AssignmentSpend at least 20 minutes thinking about the question below, and write a substantive response to post in comments.
Your response to the question is due by Sunday morning at 8 a.m.; respond to a colleague by Tuesday morning at 8 a.m.
A good response will be at the very least 1/2 a page, double-spaced in a word processing program.
In your response to your colleague, try to drive the conversation forward in some way. Press the person (politely) on their response; ask a question to try to examine the idea; disagree (politely); examine the premises the person is relying on - that is, try to add to the original post with your response. Don't just say you agree with the person.
Question
*UPDATE*
Let's ignore the question of responsibility for the time being, as it's distracting from the second question: if you think the situation is unjust, why? If not, why not?
Address all of the questions below:
The people depicted in this film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. Do you think it's just (that is, does it reflect justice) that they're more or less trapped in these circumstances? If so, why? If not, why not?Who's responsibility is it to try to improve the circumstances of the desperately poor?
The people depicted in this film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. Do you think it's just (that is, does it reflect justice) that they're more or less trapped in these circumstances? If so, why? If not, why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 3
ReplyDeleteAlthough I certainly use the word in every day life, I looked up several definitions of “just” to be able to be succinct about answering the first questions. Here are the relevant definitions from dictionary.com:
Just: -adjective
guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
done or made according to principle; equitable; proper
So is it just that the characters in the movie are trapped by their circumstances?
It is certainly true that they are trapped. But if we’re looking at the justice of the situation, the rest of the definition is more pertinent.
Is it fair? Not in the least – although as my mother was always quick to tell me (and as my own experience in life bears out) “life isn’t fair.”
Is the situation guided by reason? No – not one bit. Reason, as we’ve been talking about since we talked about Socrates and Aristotle, tells us that the ultimate expression of reason is human flourishing, which is hardly happening at all for the people in the movie.
Part 2 of 3
ReplyDeleteThe second definition delineates even further that there is nothing just about their situations: they are not guided by any principle, beyond survival, there is nothing equitable about their situation, and no one with any sense of value for humanity could say that the experience of the street children is proper.
Before I can answer the question “Whose responsibility is it to try to improve the circumstances of the desperately poor?” there are two issues to address to make the question more addressable.
First, the question makes an assumption that it must be someone’s responsibility to improve things for someone else.
Second, if we go with the assumption that it is someone’s responsibility, then the question must also be answered “is it a legal, or a moral responsibility?”
Responsibility directly implies accountability, so I think it is a mistake to try to answer this question without taking all of this into consideration.
I personally feel that we have a moral responsibility to do our best, as individuals, and as members of a community and larger society to provide all of humankind with the potential for human flourishing. This means that we are compelled, by our recognition of reason, in ourselves and others, to provide basic food, shelter, clothing, warmth, education, basic health care, and appropriate affection and guidance to our youth.
Part 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteI think we are responsible at all levels. We are responsible as individuals, at the very least to create and support social programs to support these ideals. We are responsible as parents, to give our children as much support as possible in order for them to thrive. We are responsible at the community level, to help implement these kinds of programs. We are responsible at the government level, to provide the large-scale infrastructure to implement this sort of support.
Believing this, sadly, doesn’t make it so. While I do some of what I can, personally, to help people in my community, or who live far away, I feel utterly helpless in the face of a movie like this which displays just how truly awful conditions are in so many places in the world.
It is entirely unfair, and unjust. And we are all accountable.
--Kimberly J
Question: The people depicted in this film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. Do you think it's just (that is, does it reflect justice) that they're more or less trapped in these circumstances? If so, why? If not, why not? Who's responsibility is it to try to improve the circumstances of the desperately poor?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Kimberly Made a very good point that life is not fair. (My mom always told me that too), but it is entirely not just and unfair for these children to suffer the way that they do. Me and a friend looked up their currency in comparrison to ours and the 150 ruppees a day that the boy got for selling tea is $11.00 dollars in our money making his 500 ruppes to go home is between $33.00 and $44.00. That's amazing to me because that kind of money is nothing to us. I would gladly hand that tohim no problem. So the fact that they're living in that sort of poverty is completely unjust. It shouldn't be that hard to make $11.00, but the reality is that it is that hard and that's just not fair. Because of this poverty I would definitely dare to say that they are trapped because it was nearly impossible for the little boy to keep at least his 150 ruppees. If it's that difficult I don't see any of them escaping the harsh world of Bombay. As for who is responsible, I feel that though we all play a role the Indian Government should be held primarily responsible. They no what their people are living in and for them to sit around and do nothing to help their own people is evil in my eyes. The way I was brought up is that if you see a need do your best to fulfill that need. I know the government see's a desperate need and yet they do not fulfill it. Who can people trust there? I would love to know. From the movie I got that you can't trust the people you call friends. You can't trust the people you call family, and you can't trust your employers to give you what they know you deserve for the labor you've done. But to not have even a little faith in your own government? I'd say that the poor are very much alone.
I'm curious if anyone would find international moral obligations here - especially given how much the consequences of colonial domination continue to effect developing countries.
ReplyDeleteWill Mohring
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly not just that the people in this movie are more or less trapped in horrible circumstances. Unfortunately, it was by random chance that they were born into the situation they now live in. I believe the reason for the inequity to be the drastic degree of poverty that they live in; in comparison to others in their community. But I also believe that, while this case is fairly obvious (to me at least), it is a mistake to assume we know what true fairness or equity is. How would it be defined? Should we take all the money in India and distribute it equally? Should we be charitable, and should that charity be voluntary or forced? Should we just provide them with opportunity or give them the material things they need? These are all questions we must face when deciding what is equitable and what goes too far.
Many people probably believe that it is the government’s responsibility to try to improve their circumstances, and to a certain extent I agree, but to a larger extent I disagree. Governments are sovereign bodies. They only have the ability to use their country’s resources to take care of their country’s people. We must remember that while India is now considered a developing nation, it was an impoverished nation in the 1980’s (when this movie was set). Just based on the resources available to the Indian government I would say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to do much about situations like these on a grand scale. On the other hand, I believe that charity starts at home, and it starts with everyone; rich and poor. I’ve always heard that if you can’t give a dime out of a dollar, you also won’t be able to give $10,000 out of $100,000. All people that think situations like these are unjust should help regardless of how rich or poor they are themselves, and remember that time and effort can be very effective if money can’t be given. We can’t moral judge these situations as unjust and then sit back and do nothing about them. Now, this conversation can lead to class warfare and other political problems that I could go on forever about, but since this is so complex I think we will just end it here.
