly in the antebellum period, but also discusses issues about other groups of blacks e.g. free blacks who own slaves etc.[/color]

[KoNeko]

And now for the actual essay. Again, I still haven't figured out how to do footnotes...

------------------------
How did the black contribution to the Union war effort help change the social structure of the United States?

¡§Put a United States uniform on his back and the chattel is a man.¡¨

If it does nothing else, war brings about change. By ways of social reform, reparations, military occupation or political reconstruction, victors of any war seek to make the defeated states more like their own. War efforts alter the economy, social and political structures, and even inhabitants themselves of any state involved.
The American Civil War ¡V also known as the ¡§war that freed the slaves¡¨- was no exception. However, the Civil War appears to actually be two wars inextricably interrelated to each other and going on concurrently. There was the war against the Confederates to restore the Union, and in the North itself there also appeared to be an internal war on the issue of the status of blacks.

Free blacks in the North were basically treated as second class citizens with limited civil rights; the colour of their skin prevented them from the opportunity being able to pursue a fully satisfying and fulfilling life . The very notion of racial equality was relatively foreign, despite Northern opposition to slavery . Obviously, blacks wanted to change the traditional views that whites held of them as savages and primitives by challenging the notion of white supremacy. However, because politically they lacked the means to do so, blacks required a more practical and effective method of proving themselves.
Thus, the Civil War seemed to be the opportunity blacks had been waiting for. Because they had African origins, there was some need amongst blacks to prove their allegiance to the United States. It seemed that the battlefield would be the ultimate place to do this.

Initial Discrimination
Even as early as 1861 at the outbreak of war blacks attempted to enlist as whites had done but were turned away. Blacks seemed prepared to fight for ¡§their¡¨ country, although initially they were told their services were not needed and to keep out of the ¡§white man¡¦s war¡¨ .
A federal law from 1792 also officially barred them from bearing arms for the US army , but this had not stopped black involvement in the American Revolution or the War of 1812, although as soon as each war ended they were immediately disarmed . It appears that blacks were only involved in war where it was advantageous to the whites and after the war they would be conveniently forgotten.

Ultimately the person who prevented blacks from fighting was President Abraham Lincoln, as he entered the war with the intention of restoring the Union, not freeing the slaves. This was most likely a policy reason, as arming blacks would alienate the border slave states that had remained faithful to the Union . ¡§To arm the Negroes,¡¨ Lincoln declared, ¡§would turn 50,000 bayonets from the loyal Border States against us that were for us. ¡¨ The aim of the war was to save the Union. This again was reinforced in 1862, when his priorities were made clear: ¡§If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others along, I would also do that. ¡¨

[KoNeko]

The U.S. Navy however, had no such discriminatory practices and many blacks had served as sailors since 1861 . Blacks had often helped Union soldiers along the Georgian seaboard in return for protection or even the flintlock muskets the navy had sometimes given them for self-defence . Many escaped slaves also served as pilots and guides along rivers. Admiral Du Pont observed that ¡§these men risk their lives to serve us¡K and make no bargains about their remuneration¡¨ .
The blacks themselves were the ones who were most persistent in being armed, with Frederick Douglass¡¦ argument that ¡§Coloured men were good enough to fight under Washington, but they are not good enough to fight under McClellan. ¡¨ Douglass further stated that ¡§the edifice of the state was burning, but the Government would let only ¡§Indo-Caucasian hands¡¨ help put out the fire ¡¨, pointing to the illogic and unfairness of the Lincoln government¡¦s decision.

Moreover, at the same time several Union generals were taking matters into their own hands and using blacks to further the war effort. Even as early as 1861, Gen. Benjamin F. Butler declared fugitive slaves were property that was not obliged to be returned to a foreign government . They were the same as machinery or other resources and subject to confiscation . In this way blacks were used as builders, cooks, spies and scouts for the Union. This also freed white soldiers for other military duties that benefited the Union army. Gen. Hunter and Gen. Fremont declared all slaves in South Carolina and Florida free in 1862, only to have the act repudiated by Lincoln . Subsequently Hunter took these ¡§freed¡¨ men and made them into the 1st regiment of the South Carolina Volunteers , an act that brought much speculation and interest from white Northerners. Lincoln quickly disbanded them , but as the occurrences of Union generals setting up black regiments increased, it seems that the Lincoln administration could really do nothing but legalise something it had little control about in an attempt to make it official. The Militia Act of 1862 gave provisions for blacks to be enrolled for military service , which was in many ways the first step for blacks in a process of self-emancipation and self-identity.

