2. Why does the USA continually claim to be the greatest and most ethical country (for example around human rights) when its citizenry is uninformed about so much harm that their government contributes to in the world? Do you agree with Filice that we have a prima facie moral obligation to be informed?

LOCKE

Assumptions:  God gave the Earth to humans in common to meet their needs for life.  There is moderate scarcity, that is that there are not infinite resources, but there are enough to meet everyone’s needs.  (If there were not enough to meet everyone’s needs, the right to life would be non-sensical.)

Needs are very different from wants.  Needs can be empirically measured and satisfied, they are objective; wants are subjective and there are not enough resources to meet everyone’s wants.

In the “natural state” no one needs consent to take what she needs to live—that is (for Locke) a God-given right, the right to life.

The justification for private property (to meet the needs for life):

In order to be able to justify taking from the common pile, you must follow these three criteria:

  1. You must labor (if you are able).  The ethical dimension of this is the work ethic.
  2. You must not take more than you need. The ethical dimension of this is that under moderate scarcity there is enough to go around, but if you take more than your fair share you will be infringing on someone else’s right to life.
  3. Leave enough and as good for others. The ethical dimension of this is the same as number 2, above, but adds that you must not take the best.  For example if there are 100 apples, and 50 people who need two apples each, and 50 apples are bruised, you take one of the non-bruised, and one bruised.

Locke wrote:  “It is useless, as well as dishonest to carve himself too much, or take more than he needs.”

Commentary/Analysis:

Whether or not you believe in God, I submit that this justification is impossible to deny unless you give up the right to life.  That is, Locke’s justification is absolutely consistent with the right to life, and the empirical condition of moderate scarcity.  In a world of finite resources (even with renewable, there is always a finite amount) taking more than your fair share risks others’ lives.  To take more than your fair share (and all of the best) is to say to others that you do not care about their rights, just your own.    This is true with or without God; meaning that you do not need a religious basis for the right to life.  Further, if you claim to be any variety of a Judeo-Christian, Locke’s criteria are absolutely consistent with scripture.  If you take more than you need for life, you are necessarily putting others at risk.

If you do not care about others’ lives, then you can reject Locke’s criteria. However, that also folds back onto you and you do not then have a right to life.  Thus there is no obligation on anyone else to protect you and ensure your needs.  The world would become a Hobbesian hell, with life being “nasty, brutish, and short.”

Many people in the USA claim to be Christian but do not live by these criteria.  In fact while the USA is only about 5% of the world’s population, they consume vastly more than 5% of the resources, in some cases up to 30%.  The USA also generates a very high and disproportionate rate of most forms of pollution.

It is blatantly obvious that “we” do not live by Locke’s criteria.  Not living by these criteria is denying others’ an equal right to life.  Yet we claim to respect human rights.  This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Why do you think that we do not live by Locke’s criteria?

SINGER

Assumptions:Singer is a utilitarian which means that he is concerned with minimizing harm and maximizing overall good.  In this reading he questions the difference between killing and failing to save.

Singer provides the example of a child drowning in a pond.  Suppose someone (an adult who will be at no risk by entering the pond and getting the child) is passing by and sees this child.  If he stops to save the child there will only be two consequences to him.  He will be late, and his suit will get wet.

Singer proposes a principle:  “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” (p. 301)

In order to reject Singer’s trajectory here, you must reject that principle.  In the example above, the man will be late to class lecture, and get wet if he intervenes; if he does not, the child will drown.  Singer (and I) consider that any moral person would agree that a wet suit, and being late are not of comparable moral significance to a child drowning.

From this, Singer provides an argument about our duty to help those in poverty.  That argument is on p. 302.

Remember that Singer is utilitarian.  Utilitarians are judged by the consequences they bring about that minimize suffering.

He is talking to anyone who has money after her basic needs are met.  What he argues is that it is a moral duty for her to give money to alleviate the suffering that comes with poverty—but not to give to a point of suffering.

The strong principle is to give all of your extra resources/money to those impoverished, but not to reduce yourself below the line of marginal utility.  The line of marginal utility is the point where you are above suffering, and below which suffering exists.

The weak principle is to give something to those suffering, but not to bring yourself near the line of marginal utility.

Commentary/Analysis:

Both Locke and Singer address the excess that one has.  For Locke, you are not justified in having excess because it means that you have taken more than you need, and this threatens the right to life of others.  For Locke, if you have excess, it should go back into the “common pile” for others to labor to obtain what they need.  If you are able, under Locke, you must labor (no hand-outs).