I very much think we have moral global obligations - we don't have any truly global organizations, so I didn't specifically state that, but I very much think we are morally responsible for humankind, everywhere on the planet. And like I said, I feel utterly helpless to actually make much of a difference in this regard.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is highly unjust that the people in the film were trapped in such a horrible style of life, often that it's not by choice, but due to the fact of the social level they were born into. But we know that's not always the case. But in this specific film they mostly follow Krishna( aka Chaipau), we learn that for him to be living in the streets like that was not his choice, but he had to deal with it while trying to raise the 500 rupees to return home. There we see his friends, some of which we do not know the reason which led them to be in that situation, one of his friends, Chillum, although we don't know how he got there, we know that he works for a “pimp” (I guess you can call him) and a drug dealer by the name of Baba. Chillum sells Baba's drugs to the visiting tourists. For all we know, Chillum is in that situation because he may have fallen into drugs, as many people do, then I would say that was their choice, but that's not always the case. In the case of who's responsibility it is to improve the circumstances of the desperately poor, I would say that to some certain point it would be the Governments. They should be held responsible for helping to provide to those less fortunate, to an extent. Now we know that even the government may not have the sufficient resources to provide to all those poor people in their countries, but they should be trying their damn best to get them away from that, and safe. But not all people feel that way. Many people say that all those poor people, and children in the streets have gotten there for a reason, but again I say, that's not always the case, but at times it is. There are people, that I have seen and know, that are stuck in those circumstances because of wrong choices they made during their lives, as in running away, using drugs etc. Although they made that decision themselves, we as people should do our part to the fullest extent that we can to help them in what ever way we can, I give what I can when I get the chance, but we can't always do that. But with some cases like that, no one can help them, I've seen by experience that some people do not want to be rescued, no matter how many times you help them and they may come to their senses, they always go seem to go back to the drugs and the streets as if they're being pulled and can't escape. For those people, they have no one to blame but themselves, and it is no one's responsibility to improve the circumstances of those poor people. “NO ONE CAN HELP SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT WANT TO BE HELPED”, or even attempts to put in the effort to help themselves. I do believe that we could do our part to assist, but we are not at fault, and in some cases, those poor people aren't at fault either, but I guess I would say that in all aspects, that the responsibility to change the circumstances for the desperately poor lies within them to begin with, then I would say us and/or the government. If they actually prove that they want to change their lives and help themselves, then we should help them achieve it, not just for them, but for us. To learn that we can help and make a change, and improve someone's life who desperately need it.
ReplyDeleteBianca A.
I do think it’s just that these people are trapped in these circumstances. Although they live very rough lives, other people aren’t going to change your personal lives for you. And even though changing it will be difficult or impossible, knowing that you did your personal best and that you yourself lived with good values then that should be fulfilling enough. To know that you weren’t a reason for the way things are should give you some sort of satisfaction. It’s not directly one person or group’s responsibility to try to improve the circumstances it’s everyone’s. But not every one cares, which is a contributing problem. Some people just don’t care how they live, what goes on in their life or who they effect. You are in charge of your life, Krishna was very young and what they made it look like was that he could never get out. He has a lot of life ahead of him. When he gets older he will have more respect, more opportunities. If someone gives up on trying to make their life better, they didn’t care that much about their life to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the circumstances that the people had to experience in this movie were very horrible. They are practically trapped in their circumstances because they have no way to better themselves. These people absolutely have no way to escape. I don’t think that it is fair because nobody should have to live life that way. I think that it is the responsibility of the government and the people to improve their lives. It’s the governments fault because they practically turn their heads from setting anything up for these people to get a better life. It’s also the peoples fault because they just settle into these classes and not try to search for higher classes of living.
ReplyDelete-Cameron P
The people in this film have lived terrible life’s, that it has made It harder for them to live and breath. Every day in their life’s there was a struggle because of the cause of poorness and difficulties that stop them from achieving what they want. And that is why I think that it does reflect to justice, because of how cruel the community they lived in was. I find it bad how the little boy in the film struggled since the begging to the end. It was sad how he desperately wanted to go back home but couldn’t because he did not have the 500 rupees. He tried and tried but in the end of the film he never made it home. This is because they lived in such a disrupted life style without help of their friends and even family all they had was themselves. I believe it has to do a lot with their government. It is the responsibility of their government to improve circumstances of the desperately poor. The people in the film have a horrible life style and it is the governments responsibility to fix it and improve their community. If the government is not there to help then everything will fall apart. There has to be some improvement and help so these people can have a much better life style.
ReplyDeleteLilian G.
I believe that it is unjust that the people depicted in the film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. They were born into a situation that they could not help or choose. They are not given many or any opportunities to flourish. Human flourishing consist of being able to reach your full potential and a community that teaches you what is wrong and what is right. Throughout the film though there were some individuals who tried to give Krishna a chance at slightly making it but it was still impossible because there were many others who were stopping him at the same time. There was really no way they could help themselves, they all struggled in different ways such as Krishna taking up any odd job to make nothing, chillum selling drugs to make a living, Manju’s mother prostitiuting herself because they all really had no choice they had to find any way at any means to make ends meat. So I believe they are most definitely more trapped because the situations they were put in. People born and raised in a different setting grow up with much more opportunities and that’s why they achieve more and are able to succeed without as much struggle. So really they are not given much to go on and they aren’t really given a fair chance to reach their full potential.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the situation that these people are in is just at all. It isn’t fair that they are in this situation. As we saw, the main character of the film had been kicked out of his home by his mother, then the circus where he was living left without him. That was in no way his fault, and it was not fair, or right, or just. He wasn’t the only one either, there are hundreds of children in positions similar to him. It isn’t only the children, there are adults in need of help too, either because they are addicted to a substance, sick, or being kept against their will.
ReplyDeleteIt is the moral responsibility of not only the government and leaders of the country and cities within to deal with this, but also the community. Once a community sees individuals struggling in their neighborhood like this, it is important for them to take action to help rather than shun and ignore or abuse the people in need. Legally however, depending on where it is, it may be nobodies responsibility whatsoever.
