EDEC 248 Final: Final exam part 1 copy

63 views2 pages

blueherring748

23 Jun 2018

School

McGill University

Department

Curriculum and Instruction

Course

EDEC 248

Professor

Ratna Ghosh

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

a) Topic 1: A human right is ultimately a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every

person. Everyone should feel as though these rights apply to them and they should not have

to earn them. If I were to teach this concept to grade four students, I would explain that a

human right is something that is innate. However, often times society makes some people

who are of a certain race or social class feel as though they do not have access to these rights,

even though they do and should. Societal norms and standards often demonstrate that one

race is superior to the others and that there are certain people who should be treated

differently because they are “different” from the norm. However, the colour of your skin does

not define who you are as a person. Thus, segregating someone based on the colour of their

skin and having perceived misconceptions about that person is wrong. As humans, we must

learn to acknowledge difference and treat people with the same opportunities. Yet, we cannot

treat everyone the same as we are all born different however, we should acknowledge those

differences as honourable rather than humiliating. Even though are born into different things

that we are unable to change, we are able to change how we treat one another.

b) The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms protects every Canadian’s right to be treated

equally and fairly under the law. The charter allows Canadian’s the right to freedom of

expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. It also protects the right of all

Canadian’s from infringements by laws, policies or actions of government including

authorities such as the police. If you are wrongly accused, you have the right to go to court

and you are considered the innocent victim unless proven guilty. The Canadian human rights

act protects people in Canada from discrimination in the work force.

find more resources at oneclass.com

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Topic 1: a human right is ultimately a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. Everyone should feel as though these rights apply to them and they should not have to earn them. If i were to teach this concept to grade four students, i would explain that a human right is something that is innate. However, often times society makes some people who are of a certain race or social class feel as though they do not have access to these rights, even though they do and should. Societal norms and standards often demonstrate that one race is superior to the others and that there are certain people who should be treated differently because they are different from the norm. However, the colour of your skin does not define who you are as a person. Thus, segregating someone based on the colour of their skin and having perceived misconceptions about that person is wrong.

Related Questions

based on your additional research, should police departments employ predictive policing to reduce crime with limited resources? Be sure to carefully defend your response with reasons and consider an objection (which you respond to) before you conclude the argument.

My response: I agree that being a part of the white society is like the concept of invisible privilege that has a familiar simile in that it is analogous to an invisible weightless knapsack. This metaphor emphasizes that white privilege, even though it may not be immediately obvious, has considerable advantages and opportunities that may include a lot of benefits and freedom to life. White people benefit from the structures and institutions in which they live. In the same culture, they were trained to be oblivious to their benefits. The undeserved advantages that were created by white people made people of color feel as if they were being oppressed. It is a norm and dominating racial power to be white in this society. For instance, if a white person comes into a new neighborhood, they are fairly certain that the bulk of their neighbors are the same color as them. A person has no idea of the advantages they have until they put themselves in the shoes of other people of color. Peggy McIntosh said that white advantages don't originate from a fault in a single human or from a single individual using them. It is via an inherent fault in the system that white privilege is created. If we wish to effect systemic change, it must occur inside the system. Systems have a major impact on individual behavior in the social world. We may all do our part to hasten the end. McIntosh maintains that white people may see racism in a different way when something gives them an advantage over others, not because it benefits white people. Systemic oppressions have interactive and internalized characteristics. Teaching racism as an act rather than an overall system that advantages the dominant group makes it difficult for white people to see themselves as racists. Embedded systems can't be eliminated, the recognition of them is important. Change won't come from just being dissatisfied with the system. McIntosh's example offers many benefits for comprehending white privilege. There are many advantages to understanding white privilege as the McIntosh example demonstrates. While it is true that 'whiteness' is simply about skin color, the various definitions of race reveal that it is really much more than that. The fact that McIntosh refers to white advantage rather than non-white disadvantage when framing the discussion of race reinforces the overall idea that race should be seen in terms of advantage rather than disadvantage.

include

1. Introduction

-State thesis and summarize argument

-Define any key terms

2. Main Body

-Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3

3. Objection

-Response to objection

4. Conclusion

-Restate thesis/summarize your main arguments

OC4131475

read it and write down your ideas

Even though they have been doing it all their lives, people need to study communication simply because it is so complex. As stated in chapter 3 of the book, we all perceive things differently and "perception and communication influence each other, perception shapes our understanding of others' communication and the choices we make in our own communication" (pg. 41). For the reason that the choices we make and the ways that we view things/situations are changing everyday, communication between two individuals also changes and becomes more complex. Though we can communicate in general, how we communicate and what we communicate depends on how we perceive the world around us, making communication not as simple as it seems. As humans, we create broad categories of things (prototypes) and place people into them (Wood pg. 43). We then go on to create a more detailed assessment (a personal construct) where we measure a person or situation with a certain dimension of judgment (Wood pg. 43). We also place people and situations into stereotypes by making predictive generalizations or simply predicting what the personal/situation will be like or what will happen (Wood pg. 43). With all of these components to a basic path of communicating with others, it's hard to not see why we would study our complex underlying system of human communication. Not only do we make assumptions, but we base our thoughts/actions off of those assumptions which can then all be interpreted differently among various individuals. We study communication to try and dissect all of these interpretations and perceptions of others "to make sense of experience and to predict how we and others will act" (Wood pg. 45). Sometimes we follow a script or just simply act a specific way in a specific situation (like greeting someone and telling them your name) (Wood pg. 45). However, not everyone follows these scripts which just adds to the complexity of communication between us all.

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

EDEC 248 Final: Final exam part 1 copy

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

EDEC 248 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Social Capital, Cultural Capital

EDEC 248 Chapter Notes -White Privilege, Male Privilege, Meritocracy

EDEC 248 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Meritocracy, Class Discrimination, White Supremacy

Related Questions