¡§The side which first summons the Negro to its aid will conquer¡¨
In April 1862 at the Battle of Shiloh it became apparent to Gen. Grant that the war to restore the Union could not be won by political compromise but a ¡§complete conquest¡¨ . This meant total war- where many more men would kill or be killed. Obviously by this time the war had begun to drain both sides; with the numbers of volunteers slowing down the North would need to put more soldiers into combat.
With the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation on 1863, public opinion about blacks in the army changed. Of course racial attitudes did not change instantaneously, in fact it increased some racial tensions in the army .
Although black were only to be employed in the army on the basis of ¡§military necessity¡¨ , some whites saw the chance to fill military quotas without having to put more whites at risk, whereas others questioned whether blacks would be skilled and disciplined enough to fight. Regardless of how they were seen, the allowing of blacks to fight in what was initially a ¡§white man¡¦s war¡¨ made them unanimously closer on the evolutionary scale to whites. They were seen more as people in that effect. Blacks took this one step further; they considered themselves not only people, but people worthy of being equals to whites . The Civil War was their opportunity to prove their worth. However, the recruiting process would not have happened as effectively but for Northern black leaders such as Frederick Douglass and William Wells Brown who traveled throughout the North to encourage recruitment numbers and stir up enthusiasm .

[KoNeko]

It would be easy to believe that the majority of those who recruited were escaped slaves, as they seemed to be the ones with the greatest incentive to fight . However, the backgrounds of blacks in the war varied greatly. For example, in the 54th Massachusetts, blacks came from Canada, the Caribbean and Africa , as well as from the North. Two of Frederick Douglass¡¦ sons served in this regiment . There were at least 18 ¡¥free men of colour¡¦ who had not personally known slavery in the 54th, all but two of which could sign their names . This indicates a relatively high degree of literacy amongst the 54th, which in itself would refute the common belief that blacks were uneducated.
Blacks recruited for many reasons; evidently there were those who wanted revenge against former masters , and those who, like many whites, wanted to restore the Union, and those again who, although the war was not about slavery, wanted to end the hated slavocracy . Some explained the need ¡§to strive by deeds of valor to add still more to the accumulated testimony of Negro patriotism and courage, and to contend even against overwhelming odds for our just and rightful dues ¡¨. Because of discrimination denied blacks many opportunities in the community, enlistment may have had a particular attraction for the purposes of increasing one¡¦s status . Importantly, the Union Army also offered freedom to all blacks who enlisted .
Similarly, for the white officers who commanded the black units, the reasons for recruiting were just as diverse. It appears that one of the main reasons was that a white commanding officer joined was because they would have a higher status in a coloured regiment than they would have had in a white regiment . Because, even in the North, blacks and whites tended to live in separate communities with limited contact with each other, for many Union soldiers the first blacks they had ever seen were the refugee slaves they often passed as they traveled between cities . It would be easy to used the highly romanticised presumption that whites were highly prejudiced against blacks prior to the war (as Glatthar seems to ), although it is known that there were just as many white officers who were abolitionists or sons of abolitionists - Thomas Wentworth Higginson, George T. Garrison and Robert Gould Shaw just to name a few. Adjutant Gen. Thomas also specified that he wanted officers ¡§who would¡K treat the Negro kindly. ¡¨ These men also risked their reputations in the eyes of Northern whites by being cast in a lot with blacks.
Even so, there is much evidence of discrimination in the army, perhaps the most obvious being the segregation of white and coloured soldiers, with the word ¡§coloured¡¨ specifically being added for the distinction . Only some divisions in the New England states (such as the 54th Massachusetts) did not accept this practice and allowed all men regardless of colour to be state proud. However, segregation in the military became common practice up until the 1940s .
Blacks also suffered at the hands of their white comrades. Many Union soldiers were outraged that blacks ¡Vparticularly ex-slaves- were wearing the uniform of ¡§their¡¨ country . This is also portrayed in the film Glory where a white soldier declares ¡§I¡¦d rather have a hog than niggers- At least you can eat the hog. ¡¨ Similarly, Maj. Gen. Gilmore said of the decision to allow 54th Mass. lead the attack on Fort Wagner: ¡§I guess we will let Strong lead and put those damned niggers (sic) from Massachusetts in the advance; we may as well get rid of them one time as another ¡¨. Such internal conflicts were relevant as they indicated that a change in the white view of blacks would not come quickly or easily. Even Union commander Gen. Sherman acted with ¡§due regard for the prejudice of the races ¡¨: He only protected black refugees insofar that he could exploit the ¡§brawn and muscle of ablebodied Negro men¡¨ .