So in the end, it is not fair, right, or just, and we are all morally responsible even if we aren’t legally.
-David Brosius
I think that it is unjust that the people in the movie Salaam Bombay are pretty much trapped in circumstances that make human flourishing extremely difficult. For the individuals in this movie, like Chaipau, they are not at fault for their current situation. It just happened. Chaipau honestly tried as hard as he could to get out of the situation he was in by working jobs, but things just kept happening that set him back and trapped him even more. Manju was also stuck in her situation. She lived with a mother that, although she tried her best to give Manju what she needed, was a prostitute who sometimes had to bring her daughter along to her clients’ houses. There wasn’t much that Manju could do to get out of that environment. These two, like many others in the movie, are bogged down by adverse circumstances and while it is true that some people are simply stuck in environments that make human flourishing hard, everyone deserves to have the chance to flourish as human beings.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is equal, and they deserve to have equal opportunities to turn their potentials into actuals. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the real world. People are often born into conditions that make human flourishing near impossible while others are born into conditions that make it easier for human flourishing. Another case is that people are not only born into their circumstances, they sometimes walk right into circumstances that make human flourishing difficult, through their fault or the fault of others. Even so, all people have a right to the opportunity to fulfill their potentials.
- Kristi Phan
To say that it is just that these people live in these circumstances is not right. It is unfair to some that tried to flourish in these circumstances but the drugs and the sex scandals that went on through out the movie made it impossible for those to flourish. For some that it is the life they choose and for others it is not and those that surround them can bring them down. Those are those who have a heart and work to go home but let their friends take advantage of them and dwindle their saving away on drugs. For others it is the life they must live in order to make ends meet and to support those that rely on them. So to ask if the circumstance that the movie betrayed are just or unjust I think it has to bee evaluated on case-by-case bases. But to have a child born into this life style is not just they should be given a chance at a better life, but yet again that child being born might be the wake up call for some.
ReplyDeleteThe situation in the movie is a very bad one. It’s a 3rd world country and that plays a huge factor. The environment the kids are in is clearly unjust. The main character of the film the little boy suffers the most. There’s no help or support for the kids to flourish, they’re around drugs and prostitution. The kids do not even look close to ten and their robbing and doing drugs. That’s not a just environment for kids to grow up and reach their full potential. The kids trapped in this life style because they’re in a situation to do these things to survive. They have to break into houses and work for cheap for money. The kids don’t have any motivation to do better or have someone guiding them to do better.
ReplyDeleteSalaam Bombay is a film that depicted people
ReplyDeletelived circumstances that human flourishing
extremely difficult if possible.It reflects
Justice. Just is based on principle of justice
because justice is applied to practice and
particular action. Each person participates in
a practice or affected by it, has an equal
right to the most extensive liberty compatible
with a liberty for all.Liberty, equality and
reward for services contribute to the common
good.
I think Just is based on circumstances. The
circumstance in the movie,the Indian government
should look after the street people and should
enforce the law effectively to improve those
people life that live in that kind situation.
The government needs to organize and apply to
the rule of law creating better for those who
need help. The government should crack down
effectively on people who do illegal
activities, such as selling and doing drugs,
working as prostitute, and doing physical
abuses. These activities reflect Bombay, Indian
society and that society leads those people do
that way.
On the other hand, individual affected by that
situation should take on one’s own
responsibility. If they think they live in
desperate place like that, they should get away
from it. They at least have some freedom to
move out from that kind of environment, but it
seems that the society teaches them to live
that way. In the movie, Krishna may know that
that place is not a good place for his future
in life; he would not want to trap in that
terrible place. If he goes home, his life would
be more or less better than that place. So he
has tried to work hard to save some money, no
matter what kind of job he can do, such as
delivering Tea, serving food to guests in a
party and washing dishes. When he has some
money, he is able to go home. So his life may
be better.
Finally, this film was made as a window to the
kind of life that many street kids lead in big
cities such as Bombay, where they are faced
with poverty and unemployment, which sometimes
leads them to commit crimes. Krishna represents
the many children who run away from their
homes in villages in search of a job and a
better life which ironically enough don’t exist
for them in Bombay. It also brings forth
another aspect of a society. The kids who live
in desperately poor environment in Bombay are
not only reflected to poor kids in Bombay but
it is also reflected to poor kids who live the
same circumstances in many third world
countries.
Sunheng, E
Q: The people depicted in this film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. Do you think it's just (that is, does it reflect justice) that they're more or less trapped in these circumstances? If so, why? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteA: The circumstances that the people in the film were in were completely unjust. There are several definitions for the word “just” such as: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness; done or made according to principle; equitable; proper; based on right; rightful; lawful; in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct; given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward; in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right; (esp. in Biblical use) righteous etc. There was very little if any justice seen in this movie. For example, the boy Krishna was thrown out on the streets to fend for himself until he brought home enough money to pay back his brother for the bike he destroyed and for a boy his age that is not a just punishment. Later in the movie, he is thrown in jail for no apparent reason and told he has a court hearing in six months, which means he has to wait six months in jail for committing no apparent crime. Krishna also makes money for random jobs he can find but he is paid practically nothing for hard manual labor making it practically impossible for him to come up with the money he needs in order to go home.
The movie shows just how unjust society can be. For example, kids are living on the street, having been separated or in some cases abandoned by their families, forced to provide for themselves as they constantly being cheated, lied to, and beaten. This is not just anywhere in the world. Kids should be able to enjoy life when they are young, sure helping out with chores around the house is one thing, but it is entirely another thing for them to have to no one to turn to, or a place to sleep at night, or a constant source of food, or sold for their virginity, or kicked out by their family, etc.
This movie made me question a lot of things, like how can society allow this to occur? Whose responsibility is it to fix this? And for that matter how do you fix the situation? How can the people that live in that city not be affected by what they see around them, did they have similar childhoods, or have they all become that jaded that it does not bother them to see this kind of thing? Of course these are big questions that will not be answered anytime soon, and problems that can not be fixed overnight, but will they be fixed at all, and if yes, where do you begin? It pains and disgusts me to watch movies like this because I know this is a reality and I feel helpless, that I can not right these wrongs.
ashley f.
