Yes, No, and not Applicable- A Response to Christian's Post

Like my post says, Rousseau and Hobbes would agree and disagree with your exclusive interpretation of them, as well as decline to answer- here's why.

Exclusive Traits:  Both theories of human nature display somewhat exclusive aspects;  Hobbes for example, claims that a totalitarian government is the only way for egotistical and selfish humans to behave in accordance with moral laws of a functioning society.  Rousseau cites the very cornerstone of institutional prominence paramount in Hobbes' theory as the very denigration of the noble savages of humankind.

Mutual Traits (Degrees):  Both theories also acknowledge the degree of goodness and the lack thereof in human nature.  For example, Rousseau champions the triumph of the noble savage as having the empathy to counteract egoistic tendencies, yet still acknowledges that this part of the human being does indeed exist, and even shows many examples in which the ego does triumph, via property and social constructs (institutions).  Hobbes is slightly less as "grey" as Rousseau, yet he still acknowledges that there is one thing that can actually control the unbridled selfishness of the human- an institution of law.  While both theories prefer a particular aspect of human nature, they do so only out of admission of the "other side," that exists.

Not Applicable:   Both theories are also extremely idealistic.  For example, how can Rousseau justify the complete denigration of institutions and property?  Surely, those with lots of political power and property would not willingly give it up without use of force.  In other words, it is possible that Rousseau ever thought his vision for humankind would ever be accomplished, much less attempted.  Hobbes' theory is also full of pragmatic holes- how can constantly egotistic humans be controlled by an absolute form of government?  Who does the governing?  Surely a human being in Hobbes' mind, would do unspeakable things with such use of absolute power.

To what extent would Rousseau denigrate social institutions in the contemporary world?

Rousseau cited the origin of private property as the need for institutions, and ergo, the downfall of the 'noble savage.'  With that being said, do you think he would call for the abdication of all institutions today?  It seems to me that despite the vicious perpetuation of oppression that many (but certainly not all) institutions demonstrate today, we are too deeply entrenched, pragmatically speaking, to completely do without all of them.  Would Rousseau agree, disagree, or perhaps call for reform?

It is worth noting that perhaps even Rousseau did not think his theory of human nature was at all realistic, but simply an idealistic commentary on the state of societies he observed.  Nonetheless, what about now?

Response to Sierra's Post- Changing the Culture

Honestly, I see a culture such as ours very hard to change, as far as a noticeable and vast change is concerned.  I think a few key aspects to concentrate on are cruelty, and awareness.

Many people don't spend enough time to think about where their animal products come from.  By making them more aware of which products employ slaughter house-style production, maybe we can initiate change.  In a culture that wide accepts the consumption of nonhuman animals, perhaps a good start would be to work on integrating the idea in society, that unnecessary suffering of nonhuman animals is not morally justifiable.  Only then can one work on achieve Miller's view of the truly just treatment of nonhuman animals.

What Entails Significant Moral Status?

I think it was very clear that Harlan Miller thought that significant moral status for, say, cows, entailed that humans are not justified in taking their life, even for purposes of efficient and respectful consumption.  With that being said, cows demonstrate much more intelligence and capacity to suffer than say, shellfish?  Would significant moral status entail the same method of treatment for nonhuman animals that are mainstream in many human diets, such as clams, oysters, muscles, scallops, ect.?

Agreeing Without Saying Goodbye to Patriotism

In his article, Jenson centers his thoughts on his country, in this sentence:

“I live in the United States and have deep emotional ties to the people, land, and ideals of this place. Because of these feelings, I want to highlight the positive while working to change what is wrong” (Jenson).

Personally, I do agree with Jenson on this particular sentiment one should project towards his or her country.  However, this definition, in my eyes, still constitutes as patriotism.  Most notably, the "moderate," or "liberal patriotism"  we discussed from the second article last week.  What are your thoughts?

In response to Jenna O'Connor's Post: "Nature v. Nurture"

I would be inclined to agree with you, on the inescapable impact of our genetics on our lives.  I would also say that even those who are more inclined to side with nurture, as Pinker suggested, should probably rethink just what kind of nurture that has been proven to be most influential on a life.

Parental life and social integration, via one's peers, are both debated as to which has more affect on one's behavior.  I would say that although it varies, more often than not, the social integration of peers proves to be more influential.  As Pinker suggested, who we go to school with, are friends with, and discuss contemporary issues with is perhaps more prominently marked upon our lives.  I definitely think the human race learns and progresses (over the long haul) incrementally, and generational liberalization plays a key role in just that.

Just looking at the progression of women's suffrage, civil rights, and gay rights over the course of the 20th and 21st century is evidence of such powerful generational, incremental acceptance of what have become uncontroversial (more or less for some issues rather than others of course) and simply egalitarian social norms.

Embracing Integration- Avoiding Simplification

Holistic Interactionism reminds me of many theories which begin with good intentions- most notably the classic philosophical debate of rationalism, championed by Descartes, and empiricism, fleshed out by Locke.

While many philosophers today agree that not all knowledge is innate, or conversely, that all knowledge is aquired by perception of the senses, many refuse to settle on a muddled and mysterious mix of both.

Holistic Interactionism does just this- taking two concepts, and deluding them of political charge, in a way that results in a user-friendly, conflict avoiding, theory which seems to sit back and admire the mystery of how humans behave and what causes them to do so.

[Holistic Interactionism]...It has a veneer of moderation...safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life."

In my opinion, any theory which is celebrated for its "safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life" is not academia, as the truth should neither be avoided nor inadequately concluded.