[KoNeko]

There were also problems with unfair pay. As Lincoln intended the enlisted blacks for noncombatant roles such as labourers , black soldiers were paid about half of what whites were until 1864 when Congress granted equal pay and made the action retroactive . Also, governments who had enticed blacks to war with bounties often never paid up or defrauded unsuspecting freedmen . All blacks were paid the same amount regardless of rank, although about 100 blacks eventually did get commissions and about a further 2,000 became non-commissioned officers . Inferior pay was particularly difficult on black troops, not only as it meant their families would receive less but also because of the principle behind it. ¡§Do we not fill the same ranks?¡¨ a private wrote. ¡§Do we not take up the same length of ground in the grave yard? ¡¨ Even some white officers backed their troops for equal pay. Shaw, for example, wrote to Governor Andrew of Massachusetts stating his regiment would refuse pay until the matter was corrected .
Discriminatory practices were also apparent with medical services and the copious amounts of fatigue duty and other menial tasks that black units were assigned to do. Of the total of 166 USCT regiments, only about 60 were given action on the battlefields, and even then fewer were engaged in more than one battle . This though, may also be due to the fact that by the time most of the troops were mustered in the war was already half over. However, it does not justify the fact that ten blacks would die of disease for every one in battle compared to the two to one ratio for whites .

Remembering Fort Pillow¡K and other battles
So how, then, in the light of these overwhelming prejudices, did public opinion about blacks turn in the North? Most likely it was due to the fact that preconceived notions of the black being stupid or lazy were completely wrong to start with. One officer found his troops ¡§civil, obedient and much more intelligent than¡K supposed. ¡¨ Black enthusiasm, loyalty and humour were all reported in white newspapers . A black soldier noted that their persistence in the face of the discrimination resulted in a resolution: ¡§now de white sojers take us by de hand and say Broder Sojer. ¡¨ White officers also did not have their authority resented as they used to with white soldiers. This is probably because blacks realised that the officers knew more about soldiering from personal experiences and were therefore more respectful and accepted instructions more readily than white soldiers . Higginson said of the experiences of his men, ¡§I have to show, not only that blacks can fight, but that they and white soldiers can act in harmony together. ¡¨ This all went to further amicable relations between blacks and whites, not only in the context of war but also on the home front, where letters and newspaper reports from both soldiers and their officers helped influence public opinion.
In the New York draft riots of 1863, Irish workers (who had traditionally resented blacks ) burned down the Colored Orphan Asylum and lynched blacks . At that point blacks were ¡§doing our utmost to sustain the honor of our country's flag, to perpetuate, if possible, those civil, social, and political liberties, they, who so malignantly hate us, have so fully enjoyed. ¡¨ They were more loyal to the Union than the whites that rioted against it, and white Northerners recognised this. Lincoln himself noted, ¡§some of the commanders¡K believe the emancipation policy, and the use of coloured troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion. ¡¨ The 54th Mass. also brought this to light a few days later with the charge on Fort Wagner. Their acts there were, ¡§evidence that cannot now be denied, that colored soldiers will dare go where any brave men will lead them ¡¨. Black bravery was also illustrated when Sgt. Carney ¡§grasped the flag, led the way to the parapet and planted the colours thereon. ¡¨ At that point Carney had been shot several times in the head and body. He later received the Medal of Honor for his acts . As word of this and Col. Shaw¡¦s death on the parapet of the fort spread, the regiment became a household name and this in turn helped spur black recruiting . Moreover, prior battles such as Milliken¡¦s Bend and Port Hudson where blacks had also fought valiantly helped hammer the message home. One USCT captain declared, ¡§I never more wish to hear the expression, ¡¥The niggers won¡¦t fight¡¦¡¨ .
Black troops also faced direr consequences than whites if captured by the Confederacy. Although many were simply sentenced to death, some were also put to hard labour , not unlike reversing the effects of the Confiscation Act. White officers of black soldiers were not necessarily treated differently, with the chance they would similarly be executed for treason . However, there is evidence that whites stood a significantly greater chance of being paroled or traded back to the north . Perhaps the most heinous example of such activity by Confederates was the massacre at Fort Pillow, where after their surrender, numerous black and white soldiers were murdered in such a way that the Mississippi was, in Gen. N.B. Forrest¡¦s words, ¡§dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards¡¨ . Subsequently ¡§Remember Fort Pillow!¡¨ became a rallying cry for black soldiers, indicating their willingness to fight to the death with no surrender .

[KoNeko]