When the word & concept of "just" comes to mind I think of the following words to be synonymous with its meaning;fitting, righteous, suitable and fair. With that said based on this definition of "just" I absolutely feel that the characters depicted in Salaam Bombay! were unjustably trapped in a circumstance which made human flourishing virtually impossible. ...We've learned that a basic component to human flourishing is living in a society or conditions that surpass the "hunter gatherer" state. That is for human flourishing to thrive, a society in which the people are looking out not only for the welfare of themselves but also for the good for others is essential. In a sense a variety of the characters in the film were still living in a hunter-gatherer like state, as from day to day characters such as Krishna & Chillum struggled to flourish on the most basic level. The day to day conditions of living in the lower class of a widely (then) underdeveloped country are many things that we take for granted, such as finding a secure place to sleep at night or readily having th neccessities to get back home. Under these conditions it is easy to see how one may live under a purely instrumental life style which hinders human flourishing. I believe it is not "just" that the characters depicted in this film were trapped in their circumstance because they were the product of their enviroment & were thrusted into a circumstance in which they had little control over. They lived under conditions that gave them no quality or chance of human flourishing except for constantly being in survivor mode. Because they were virtually never given a chance at human flourishing because of theyre society I believe theyre circumstances did not reflect justice.
ReplyDelete♥Jasmine H
The people depicted in this film lived in circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. This movie looks like based on true stories, because I grew up in India and I have seen and visited those place, it is really sad to see how 3rd world country live in those dirty places. How the parents don’t have money to send their kids to school and kids are hanging around doing drugs. And most of them are single mothers, them mother earn money from sleeping with different guys (Prostitutes) for themselves and for their kids. I felt really sad when that little boy Krishna how he struggle to earn Rs 500 to go back home and give it to his mother. There are lots kids who are left behind with no food and no shelter and no family. Lots of people when they couldn’t feed themselves and their kids, the parents just leave their kids behind and leave. It is just not fair for the kids, how can they survive without families. So that’s when those kids get into doing drugs, smoking and drinking.
ReplyDeleteTenzin Y.
I think it is unjust that the people in this film lived in these circumstances that make human flourishing extremely difficult if not possible. In the film, Krishna struggled to raise 500 rupees to get back "his" home, but despite trying many times, he failed at the end due to his situation and the place he was thrown in. The people in this film, were trapped in these circumstances that make it difficult to even survive.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is equal, but that is not true in real life. There are some people that live in places that can make human flourishing nearly impossible whether by their faults or others. And there are some people that live in places that will make it easier for human flourishing.
I believe everyone have some level of responsibility. Parents have a responsibility to teach their children, government have a responsibility to their people, and people have a responsibility to their communities. Sadly, this is not true for everyone. Corruption, Greed and many other factors goes against the just in the world, making it unjust for many in the world. And not everyone can be two places in one time even if they want to.
This is unfair and unjust, but this is life, it is not perfect, nothing ever is.
-Christina C.
I am a firm believer that the situation, in which the people from the film Salaam Bombay were placed in, was very unjust. One of the big reasons for why I believe that they were in this situation is due to the poverty that the country is facing in the film and the social injustices that the characters have to go through. They have no way out of it; therefore, they do what they can to survive.
ReplyDeleteI believed that it was extremely unfair when the young girl gets placed into jail and then is taken away from her parents. It’s not her fault that her mom is a prostitute. She didn’t decide to be put into that situation and for that reason they shouldn’t treat her like a criminal. She has the right to a better life and its unjust that she gets punished in that form. The fact that her mom is a prostitute and the dad is a pimp makes it really hard for her to one day overcome her current family struggles an make something out of herself. Same goes with the little boy who gets put in jail when she does. He is so young and already has gone through a lot in his life. He has to work to be able to get himself food to eat and support their families. These children didn’t do anything to be placed into these extreme situations that they are in and that makes their situation very unjust. They live in extreme poverty, but it’s not fair that they have to suffer over a situation that they didn’t choose.
Life is unfair, but it’s extremely unjust that these young kids have to be placed in a situation that they didn’t choose and that is harming them. This is what makes human flourishing difficult.
I think it is not just that the people are more or less trapped in these circumstances because they can only, primarily experience the pain and suffering in their lives. Circumstances makes it hard for Krishna or “Chaipu” to return home, Chillum to live a rich life without harmful and addictive drugs, or Manju to escape the inappropriate environment that would most likely engulf her in the future. It is technically not IMPOSSIBLE to escape the circumstances, but to actually overcome the circumstances would be EXTREMELY difficult because of WHAT the circumstances are. Circumstance is defined as “the sum of determining factors BEYOND WILLFUL control.” As the definition states, circumstances are first and foremost beyond the WILLFULL control of the characters. Chaipu did not will the other people (the circus which left him penniless, Chillum who stole his money, “Sweet Sixteen” who broke the glass and caused him to be docked his pay) to prevent him from returning home. Chillum did not will Baba to introduce him to drugs and then die from it. Manju did not will her mother to be a prostitute and become (somewhat) neglected and lonely. It is beyond willful factors that make life so difficult for the characters. Therefore, with no personal CONTROL of their lives BECAUSE of these circumstances, it is extremely unfair that the people are trapped.
ReplyDeleteWithout good, there cannot be human flourishing. The good as defined by utilitarianism to promote human flourishing is absent within the lives of Salaam Bombay’s characters. The characters are either born or stumbles into the poverty stricken circumstances that make it impossible “to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, and to minimize pain/suffering for all concerned" when they have to minimize the pain and suffering for themselves first. They have to be able to help themselves before they can help others.
-Priscilla Chen
As many people have said, the word “just” is a word that seems to be interpreted in different ways.
ReplyDeleteI think many of us can agree that it is not fair that these people were brought into an environment where trying to survive becomes a gruesome task. It is disheartening to see so many kids who have been abandoned, and all are forced to work at such a young age just to survive. It’s merely unfortunate that they were born into their impoverished society.
The character who I found really interesting was Manju. Even though she had wealthy parents, (however her mom was a prostitute) it is obvious that she is not happy. While everyone is trying to survive through work, she stood out as a character who was trying to find true happiness through the people around her: mainly Chaipau. All she seemed to have wanted was the attention and recognition of Chaipau. Even though her mother loved her, it is obvious she is deprived of love because her mother is too busy with her job, and her father is considered a pimp who doesn’t show her much love. However, when Manju became incarcerated from her parents, we see that she goes into a state of withdrawal as she becomes extremely quiet and almost semi-catatonic because she no longer had the love that her mother occasionally gave her.