Singer does not say as strongly that you are not justified in having excess, but he does argue that it is your moral duty (and not charity) to give it to the poor who are suffering below the line of marginal utility.  He allows for giving a little (under the weak principle) but the strongest moral position is to give all excess, while insuring that you do not suffer.  (Because your suffering would add to the other suffering, and this violates utilitarianism.)

Some people try to justify their excess by claiming that they “worked for it.”  That is labor, and under Locke, this is the first requirement.  However, you may not take more than your share, no matter how “hard” you work.  If you do, you put others at risk.

Some try to justify excess for the future, or for their own families.  Again, everyone has the right to life and if your actions threaten others’ rights, they are immoral.

Once again, we’re faced with the right to life.  Either we take it seriously, and don’t just bandy it about, or we abandon it and all safeguards that also protect us.

Ethics is about self-restraint, about not harming others, about doing the right thing, about one’s duties, about responsibility.  It is not about getting what you want just because you can.

Just as with Locke, “we” in the USA generally do not follow Singer’s argument and give the excess we have.  Why?

FILICE:

Assumptions:Filice assumes that it is our moral duty to be informed about distant atrocities, insofar as we are able.  This duty is magnified if we, in any way, contribute to such atrocities (including via tax dollars).

Filice gives two disparate examples of a person:  1.  A “well-educated, refined hedonist whose world revolves, by conscious choice, around private pleasure.” And 2.  A “seriously underprivileged, culturally deprived, illiterate person.”  He assumes that most of us fall somewhere in between those extremes.

Filice provides the case study of East Timor, and the atrocities there.  There are many more where our government plays “supportive roles in the atrocities of other governments.”

He then provides a 10 point argument (pp. 169-170) about our prima facie obligation to be informed.  (Prima facie means at first glance, or on the face of it.)

Commentary/Analysis:

Underlying Filice’s argument is the same principle that Singer articulated—if you can act to prevent suffering, without causing comparable suffering to yourself, it is your duty to do so.Filice ups the ante by showing how the duty is stronger when you contribute to the harm.

Filice considers a number of objections to his view, and as you read these, consider if you are swayed into agreement with him.

One important note is that as we continue to move forward with globalization, and as technology allows us extremely easy access to information, Filice’s position only grows stronger.  (This essay was published in 1990 before the internet technology that we “enjoy” now.)

find the cost of your paper

Is Huge Information Corrupting the U.S. Election Course of?

As the 2020 election cycle ramps up, voters can expect a flurry of targeted advertisements fueled by big data on their doorsteps, inboxes and social media feeds. While microtargeting based on demographic information is not a new trend in campaign strategy, campaigns traditionally relied on analyzing voter behavior within broader categories such as age or gender before big data was easily accessible.

Contributor
Molly Kozlowski

立中式速繪 動態姿勢繪圖技巧 ポーズが描ければ 動きも描ける たてなか流クイックスケッチ


作者: 立中順平  
出版社:楓書坊 |譯者: 游若琪
出版日期:2020/09/30
ISBN:9789863776314
規格:平裝 / 217頁 / 19 x 25.7 x 1.08 cm / 普通級 / 部份全彩 / 初版
定價:420元|優惠價:79折332元
購買請點我【 博客來書店
▲從部落格連接至博客來購買商品▲
部落格會獲得一些回饋金,幫助我挖更多坑。謝謝。
◆注意,如果有瀏覽器有安裝檔廣告的程式 連接AP 有可能失效◆ 

●本書特色
  ◎從心態及觀念養成開始,1-5分鐘,新手也能立馬上手的「立中式速繪教學」。
  ◎58部插圖教學影片免費下載,新手可一步步反覆學習,書末更附有作品集供創作者參考。
  ◎3大章節、逾200張速繪圖,講解觀察人物技巧、速繪重點及提升風格的小撇步。
速繪人物的基礎三堂課:
  ➊ 建立正確的心態
  不要想畫「正確」,而是要「輕鬆地多畫一些」,
  所謂的觀察力,只是「知識」和「經驗」的累積,
  熟悉自然就會,真的畫不出來的時候,只觀察也行。
  因為#魅力十足的圖,和技巧或常識毫無關係。#
  藉由觀察獲得的經驗和記憶,會轉換成「現實感」並活在作品中。
  不斷畫速繪,就能培養出短時間內掌握特徵的能力。
 