The aftermath
Blacks forced Northerners to ¡§rethink some of their assumptions about racial inferiority ¡¨. In this way they brought about change for their own benefit. However, after the war, when change was to be most apparent, things were not always as blacks had expected.
Despite, as per Frederick Douglass¡¦ speech, that blacks may have ¡§earned the right to citizenship ¡¨, problems became evident in the period directly following the war. The Freedmen¡¦s Bureau was established to help the four million-plus displaced slaves, but also was faced with the challenge of instituting a judicial system fair to both blacks and whites . Moreover, as many of the black troops were brought in so late in the war, technically their 3-year enlistments did not end until 1866 . Many were not released until that time, despite the fact the war was over. Regiments were also sent to the Texas border with Mexico with what Grant suggested were ¡§a fair quantity of intrenching (sic) tools ¡¨ for what was no doubt more menial work.
White supremacists and ¡§Night Riders¡¨ also took to terrorising black cavalrymen stationed in the South , but back in the North when the Grand Army of the Republic marched in the grand review in Washington D.C. at the war¡¦s end, there were no black troops among them . This is because Gen. Sherman was in charge of organising the event and given that during the war he had stated that ¡§we have no ¡¥Negro allies¡¦ in this army ¡¨, it is quite presumptuous that they had not been invited. It appears that once again the efforts of blacks for their country have gone unrecognised.
Frederick Douglass once stated: ¡§Without struggle there is no progress. ¡¨ The Civil War was certainly one such struggle in the endeavor towards equality, but one struggle is not enough. It is arguable that the Civil War, although physically finished, is still yet to be resolved. Despite slavery being abolished, the fact that discrimination still exists suggests that issues about identity, freedom and equality ¡Valbeit originating centuries ago- are relevant today. It must, however, be said that as long as the justification for black involvement, and the valor with which blacks fought does not go unforgotten the Civil War has served some purpose in shaping the way American society- and America- is viewed.

[KoNeko]

Bibliography[/b]

Historical Documents
Higginson, T.W., Army life in a Black Regiment, Norton 1984
Yacovone, D. (ed.) A Voice of Thunder: The Civil War Letters of George E. Stephens, University of Illinois Press, 1997
Long, T. ¡§We whipped down all dat¡¨, from Slave Recollections vi.uh.edu/pages/mintz/38.htm

Contemporary Documents and texts
Barker, A., The Civil War in America, Anchor 1961
Cullen, J., The Civil War in Popular Culture, Washington 1995
Douglas, W.O., Mr. Lincoln and the Negroes, New York 1964
Gallman, J. M., The North fights the Civil War: The Home Front, Chicago 1994
Genovese, E.D., ¡§The Slave States of North America¡¨, in Cohen D.W. & Greene, J.P., Neither Slave nor Free: The Freedman of African descent in the slave society of the New World, Baltimore 1972
Glatthar, J. T., Forged in battle: The Civil War Alliance of black soldiers and white officers, New York 1990
Levine, B., Half slave and half free: The roots of Civil War, New York, 1992
Levine, L.W., Black Culture and Consciousness, New York 1977
Mabee, C., Black Freedom: The nonviolent abolitionists from 1830 through the Civil War
McFeely, W.S., Frederick Douglass, Touchstone 1991
McPherson, J.M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, Oxford University Press 1988
McPherson, J.M., Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War, Oxford 1996
Mohr, C.L., On the threshold of freedom: Masters and slaves in Civil War Georgia, Georgia 1986

Periodicals
Fincher, J., ¡§The Hard Fight was Getting into the Fight at All¡¨, Smithsonian Magazine, Oct. 1990

Film
Singleton, J (dir.) Higher Learning, Columbia Pictures, 1995
Zwick, E. (dir.), Glory, Tristar Pictures, 1989

Internet Websites
Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Infantry, extlab1.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/54th_MS_inf.html
Historical background, www.nara.gov/education/teaching/usct/home.html
The Colored Troops (Fox¡¦s Regimental Losses, Ch. VI), www.civilwarhome.com/chapt6.htm
Freedmen, The Freed Slaves of the Civil War, www.civilwarhome.com/freedmen.htm
Brooks, T., All Men Are Brothers, www.coax.net/people/lwf/all_men.htm
Gwaltney, W.W., A Primer on Black Troops in the American West, www.bjmjr.com/civwar/wwg_primer.htm, 2000
McRae, B.J., United States Colored Troops¡K a brief history, www.coax.net/people/lwf/histusct.htm[/color]

[KoNeko]

Here's one of those crazy mind-boggling metaphysics essays. It's based on ancient Greek philosophy so yeah.

Examine the Epicurean arguments against the rationality of fearing death. Do the arguments succeed? If you think they don¡¦t, show why they go wrong. If you think that they do, how might Epicureans respond to potential objections?

Epicurus, in discussing the pursuit of happiness (eudaimonia), states that the ¡§best life¡¨ is one that is free from pain (aponia) and being worried (anaraxia) . Since fearing death is a kind of worry that we all possess, Epicurus sees it as an impediment to our ability to be completely happy, or at least as happy as we possibly can be. However, if this is the case, it appears that virtually nobody can be completely happy or fulfilled since we all have concern for our unavoidable demises, whether we are aware of it or not. Does this make Epicurus¡¦ argument unreasonable? Why do we consider death bad? Would it be better if we could avoid death altogether? Lucretius¡¦ symmetry argument and its objections will also be examined.