I bring this up because of the idea that human flourishing is more about love and care rather than financial stability. Love and care is obviously something that is very rare in Bombay as everyone is fending for themselves, and this is probably due to the fact that it is such a poor place. However, how financially stable a society is and how a society treats itself seem to be correlated.
Jordan C.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLaura, you said “He has a lot of life ahead of him. When he gets older, he will get more respect, more opportunities.” What are the other lives ahead of him? I only see that he has the life of suffering, struggling, and unfairness. How could he get more respect, more opportunities when he is living in the society where he is trapped and has no money? Most of the time, respect goes along with money; especially in the developing countries.
ReplyDeleteEither people are more or less trapped in these circumstances, it is unjust for people depicted in this movie. The circumstances made human flourishing extremetly difficult if not impossible. In most of developing countries the human rights are not protected. The rich people always have power to control over the poor people. There are distinction between rich and poor classes. The life is always filled up with competetion and jealousy. It is hard to find for the fairness even though we know that people should be treated justly and respectfully.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, Krishn (Chaipau)’s circumstances illustrated how people in developing countries are treated unfairly. His mother takes him to circus and tells him that he only can go home when he earns 500 ruppes to pay for the damaged bike. However, after returing from runing an errand for the boss, he realizes that people in the circus move to somewhere else without watting for him to come back. Without money, he can’t come back home. Then he travels to the nearest city is Bombay. At Bombay, he works hard by delivering the tea in order to save 500 ruppes and come back home. However, there are always the bad circumstances trapped on him. He gets fired and his saving money is stolen by another kid whose name is also Chillum. In order to feed himself, to look after Chillum, and to have money to come back home, he has to join with other kids on the street to rob money.
Moreover, it is extremetly unfair for him when the policeman stops him on the street at night and let his food which he gets from the wedding fall on the ground. To us, those few pieces of chicken fried are nothing, but to poor people, those pieces are their big meal. The policeman also takes his money, which he earns from wedding not robbing, away even though Krishna tells him that it is his money to come back home. It seems that it doesn’t matter how many times Krishna hardly tries to get out of the trouble circumstances. He still gets stuck in these situations, and receives the treatment unfairly from the society.
Yen D.
Kristine Carlos:
ReplyDeleteI think "just" is a very odd word, along with the word "fair." Although I think that the situation in which these people lived in is unjust, (that is, it did not reflect justice) just as Kimberly and Amber have already stated, I also think that "life is not fair." No one deserves to be stuck in the situation that the people in the movie have depicted. The impoverished conditions they all lived in were clearly not conditions humans would be able to flourish in. Women became prostitutes, men became pimps and drug-dealers, and kids ended up becoming drug mules, dealers, or prostitutes as well. All of this is a cycle. The men and women are the only people the kids can look up to, but what is there to look up when your men and women are drug dealers and prostitutes? So as a result, the kids grow up to be exactly those. Of course no one deserves that kind of lifestyle to be able to survive. It is completely unjust. It is unjust because every human being deserves to be able to flourish into a great human being, someone who is intelligent, compassionate, and happy. We all deserve to be able to reach our full potential. Dealing drugs and selling sex for money is never someone's full potential. All human beings are capable of so much more, it's just that the circumstances that these people lived in did not allow for them to uncover or use that potential. I think they were aware of their potential, or "inner drive," as all of them were aware that they deserved better than what life brought them. I think their awareness of their potential is the reason why all of them were trying to find a way out and escape their lives in Bombay. All of them knew that how they were living in Bombay were under unjust circumstances. But they were trapped by what little money they made and the connections in which their money came from. Even if they were to randomly escape and run away, every choice they make after running away would be an equally hard one and would probably leave their circumstances unchanged. So, essentially they are unjustly trapped.
(Hardyal)I believe that the situation in which the people from the film Salaam bombay were placed in is unjust.There is no human rights to protect the people living in third world countries thus they are prone to diseases ,poverty and economic depression.The rich always has the power which is limited to a selected few thus corruption is rampant even among the security force(police) who are the ones responsible to protect and service there country.Because of the poor infructures and economic stability of the country the scenery in the movie was depicted as a rundown slum area even thou it is a prominant city in india.From a sociologist point of view i would recommend that they implement more social programes to deal with helping the poor.Many of these young kids romming the streets are faced with living a grim and dull future that has nothing positive or even a shinning light to look forward of pursuing in the future.They is also a high level of drug dealing and prostution among the streets.It should be the responsiblity of the government to take of there people however for the indian people because the population is so large they do not stand a chance of the government caring for any of there needs.In my conclusion i would say that the indian people living like this so not make so much kids seeing that they will never come out of poverty.I know it is sad to say never but because of the large population they will not get out of poverty anything soon.Hardyal
ReplyDeleteThose are some good points, important to keep in mind, Will. We don't want to inadvertently establish false dichotomies, though - there's a very, very long way from, say, returning to a 3% higher marginal tax rate and actual"class warfare."
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Laura.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you state that it is everyones responsibility to help improve the circumstances, and that not everyone cares, that is true but I disagree whit the fact that you say it is just that they are trapped in those circumstances. With the case of Krishna,(Chaipau), he was trapped because his mother left him in the circus, know we know he did something wrong but that is does not give a reason for abandoning your child. No one should ever abandon their child, and i'm sure many people would agree. With that said, Chaipau was not in that situation by personal choice, but because his mother left him. That is in no way just. They did not choose that life for them, so why should they suffer that way. You make sense when you state, “You are in charge of your life”, but I would say that although no one can actually change your views of life, but some people may actually make a difference, and make you think of it in different ways, that may lead to you changing them in the end. But it is true, as I stated You can't help somebody that can't help themselves, it does ultimately lie in that person to want to change, but if we don't try to help them, then they may never have that little boost that can make a difference. If we don't try then they may never realize that some people do care, so they should to. Chaipau does have life ahead of him, but if no one tries to help him, then he won't see the future, he wont have life or opportunities. Like this one song I know by Joe Nichols, “If nobody believed in you”, the song talks about people that keep trying to do what for long they believed they couldn't, and when they failed again and said one more time, their loved ones gave up on them so they never tried again. If those people that have a little faith in them give up on those people, then they will feel abandoned, and never really believe they can change. They need that push of faith, someone to believe that they can do it, inspire them to work harder and achieve the better future.
