Meta: Complexity

Normally when we hear of an injustice, action is taken swiftly and we try to solve that problem. Simple. After reading the classes launch and query posts I can begin to get an idea of why these issues continue to be problems even after people know about them: the issues are complex, and complexity often leads to disagreement. There are so many small parts that people can disagree on, or small things that require value judgments, that coming to a consensus may be impossible. For example, in the issue of the drug trafficking solebearing and perrytheplatypus22 disagree about drug legality.  If the base of the issue is something that cannot even be agreed upon how can a consensus to the solution be agreed upon? In the case of sweatshops there are also a lot of layers to the problem. Solebearing brings up the mere morality of the law itself saying “On mere principle, I find not passing such a law to be immoral.” Other people in class think there are different approaches. Bellajoelleseiz says “The way to improve this situation would be to put into effect schools or safe areas for the children to go to because they are not allowed to work”. Even then there is disagreement, because fancycashew says “These children do not have that time… Another solution must be created, but that solution has to come from the country itself.” It is clear from the wide range of questions brought up throughout the posts that these two issues of drug trafficking and sweatshop labor go far beyond the surface of policy making. There are real people involved, real consequences to the actions, and many contributing factors to each problem. If our class, a group of people who actively seek justice and try to look into a wide variety of solutions, cannot agree on what should be done, how can we expect action from a society of varying opinions?

Advertisements