The argument against the rationality of fearing death
The fear of death is not concerned with any impending suffering awaiting us, but more about the suffering we are causing ourselves in the way we anticipate it . Since it is impossible to experience death while we are still existing, and we can¡¦t experience anything at all when we are dead, it is pointless for us to fear something that we will never get to experience. Therefore fearing death is not rational.
¡§Death¡¨ in this sense means the cessation of personal existence and therefore personal experience (as opposed to ¡§experiencing death¡¨ by witnessing someone else die). It is the end of psychological continuity (given that this is what gives us identity over time ). This is, we can argue for a case where a person¡¦s body may exist but there is no existence mentally taking place. For example, if a person was in a coma for a very prolonged period before dying, there is a sense in which they were already dead before they were actually pronounced clinically so. Alternatively, consider the case of Phineas Gage who, after a severe accident, behaved so differently to his original self that it was observed that ¡§the friendly considerate Phineas Gage was dead ¡¨, and someone else had merely inherited his body. It is our personalities, experiences and memories that give us identity over time. We die when these things no longer exist within us.

[KoNeko]

The fear of death
Lucretius argues that we are all afraid of death, even if it is just subconscious. Even if they are suffering terribly, people will not kill themselves . Lucretius explains this as ¡§this fright of death¡¨ . However, there are probably other explanations for this, such as hope that things would get better. Conversely, Lucretius might also be wrong on this point, as people have been known to commit suicide in times of hardship, or wish to die in the very least- prisoners on life sentences, or suffering, terminally ill patients are examples that spring to mind. Perhaps Lucretius¡¦ argument should be rephrased to accommodate for this, such as ¡§even if they are suffering terribly, people who have a chance (however small) to do otherwise, will not kill themselves¡¨. Lucretius also discusses, in a related but somewhat weaker sense, that even the most cynical unbelievers will turn to religion in an attempt to not be damned and go to hell. This shows using religion for personal sake, not for the purpose of praising the gods. However, if the aim of practicing religion is so that we get into Heaven, then we could examine Pascal¡¦s Wager as a comparison to the Hellenistic view. Pascal¡¦s Wager argues not believing is riskier than believing in God since in the event that God exists and you don¡¦t believe in him, you will go to hell. If you believe in god and he doesn¡¦t exist, then nothing (bad) happens . This seems similar to what the non-believers are doing in Lucretius¡¦ article.

The ¡§badness¡¨ of death
So if we are all afraid of death, there must be something frightening about it, or we wouldn¡¦t be afraid. One argument is that death is the end of life, and since life is something we desire and value, then that is that makes death so scary and bad. However, simply on this I can argue that there are other things I would consider ¡§good¡¨, which come to an end, but I¡¦m not afraid of the end of these things. For example, at the end of my holidays, when I know I have to go to uni and do another grueling semester¡¦s worth of philosophy, I might be disappointed but I certainly wouldn¡¦t be cowering in fear at the prospect of having to study philosophy. It seems that there are things we consider ¡§bad¡¨ (or at least ¡§not good¡¨) which we have to do and we aren¡¦t afraid of. If this is the case, and death is just something which we would consider bad because it ends something good, then it does seem irrational to fear it.
However, we can distinguish death from other kinds of evils in that death is a condition from which you never return. Even if I am at uni studying philosophy, I know that there will always be other holidays to go on. But in the case of death, once it takes away life, you remain in the state of death and cannot get life back. This is probably why we consider death bad- because once we are dead we stay that way, and we are deprived of life and the benefits that come with it.
Epicurus argues against this on the grounds of what ¡§badness¡¨ is. Something can only be bad for us if we experience it, or we can be aware of it. Since we cannot experience death (because once you are dead you can¡¦t experience anything), then it appears that death is not bad . However, it appears that you don¡¦t necessarily have to experience something for it to be bad for you. For example, children who were born with deformities subsequent to the Chernobyl accident arguably had something bad happen to them, although at the time of the ¡§badness¡¨ occurring they weren¡¦t even born. If we extend this principle, can we argue that people who never were born could be harmed by abortion? However, there seems to be something unreasonable about this, since it appears that application of the principle has been drawn too broadly. To experience something bad, or to experience the consequences of something bad (as per the Chernobyl victims) presupposes the existence at some point of the experiencer.

The symmetry argument
Nagel gives the example of a person who is rendered child-like following an accident . He argues that it is the adult (who had the accident), not the child, that ¡§we pity, though¡K he does not mind his condition ¡¨. This argument seems to say that the adult and the child are not the same person, which is similar to the Phineas Gage discussion above. Even so, we still argue that the adult was harmed in that he was deprived of any future experiences that he could have had if he didn¡¦t have the accident. Would we be able to say the same thing if the survivor never was the intelligent adult? What if he was a child who never grew up? Is the potential for loss greater here, because the child misses out on more possible experiences? One could argue for this, but we could also argue against this and say that if the child remains a happy, contented infant, completely unaware of what he is missing out on, then he may still be deprived in an objective sense. However, since, unlike the adult, he has never experienced or been aware of what would await him when grown up, it seems that the child is less deprived than the adult, since the child would never know what it has missed out on.
Lucretius¡¦ symmetry argument states that if death is bad because it deprives us of time we could have had living, the time before we are born is bad for the same reason . However, we don¡¦t see being born when we were (and not earlier) as a bad thing. Therefore Lucretius suggests that we should see death in the same way as pre-life , thereby making the two symmetrical; the mirror between the two being our actual existence. This argument runs counter to Nagel¡¦s deprivation claim.
However, a distinction between the two periods seems to be overlooked. You can only wish to extend your life once you are already in it, when birth has already occurred. It shows the logical impossibility of extending one¡¦s life retrospectively, whereas life could be extended forwards because death has not yet happened.