Bianca A.
Laura, would you expand on the reasons you think it's just for such inequities to exist, and for people to be born into them? I think it would really help get a good argument going if we knew more about the reasons people hold their opinions.
ReplyDeleteResponse to: laura November 19, 2010 6:36 PM
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is definitely not just that the people are trapped in these circumstances. However, I question your statement, “And even though changing it will be difficult or impossible, knowing that you did your personal best and that you yourself lived with good values then that should be fulfilling enough. To know that you weren’t a reason for the way things are should give you some sort of satisfaction.” By the end of the movie, the characters did not really seem to be fulfilled or satisfied with how they ended up with everything. Krishna or “Chaipu” sat alone with nothing left and even seemed to lose all hope, if anything. Chillum died. Manju was still stuck in jail (juvenile detention?). They did not know what good values are in the first place because they never had a decent moral exemplar to show them what good values are. Circumstances prevented them to live in an environment where there were good moral exemplars. Therefore, no, I do not think it is enough to be satisfied from just doing your personal best. In relevance to utilitarianism, the outcome of all the characters’ ends were all tragic and unfulfilling.
-Priscilla Chen
Response to laura
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone is responsibly to help others, but I disagree with your statement of Krishna will get more respect as he grow older, more opportunities. What opportunities will present themselves to the poor people, and what will make one special enough to get notice by anyone? Krishna have no good role model and no education to begin with, so what kind of an adult would he be, if no one taught him to be one and the only one he ever saw were on the street. Respect must be earned, but most of the time money place a big part in respect in most societies. So no, trying their best would not help their circumstances since it is unjust and unfair for everyone in this film.
-Christina C.
Bianca,
ReplyDeleteI, too, know people who have resisted all kinds of help and keep ending up in horrible situation after horrible situation. I think it’s easy to place responsibility for their situation squarely on their own shoulders. I think one of the reasons the movie used children, ad told us a bit about their stories, is to remove that aspect from our minds.
We cannot help but think that it is not a little boy or girl’s fault/responsibility that they are in that sort of situation.
I’m curious if you (or anyone else) feel that 1) Is it Krishna’s responsibility to change his situation? And 2) Chillum is a adult at the time we see him in the movie, but he had been on the street so long that he couldn’t remember getting there, since he was a small boy. He was almost certainly hooked on drugs by someone in order to make a living at a very young age, do you think he is equally responsible for changing his situation? Is it different because he is now older than Krishna, even if his origins were probably pretty similar?
--Kimberly J
As i stated before, it lies on the person alone to want to change, if they keep resiting then it may be because they want to be that way. But as we see in the movie, in a sense Krishna wanted to change, he was trying to save up the money his mother asked of him in order to return, so to some extent he wanted to do better. In Chillum's case, i said we did not know his origins, but i just used him to illustrate how some people who are in a similar situation would reject the help, but i never stated that it was any different from Krishna's situation. I do believe that it is still up to him to want to change, Krishna tried to help him survive. But he was to hooked on drugs to even that he was hurting himself and those around. Even though he was older, and his situation may have been similar it is ultimately up to him to have wanted to change his life, and ask or accept help when he was offered.
ReplyDeleteBianca A.
Response to Edita
ReplyDeleteI disagree with on the point that Edita
said, “I believed that it was extremely unfair
when the young girl gets placed into jail and
then is taken away from her parents.” I believe
that is the good way to take her from her
mother who worked as prostitute. It is better
for her to live in foster car; she can get good
education and could be bright for her future.
If she lives with her mother, she would not be
able to study and get education. She would
follow her mother path way and could end up a
prostitute like her mother if she continues to
stays with her mother. That young girl would be
better off living in a children shelter than
living with her mother. When she grows up and
has good education, she can visit her mother
any time and her mother can visit her anytime.
If she lives with her mother, I’m sure that she
is unable to get education in that particular
situation. If she is unable to go to school
what she can learn is just learn from people
around her, and that is not good environment
for her to learn from those illegal activities.
Finally, I believe that it is fair for her to
live away from her mother, so she can get
education and would be better life for her in a
future.
Sunheng,E
In response to Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI never thought to analyze Manju. Manju parent’s were fortunate enough to afford more than most for their daughter but Maju was not very satisfied. She was given nice clothing to wear and she was shown more love and affection than anyone else. But, she still went out and still wanted to seek out friendship elsewhere. Manju was fortune to not work like all the other children but I believe seeing what they had to go through to survive hit her and she wanted to help as much as she could. She was able to view their lifestyle and struggles to survive. After she was taken away she withdrew and was quiet, maybe she realized she was better off? I agree with what was said in Jordan’s response, and obviously money didn’t have anything to do with human flourishing look where Manju ended up.
No,i dont think it's just that those people in india have to live like due to their circumstances.Nobody should have to live like that because that's a very hard unpleasent life. They had to steal,prostitute,and do illegal things because they had no choice. They were born into those circumstances and even if they wanted to changed and flourish it would be really hard. It's already hard to flourish in slums out here in america but they are even poorer than us.And also due to the fact that India has social class systems it makes it even harder for people to be successful. Those people are at the bottom of the barrel according to people in higher classes. The people in the higher classes makes it merely impossible for lower class people to rise above their circumstances because they are looked down upon even if they do eventually gain wealth. Gaining wealth there doesnt neccesarilly mean that you gain status.I felt for krishna at the end because even after all the hard work and rough times he had to endure out there he still couldn't get away.
ReplyDelete-Julice I.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe people depicted in Salaam Bombay lived in the circumstances that made human flourishing extremely difficult if not impossible. People in the movie had no way to escape from their situations. For example, Krishna’s mother threw him out of the house so he can earn money. He decided to go to a big city for better opportunities. He worked at a tea shop under a cruel boss who never paid him the salary he deserved. He delivered tea door to door bare feet, cut chickens, worked as a waiter to get money. He tried extremely hard to achieve his motive. His goal was to earn 500 rupees so he can go back but he was never able to accomplish it. It was the environment and people around him who never let that happen. Secondly, Chillum sold drugs and died at the end due to his drug addiction. He was just trapped in the situation and was never able to get out of it. Moreover, Manju’s mother had to work as a prostitute in order to survive because her husband never offered her a helping hand. Her daughter had a terrible life and had no good future either. Moreover, sweet sixteen was sold so she can work as a prostitute. The movie showed that young children are forced to become criminals as no better opportunities are offered to them to flourish. There was no way that these people could escape from those circumstances no matter how much they try. I believe in India, the political, economical and social system is not much organized. The proverb, “Rich becomes richer and poor becomes poorer” implies here at some point. Children from poor families doesn’t have a good upbringing, they are forced to work at the age of 7 so they can feed themselves. They suffer from lots of hardships at a very young age. There is a corruption in India where the leaders do nothing for the betterment of the public. Sometimes, we suffer in our lives not because of our faults but because of the people around us.
