What is culture?

View more presentations from Nurhayati Khan.

Things We Forget: #573

Things We Forget: #573: "tanjong katong, singapore"

Marriage/HuiJun/10S416

Peter Landry states that "marriage has come to be understood as a publicly advertised bargain, a social contract between a male and a female". i agree that marriage has become an opened declaration of a commitment between couple, whereby their agreement to marriage is founded upon praticality and obligation. A marriage is only recognised if it is approved by the government, through the witness of family members. This is especially true in singapore where couples have to obtain license to wedding. These people usually take the extra mile to apply to ROM and obtain marital status search result, of which the singapore registry of marriage does not offer. This shows that marriage is not just a simple mutual agreement between two parties to seal their destiny together, it also require official signings to affirm the public of one's relationship. People feel obliged to follow law in order for their marriage to go smoothly. However, marriage, afterall, is based on respect and love between couple, thus it is not all about a black and white 'contract'. Having signed a wedding commitment is to protray a approved marriage on the surface.

Morse argues that "marriage is an organic instrituion that emerges spontaneously from society". i agree that marriage may also arise out of instinctive impluses. Marriage is a result of the natural attraction between opposite gender and does not necessary require long time process before it takes place. The influence of society, through the usage of education and media, on the decision to marry is great on citizens. However, marriage arised out of instinctive impluses constitutes a minority. In singapore, the marital statues of its citizen is low. Thus, it shows that people are more careful in choosing their spouses and thus delaying the marriage. Although people have the implusiveness to get married, they do think twice before acting on it. This is evident from the low marriage statues in Singaporeans.

pjc09_optimism/yufan/10s416

Garte mentioned 'Their successes – big and small – have to be recognized to stimulate future efforts.' He is trying to say that no matter what happens, as long as there is progress, we should remain optimistic and not feel gloomy about that fact that we have taken only a baby step towards success. I agree with his point, this is because if we do not at least acknowledge the minute step we take, we might never be able to achieve anything big. Everyone, young and old need encouragements to propel forward. For example, in every soccer game played, there are supporters rooting for the team they support. It is important for the presence of encouragement and recognition of efforts made by each player. This definitely boost each player's confidence and bring them towards success in their career.

Webb mentioned 'Our social contribution to the world is motivated primarily for the sake of alleviating that nagging guilt within, while in reality ensuring that indulgence and comforts are maintained at all costs.' Here, he is saying that most people's contribution to the society is due mainly to the bad conscience over responsibility, but even when so, people still ensure that their hunger for materialistic wants are fulfilled. However, i disagree with the author's point as it is not true that everyone contribute to the world only because of guilt. There are many others who sacrifice from the bottom of their heart for the world. Just like in the recent case of Haiti earthquake, students sacrifice their measly pocket money for the reconstruction of the buildings and lives in Haiti. Hence, it is not true that contribution to the world is mainly due to their guilty conscience, there are exceptions to it as well.

utopia/germaine/10s416

Firstly, the author claims that “the alteration envisioned by utopian thinkers has not come about, and for the most part, their projects have produced results opposite to what they intended”. I agree with the author that prior to what people have in mind, people who try to change the social and political state of a country end up getting unexpected results. This results in social unrest as people try to pursue what is ideal in their lives. When people try to change something stable in society, it might result in adverse effects. There are many different movements that have ended up in disaster and also the loss of human lives due to conflicting arguments. However, if people make the effort to understand each other, these utopian movements might be able to be successful as people acknowledge the fact that everyone has their own preferences and differences and this would allow people to accept each other easily.

Secondly, the author claims that “we believe that we are so much better, wiser and advanced than those who have tried it in the past”. I agree with the author that people nowadays believe that they are always better, smarter than the people of the past. This causes them to feel more superior to others and also demand for a higher standard of living. As people get more self-centered, they will only think of what is best for them. As a result, living in harmony is hard and dangerous to attain as living in harmony would mean putting aside each other’s differences and accepting one another. However, not everyone is individualistic. There are people in society today who commit their lives to serving others and making living together in harmony easier for everyone. There are also methods to help foster harmony between people. For example, in Singapore, the government tries to foster harmony between different racial groups by setting certain percentages of racial groups that can live in the same housing block. With increased exposure to each other, people might be able to live in harmony after all.

dhs08_utopia/Rabia/10s416

The author argues that attempts to create and drive utopias have been dangerous, enduring and futile. How far do you agree with his view?

Firstly,John Gray states that "there is nothing to stop humans from remaking themselves and their world,as they please".Humans are now better developed in all aspects enabling them to aim for a state in which everything is perfect.I agree with the author's point that there may be no barriers in achieving utopianism.Nowadays,due to globalisation,countries are increasingly interconnected with one another.Thus,they are able to share their resources,knowledge and expertise with other countries.Compared to the past,when this was hard to achieve,it is easier to achieve utopianism as countries can now co-operate and co-ordinate,such that their 'perfect' state is achieved.However,the surrounding that we live in must also be capable of achieving utopianism.All our natural resources have been depleted or are being depleted at a fast rate,such that it cant sustain anymore growth.In this state,the ideal vision of achieving utopianism would also not be possible.Even though,humans may have the capability to achieve utopianism,the natural environment may not have the means to do so.

Secondly,the author states that utopianism may not be possible to achieve as "conflict is a universal feature of human life".Conflicts may arise due to various reasons and have the ability to shatter a common goal shared by everyone.I agree with the author that disagreement is a common attribute among humans.Humans have different wants and needs,that leads them to emphasise different needs and wants.Conflicts may arise when different people prioritise different need and wants and are unable to compromise.However,there are other reasons suggested as to why utopianism cannot be achieved.Human's imperfections are one reason as to why we cant achieve utopianism.Humans make mistakes everyday and have their own limitations.In a utopia society,where there is only perfection,humans may not be able to match up to its standards.Thus,utopianism may not be the best possible society structure for everyone.

[njc07_ethics_and_morality/Gladys/10S416]

The author in passage 1 states that “The bystander effect is watching some evil take place, but since we are watching with others who are watching, and no one seems to be doing anything about the evil, we go on watching and doing nothing about it”. The author says that the “bystander effect” is very prevalent in because of the nature of the effect itself. The bystander effect is that one’s actions are constantly affected by the society. One does not do anything without the society, or even another person doing the same thing first. It results in nothing being done, because no one wants to take the first step, even if it means to condone evil in society. I agree that the “bystander effect” is prevalent in society. This is also because of the fear of being judged by society. Should one stand up for his beliefs and moral values he is going against the grain of a common understanding in society. The fear of being labelled as “trying to be difficult” or being mocked at for being “old fashioned” drives people to be socially accepted through conforming to the ways of society.

The author in passage 2 states that “Accepting a low-level moral code during the day is bound to infiltrate one’s off-time judgment as well. “ The author says that long time spent with a society of amoral standards will influence one’s moral standards in the long run as well. This is the case where everyone’s moral standards are bouncing off each other. The existence of society itself allows the “bystander effect” to be prevalent as each person’s thoughts and moral standards are affected by the existence of society. I agree that this phenomenon is evident in society. This is because of loose morals in the society. Loose morals in a society will lead to one that condones many once deemed immoral acts. As such, people with strong morals will eventually be influenced to allow such views to stand. In Singapore, the once deemed impossible thought of divorce has been already accepted as the norm. In fact, divorce rates have increased steadily in Singapore since the 1990s. Thus, this shows that the loose morals itself has allowed the “bystander effect” of widespread acceptance of divorce in Singapore