[KoNeko]

Problems with the symmetry argument
Nagel claims that the two are actually not symmetrical because a person cannot be born earlier than he actually was because he would be a different person if that were the case . If this is the case, then the pre-birth period is not capable of depriving us of anything, because we could not have been born earlier than we were anyway. This is because the time that we were born gives us a certain set of experiences and memories, and these are essential to our identities . Since a person can die later than he actually does, death can deprive us of life, but being born at the time that we were does not deprive us of anything. Therefore there is no symmetry and so we can still hold the view that death is bad because it deprives us of a prolonged life .
However, Nagel presumes that a person born earlier (premature births aside) would be a different person. This is an unsubstantiated claim because ¡§it is not clear that it is logically impossible that an individual should have been born substantially earlier than he actually was ¡¨. It appears that it is possible for people to be born earlier than they actually were, and still be the same person. The same person as who? Who they are now? If it were at least physically possible for a person to be born earlier than they actually were, they would have a whole different set of experiences. Let us call the original person P1. P1 would have a certain identity if born earlier (call this P2), but then he wouldn¡¦t have had some of the experiences that he actually has (as P1 in his current life). However, does it matter if P2, being born earlier, has a different set of experiences? We would still call P2 the same person as P1, since we wouldn¡¦t know the difference, as only one could exist at any time. Also, if this is possible, what is preventing P2 (who would never know that he was actually P1 but born earlier and therefore having a different set of experiences) from wishing he was born earlier as P3, and so on ad infinitum? Kripke argues that this would not be the case, since P1, P2, P3 etc. are the same person, albeit with different memories . According to him, our physical (genetic) constitution is what makes us the same person in different possible worlds. Even so, it is our psychological continuity that establishes us as the same self over time, so Kripke¡¦s argument only gives us someone who was physically similar to us, but it does not really relate to the argument about death, which is the end of our psychological being.

Another problem with the symmetry argument?
It seems that there isn¡¦t a substantial objection to Nagel¡¦s deprivation argument, so it can be used to argue against the symmetry argument. It is not possible for a person to be born earlier than he actually was.
Kaufman¡¦s contention for asymmetry is that while a person cannot be born earlier as the same person (since we would have different experiences and therefore be a different person), it is possible to project one¡¦s life past the actual point of death . This is because an additional stream of later experiences doesn¡¦t interrupt one¡¦s current memories, but in the case of projecting backwards, we would have to create a life (up until the time we were actually born) which was logically and physically consistent with the life that we actually had. This is impossible because it would ¡§disrupt the sequence of experiences¡K to which I am currently connected ¡¨. Baltzly seems to argue against this in his example that if you project your life further than it actually does go, you may end up with a personality that is not anything like your own anyway, so maybe you can¡¦t actually die later than you actually do . So in a way they are sort of symmetrical. However, there seems to be something strange about this argument, because it has been widely accepted that our personalities do change over time. If I had the same personality for the whole of my life I would probably be like a very small child. It is evident that my personality, and therefore what makes up my self, must be constantly changing in order to suit changing circumstances.

[KoNeko]

Consequences of life extension
Even so, it still appears that if extending one¡¦s life either way were possible, it wouldn¡¦t really matter because nobody would know it had happened! How would you know if you had been born earlier, or you would die later than you were ¡§really¡¨ supposed to? It seems that this question hasn¡¦t been properly addressed. If there is no difference at all then we might as well say that life extension is not possible at all.
This raises an interesting point. What if we never died? That is to say, what if we were immortal? This would be the ultimate for death-fearers, since we would never be deprived of anything through death. However, Williams argues that immortality is not desirable on the grounds that we would eventually get bored of it all . After a while, everything that could happen to ¡§one particular human being¡K [would have] already happened ¡¨, thereby making our existence pointless. Alternatively, but probably equally as undesirable, is the idea of am ¡§endless evolution ¡¨. We might just keep on changing our desires, interests and experiences indefinitely. However, at some point, would this eternally changing person still be me? It seems a difficult question to answer, since I would still have psychological continuity but the very nature of the person could be such that (after so many years of experiencing new things) I might have interests or a personality that I never would have had in my limited lifetime.
In any case, immortality also arguably deprives us of fully appreciating what we really have. The things that we value such as friendship, the environment and life itself are only so valuable because we know we cannot take them for granted, because there will be a day when we don¡¦t have it anymore.