ReplyDeleteGagan
In Response to Eddie C,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that being in a third world country plays a huge factor for human flourishing.I agree with this because how can you flourish when you dont even have a safe place to sleep,proper sanitation,and no food to eat.You'd spend your whole life getting the basic needs, so that means you would never make it beyond searching for simple basic needs.And just like slums and ghettos out here,when you're in terrible living situations people tend to use drugs to feel better about themselves and do prostitution to make money. Also i agree with you to a certain extent when you say they have no motivation to do better because if someone was living in a situation like that they would also feel that way too.They would feel like things are hopeless so why bother to do better when most likely things will never change. But i also disagree because there are a lucky few that get the oppurtunity to do better and they suceed just like people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths,but for most,there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
-Julice I.
In response to lilian: I agree with your point that because of poverty, people have to struggle each day in their lives. They have no support from their family and friends and are responsible for their own well-being. The government is responsible and has not much to offer to their countrymen. People have to make their life better by their own since there are not many welfare programs to help poor people in India. At few areas, people are forced to live slums since they have no education, and no jobs to make their lives better. They spend their whole lives at once place because they are just stuck there and have no way to escape. However, there is a lot of awakening among people now and they are becoming aware of their rights which might take the nation at a new destination.
ReplyDeleteGagan
Will Mohring
ReplyDeleteIn response to Laura,
I must respectfully disagree. I don’t think it is just that they live the way they did in the movie. It certainly is the reality, but that does not mean that this specific way of life is fair or equitable. They slept in the streets, had to steal to eat, and robbed an old guy. It is certainly no way to live. Although I don’t believe it is a just situation, I do identify with the concept of personal responsibility and accountability that you mentioned in your post. It is true that the only way to make it out of poverty is to have a true want to rise out of it and the will and determination to follow up on those goals. In fact, I would fare to say that Krishna was quite resilient for someone in his situation and, if the movie was to continue, that he would have eventually made it back home. But despite the resilience I see in the kid, it doesn’t change his situation and the overwhelmingly large road blocks he has to overcome in comparison to the challenges others in society face.
Will,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some important and interesting practical questions about implementing justice. It’s easy to spot the injustice, and less obvious how to implement something different. I especially found interesting your comment about our moral requirement to do something about it, once we recognize the injustice. Is that something that you live by, actively? Does anyone else agree (or disagree!) with this stance?
I personally do think there is some moral obligation to address injustice we are aware of, but practicality requires that we pick and choose where we want to make a difference. None of us can fix or address all the injustices in the world. There's a certain injustice in not being able to help everyone we might wish to, although that injustice is, of course, in a whole different category than the street children in Bombay.
--Kimberly J.
in response to Jordan C, i didn't really think about the little girl its very interesting you mention that because she slipped my mind. She had things the other kids didn't have she had a shelter, money and her parents while the other kids did not so she had a better chance to flourish than the others kids but she still ended up being like those other kids. She had everything except the love from her parents.
ReplyDeleteeddie C
@ Edita
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. As you have mention about the little girl and the little boy who was thrown too in jail for no reason. I think those Police officers are just picking on poor kids just to get their duty done. I have seen those kinds of police officers. It is understandable how their parents don’t’ really care about what their kids do and what not. I really feel bad for those kids to be place on these situations but I think they probably caused bad sins in their earlier life So therefore they are in these bad situation in this life.( i am just saying from what i see from religious way)
Tenzin Y.
@Lilian:
ReplyDeleteYou mention how he did not have the 500 rupees, however, at one point in the movie he was very close to having this amount, but Chillum stole it. Do you think that maybe it was Krishna’s own fault for putting it behind that brick where he knew Chillum knew about it? Carelessness?
Also, do you think that maybe it is their own faults for not trying hard enough to get out of poverty? Maybe they just get tired and lazy and don’t bother trying hard enough to pull themselves up?
-David Brosius
To Will M.
ReplyDeleteI know I stated that the way they’re living is just but maybe I interpreted just a little differently. I’m not in any way saying that they way they live is fair, but that they did this to themselves. It’s a terrible situation that no one should have to live in but the people are those who shape their environment. I understand his mother through him to the curb and told him to leave but who is going to make your life? Certainly not your mother. I know throwing a young child to fend for himself seems crazy, but being put in difficult situations can make you stronger. Learning what you can do and what you can’t do is a part of life. The streets of Bombay were in no way a good life to live, but I don’t think he was trapped. I believe in the mind. If your mind is set strong enough on a certain goal you will get it. It’s the reality that a lot of those people have gotten lost in this life and have settled. They gave up on any hope to improve their circumstances therefore the “justness” that I see is fair.
-Laura
It is definitely not just that the people in this movie, Salaam Bombay are trapped in these severe and horrible situation. The society and other people around them influence them negatively. A child needs everything he/she can receive to flourish and develop as a proper human being like food, shelter, education and a positive influence. These kids were living on their own due to different circumstances, for example the main character, Krishna/Chaipau had been kicked out from his home by his mother because he had set his brother's bike on fire. Kids in a different well off country would never have been given this extreme punishment to work for 500 rupees in order to come back home, especially at a young age like his.
ReplyDeleteI also come from a underprivileged country, Mongolia. When I went back after eight years of living in the United States, in 2006, I realized that many things I took for granted in America was all a privilege to most kids back in my home country. It made me really appreciate my mom for bringing me here and allowing me to receive the best life possible.
I think the main problem with many third world countries is the huge gap between the poor and rich. I could clearly see that was the case in my country because there were many people with nice cars and big houses while tons of more people were living in small garage like homes. Economic factors play a huge role in the development of a child and the situation they are in. Even though it's not fair that the people in this movie are stuck in this living circumstances, it is very difficult for them to escape and create a better life for themselves because they don't have the resources and money to do so.