  ➋ 練習簡單畫全身的速繪技巧▁▁火柴人練習
  ⑴ 將全身分成15個部位,
  用2D畫全身,
  「頭 部、胸部、骨盤」是橢圓形。
  「上臂、下臂、大腿、小腿、手、腳」是線條。
  用D字形畫胸廓、軀幹和髖部,塑造印象,
  部位和部位之間留下空白,
  就能輕鬆畫出姿勢。
 
  ⑵ 注意基本結構,不要注意輪廓和細節
  看全身:那個人在做什麼?你有什麼感覺?
  看部位:位置和傾斜度?有什麼功用?
  簡單大膽地畫,鎖定在動作和使用身體的方式。
 
  ⑶ 立體化
  畫出火柴人的2D表現方式,稱作Shape,
  接下來要把平面添加立體的資訊,
  讓Shape有厚度(深度),
  只要畫出縱向的中心線,以及表示膨度的橫向曲線,
  就能變成有厚度和方向性的立體物。
 
  ⑷ 創造不對稱平衡
  全身的節奏和動線是一種流線感。
  盡量避免線條左右對稱,
  大原則是:弧線的對面必然是直線。
 
  ➌掌握印象,最後的風格和情緒添加
  這個人正在做¬「什麼」(動作)?他有「什麼樣」的感受(感情)?
  動作和感情,就是本書所說的動態。
  習慣用少量線條畫全身的思考方式後,就加入動線(flow)的觀點吧!
  不同的曲線會流暢地引導視線。
  彎度深的曲線會用慢節奏,彎度淺的曲線會用快節奏來引導視線。
  將線條加上粗細,就會產生強弱,成為更有趣味性的圖。
 
  本書從心態建立到步驟教學,
  不到20秒就能完成一幅速繪,
  附上58張速繪插圖影片,
  從空白至完稿,一筆一畫的繪畫過程全呈現,
  供學習者一遍一遍觀看臨摹,
  零基礎也沒問題。
 
  每次畫的速繪都是僅有一次的體驗,
  是當下你所能畫出的線條所構成的,
  請輕鬆享受速繪的樂趣吧!
 
◆作者簡介    
立中順平    
  日本岡山縣人。
  1993年開始在Disney Animation Japan擔任動畫師。
  後來進入Answer Studio,目前是自由工作者。
 
  曾參與《跳跳虎歷險記》(Disney)、《棒球大聯盟》(電視版)、《鑽石王牌》、《YURI !!!on ICE》、《佐賀偶像是傳奇》等作品。
 
  目前以動作作畫導演的身分參與各個作品的製作,是負責運動動畫動作表現的資深動畫師。
▼黑介紹
由曾經在華特迪士尼動畫工作室與日本動畫公司Answer Studio的日本資深動畫師立中順平撰寫的速繪教學書
教學主張「不要只在意正確,而是要畫出具有魅力的人物。」
在正確的觀念下,不斷的練習速繪,來培養出掌握特徵的能力。
本書分3個章節
第一章節:速繪繪畫 P1-73.
1-1:速繪的觀念介紹
1-2:速繪人物的重點
1-3:掌握印象
第二章節:繪畫技巧P75-145.
2-1:速繪的各種技巧
2-2:身體局部與衣服
2-3:邁向下一步,動態的掌握
第三章節:速繪作品集P151-218.
收錄立中老師3年來的速繪作品。
▼黑書評
多數速寫教學書都很吃繪畫基礎,在沒有人物基礎的前提下會很難入門。
本書教學另闢蹊徑在以沒有基礎的前提下,講解如何學習速繪
內文資訊量雖然大,但搭配簡化好上手的範例
對新手來說比較好入門,實際操作也不會太挫折
推薦給想讓人物動態更有魅力的學習者們~
這本很不錯用~~~

Design College students’ Summer season Break

With summer break fast approaching, graphic design students like me are trying to figure out productive ways to spend their time. Work for money? Work for experience? Summer classes?

I’ve spent the past few months doing everything I can to
find an internship this summer. Finding a company that isn’t an MLM and will
actually pay good money for your design work is tough. Luckily, graphic design
is a field that’s in demand, so there are a lot of good options out there.

The other option for getting design experience during the summer
break is freelance work, but that comes with its own slew of issues. There’s
nothing worse than beginning to work with a client and getting excited for a
project just for them to look at you with a face like the Surprised Pikachu Meme
when you start to discuss cost.

With two weeks left in the semester, here’s hoping we figure
something out soon!