Conclusion
Epicurus¡¦ argument that fearing death is irrational is not fully substantiated. It appears that we fear death because it is bad in that it deprives us of something we value- life. However, the question of our identity is raised in that we arguably would not be the same people as we are now at any point outside of our actual existence. Therefore it appears that the symmetry argument fails as if there is nothing outside of our existence, then there is nothing that can be symmetrical.
Also, why would we want life extension anyway? It seems that if we had indefinite life then we would eventually get bored or ¡§evolve¡¨ in such a way as to be unrecognisable to our original selves. Finally, death, if still a fearful notion, serves the purpose of making us appreciate as much as we can while we still can, thereby making our lives more valuable and worthwhile.

[KoNeko]

Bibliography

Books
-Baltzly, D., Studies in Hellenistic Philosophy, Monash University 2000
-Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy, (Trans. Cottingham, J.), Cambridge 1997
-Kripke, S., Naming and Necessity, Cambridge, Mass., 1972
-Long, A & Sedley, D (eds.) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Cambridge 1999
-Nagel, T., Mortal Questions, Cambridge 1979
-Townsend, A. (ed.), Descartes and the defence of reason, Monash University 1998
-Townsend, A. (ed.), Time, Self & Freedom, Monash University 1999

Journals
-Kaufman, F., Death and deprivation; Or Why Lucretius?Symmetry Argument Fails, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 74, #2; June 1996

Other Articles/Sources
-Brueckner, A., & Fischer, J.M., Why is Death Bad?
-Langton, R., Belief, action and direction of fit
-Lucretius, Proem to Book III of De Rerum Natura
-Williams, B., The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality

[KoNeko]

This is a short essay I wrote in 1st year, before I knew anything about the law, and when I was a utilitarian.

Is it desirable that offenders be treated in a manner which best prevents them from repeating socially harmful acts, irrespective of their mental states at the time of the offences?

The law works under a social system where the aims of sentencing (usually in the form of punishment) include deterrence, reformation and incapacitation . Every time a sentence is carried out it is supposed to meet some, if not all of these aims. (E.g. a sociopath with no remorse may still be imprisoned to deter possible future offenders.) In effect, all these aims are supposed to help reduce the crime rate, as well as having a punitive effect on the offender, which in turn would increase the happiness and well being of the society¡¦s citizens. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that measures should be taken to prevent criminals from re-offending, as this would benefit the general public. We can compare this to the medical phrase ¡§prevention is better than cure¡¨. To prevent offenders from re-offending would be better than just giving them a short-term punishment. The question now is whether or not the mental state of the offender should be taken into consideration in taking preventative measures.

In some cases, if the mental element was not looked at then the punishment might not be useful in carrying out its retributive purposes. Take an example of a sadist who has committed a serious offence. Had it not been known that this offender had sadistic tendencies he would be subject to the same punishments as the other offenders, which presents no problem in itself, until the punishment involves some form of torture. Now the sentence is no longer punitive, in fact the sadist would probably re-offend once he was released, knowing that his punishment would not be unpleasant (for him) at all. However, this would mean that a different punishment would have to be devised for the sadist, and here we can draw the analogy in the ¡§treatment¡¨ of offenders and the treatment of patients. There can be alternative forms of treatment for patients from the conventional one for many reasons (e.g. if the patient is allergic to a certain medication, etc.) but if this was applied to offenders, then punishment becomes individualized and therefore unjust. It would be unfair to impose different punishments on offenders if the acts were conducted in similar circumstances. However, if ¡§treatment¡¨ of the offender were not necessarily punitive but to ¡§cure¡¨ them of a disease, this problem of unfairness would be overcome.

This is similar to the case of the offender being mentally ill. If the offender has some known form of mental impairment, he may already be exempt from imprisonment, as he was not in control of his actions. Hart statement that ¡§a person is not to be blamed for what he has done if he could not help doing it¡¨ is generally accepted . However, in most cases like this, the ¡§offender¡¨ is usually made to be institutionalized or to receive another form of treatment, even though it would be much lighter than a prison sentence for the same offence. In this case there may still be some punitive factors attached to this (e.g. deprivation of freedom etc.). Still, this is for the benefits of the more general society so it should be upheld. This can be expressed in utilitarian terms: although the offender may be ¡§suffering¡¨, the prevention of socially harmful acts benefits many people and this outweighs the unhappiness of the individual.

[KoNeko]

Up until now the arguments only regard relatively long term mental states, so now other possible states of mind will be examined. The general difference between the short and long term states is that the short term state of mind are usually due to a voluntary act or omission on the offender¡¦s behalf. One of the most obvious (and probably common) temporary states of mind would have to be that due to intoxication. Usually offenders who commit harmful acts under the influence of alcohol (or drugs) do not have to be ¡§treated¡¨ as such for the offence, although their punishment (usually a fine or a prison term) is usually not enough to deter them from reducing the possibility of the offence happening again (e.g. abstaining from drinking etc.)
Another example is the complete lack of any mental state at all. A man who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and, as a result, crashes and kills his passengers cannot be found liable for his actions . This means that such socially harmful acts do not hold any moral responsibility, as there is no ¡§treatment¡¨ for the offender. However, how does one ¡§treat¡¨ an offender under these circumstances? There is no real course of action that can be taken to prevent such ¡§accidental offenders¡¨ from re-offending, since the offence was unintentional in the first place. Likewise, murderers do not cause road accidents (generally speaking!) but careless people do. They are still dangerous to society but it would be unjust to punish them on these grounds.
These temporary mental states should be considered in the course of preventing possible re-offences. If the offender, accidental as he/she may be, was made aware of their offence then guilt itself that they have caused harm might make them more alert to possible situations where the offence could reoccur.

On the other side of the argument, although in our current legal system crime is defined by its mental elements, they should not always be used. For example, the presence or absence of intent and knowledge that an action may result in death is what differentiates murder and manslaughter. Even so, both are still considered crimes as such, as Wootton argues, ¡§if the purpose of the law is to dispense punishment tempered with mercy, then to use mercy as a consolation for unjust punishment is certainly to give a stone for bread. ¡¨ If the criminal system mitigates an innocent person¡¦s punishment, or if he pleads guilty to a crime instead of not guilty (where ¡§not guilty¡¨ attracting a greater punishment), he or she is still being punished, regardless of how long or severe the sentence is. If the mental elements of a crime where not considered and only the material facts of a case were, then the differences between crimes such as manslaughter and murder would be virtually non-existent, which would probably not allow for any form of mitigation.
Also, there is the difficulty in proving the mental elements of a crime . It is virtually impossible to accurately establish mens rea in relation to any offence. For example, in the Morgan rape case, difficulties arose in deciding whether the defendants acted recklessly or negligently. If the mental state of an offender is to be scrutinized in so much detail, and knowing that mens rea cannot be fully proven in any case, it would be more reasonable for an offender to claim complete ignorance, similar to that of the careless drivers. In such a case the offender would not be subject to any severe form of punishment, giving him/her the chance of re-offending. There would be little distinction between a genuine and a false claim to ignorance, so there is the potential for abuse of this system. However, this is a risk that will have to be taken in accepting to use the mental elements of a crime.

The current test for finding the mental state of the offender is the objective test. Would any reasonable person under the same circumstances have reacted in the same way as the defendants? However, if this test does not take into account the mental states of the defendants at the time of the offence then it is not acceptable to use it. Because there are factors relating directly to the defendant, it is not really an objective test either. Despite these faults in the test, as we currently do not have a better alternative we will have to use this test to determine the mens rea of an offender.

When an offence has occurred, it is important to examine the circumstances under which the act happened. This includes the offender¡¦s mental state at the time of the offence, if it helps in preventing them from repeating harmful acts. This may include letting the offender know the mental elements surrounding the offence (e.g. intoxication), or even in more serious cases, institutionalization. Although there is difficulty and ambiguity in establishing the mens rea of an offender, it should be attempted to gain a wider picture of the circumstances surrounding the case. Thus offenders should be treated in a manner which best prevents them from repeating socially harmful acts, but to do so effectively their mental states at the time of the offences will have to be considered.

[KoNeko]

My policy/law reform essay for Advanced Professional Practice- basically, you write a report on an aspect of what you did at the legal service or a problem you came across at the service etc.
__________________________________________

Making Australia home:
Problems that migrant clients face in Australian courts and how to overcome them

Australia has been one of the most popular destinations for immigrants, with at least 5.5 million having arrived since 1945 , but it wasn¡¦t until the White Australia policy was dismantled in 1973 that immigration from non-English speaking countries, particularly those in Asia, increased. In those last 30 years the percentage of the population born overseas has almost tripled , clearly impacting on Australia¡¦s economic, social and cultural life. It was a change in national identity from being predominantly British to a multicultural nation.

However, migrants and those from non-English speaking backgrounds still experience difficultly in accessing the judicial system effectively. This is particularly relevant in relation to family law issues, where over 40 percent of divorces involve couples with at least one partner having been born overseas . The situation becomes more problematic and difficult when one considers that migrants also may have language and cultural constraints on their ability to find help at such emotionally stressful times.

While the Family Court must be flexible enough to reflect shifting family values and cultural standards, the fact remains that the basis on which the Family Law Act is drawn- the Constitution- was ¡§very much the work of Anglo-Celtic white men¡¨ and therefore some of those traditional views may have had a trickle-down effect into subsequent legislation. However, the Family Law Act has always been relatively advanced for its time and courts tend to apply the law with regard to Australia¡¦s international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).