- Solongo Bayarsaikhan
This is a response to Laura:
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of things that you have stated in your forum. You make some great points, that really get a person thinking twice about their own opinions; however, I oppose to the following statement: Although they live very rough lives, other people aren’t going to change your personal lives for you. They are living in deep poverty and other times the characters in the film have no other option than to do what they do in order to survive. They have been born into that, and getting out of it is extremely hard, especially in a land where they have limited resources. That makes it harder for people to be able to do something with their lives. I agree with you that there are people who dont care who they hurt, how they live and what goes on in their lives. You see that all the time and in different places. And i agree that there are a few people in the movie that acted like that. People like that don't help the situaton get better, but if the kids were already born into that situation its going to be extremely difficult for them to surpass it and do something for themselves later on in life.
Response to Jay
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you that these people lived in circumstances that made it pretty much impossible to human flourish. I also believe that because of the class they were born into they had no way to fully reach their potential because more people were stopping Krishna rather than helping him. The only way that they came close to trying to reach their potential was finding little jobs that scammed him out of money. To live in this class they have to watch their backs at all time because even their own families will throw them under the bus. If anyone wanted to accomplish anything they need to rely on themselves.
-Cameron
Response to Solongo
ReplyDeleteI like how you related your experience to the movie and how it much of a privilege it is to live in the United States. I also like how you stated "A child needs everything he/she can receive to flourish and develop as a proper human being like food, shelter, education and a positive influence. These kids were living on their own due to different circumstances, for example the main character, Krishna/Chaipau had been kicked out from his home by his mother because he had set his brother's bike on fire" because I felt this was the running theme through out the whole movie. That even though we in America wine about about unfair things are but we forget about those who are suffering just because they upset their parents or because they can't earn 500 rupees to return home and that is what their punishment is for upsetting their parents.
Responce to: jayphongboupha
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is unjust for people in this movie to be trapped in their living circumstances, therefore making it almost impossible for them to flourish. I was only looking at Krishna and his aged boys and didn't think about Manju at all. Even though she had more than Krishna because she lived with both of her parents and had a home to live in, she still was trapped in the hard life because her mother was a prostitute and sometimes even took her when she went to meet with clients. Despite the fact that she had a better advantage to have a better life than Krishna and the rest, she failed to do so because she hung around with them. Just because she had a home didn't guarantee that she could sleep inside everyday because sometimes she slept outside. In the end she was taken to a juvenile home and is not allowed to be taken home by her own parents. Manju had an advantage, she still failed to make her potential, actual by the end of the movie. As we can clearly see, kids need more than just food, shelter, and parents to flourish. They need guidance, nurturing, and positive role models to influence their life and help them reach their potential and live better lives.
- Solongo Bayarsaikhan.
@ Ashley F.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of your response, you addressed some rhetorical questions and I’m hoping that I can enlighten you on some of them. First of all, you asked why society lets this happen and why some of the people do not seem bothered by it. A big part of this is the fact that Bombay is an extremely impoverished society. If you try thinking about it from their point of view, it can be hard to try and care for everyone when you yourself are trying to survive. I really do not think that the people are so myopic that they don’t even care for another. This is why I believe that economic and financial stability share a correlation with the way people treat each other. The more you have, the more you can give and vice versa.
I’m kind of directing this toward other people but I’m interested in what other people think is human flourishing because some people seem to be defining it as an even distribution of wealth among people. On the other hand, it is true that a poor society has difficulty in trying to flourish than a more upper class society. However, through Manju, we see that wealth is not enough. She wants someone to care for her. In the end, Manju’s incarceration made her mother want to change herself so that she could be a better mother for her daughter. Finally, Chaipau wanted nothing more than to gain back the respect from his mother. For them, it was not about living a lavish lifestyle: it was about love and respect, which is something that all of them (and the other characters in the movie) were deprived of.
Jordan C.
In response to David,
ReplyDeleteWell, yes at one point in the film Krishna was very close of the 500 rupees, He struggled and was determine to go back home. I do think that he should of never trusted chillum because in the end he stole his money and Krishna was left with nothing. I guess this film is not all about being poor and struggling its also about who to trust and who not to trust. I think Krishna should of never trust chillum of putting the money behind the brick, but I guess he did it because he had no one but himself. In the film It shows how much he truly cared about chillum.
And I also think that Krishna did try hard enough but it seemed that every time he was getting closer to the 500 rupees he always got ripped off meaning: people stole from him. I don’t think Krishna got lazy because throughout the film he was working by selling tea, and he was looking at other ways to work. He actually tried, at that moment I just think he needed someone to be there for him, but all he had was himself. The people in the film were selfish and uncaring, Krishna actually cared for people and maybe that’s what made him fall back in the end.
- Lilian G.
@ Solongo
ReplyDeleteI’m going to have to respectfully disagree about how you’re interpreting Manju’s situation. Hanging out with Chaipau and his friends was not detrimental to her at all. In fact, it was probably more beneficial because that was where she was really happy. It was where she felt like she was a part of something and a place where she felt accepted. As a young child, Manju needs constant love and attention but that was something that hardly ever came her way. Remember, we cannot include Manju as a person who can make their potential actual because she is only a child. If I recall correctly, Aristotle said that children are unsuitable because they lack the experience needed to make good judgments.
(...I couldn't see my post are I tried posting it twice.. so I'll post it in 2 parts. Sorry if it looks like spam though...)
ReplyDeletePART 1
Kristine Carlos in response to:
David,
I agree with what you said in response to Lilian’s post. It was careless to leave the 500 rupees in the brick wall that Chillum knew of. But I also think it was a bit of naivety, too, since Krishna was so young and did not have anyone else to trust. I guess when you’re in that kind of situation, you desperately look for people to trust because the situation that Krishna was in was extremely difficult. I think because of that, he was trying desperately to look for someone to help him. Krishna knew he could not do everything himself, so he looked for help. But he trusted the wrong people.
However, by the end of the movie, I would have expected that Krishna learned to distrust Chillum after unstable and dishonest he showed himself to be. Also, even though Chillum needed help and was his “friend,” Krishna did all he could do to help him. But Chillum was too addicted to drugs for Krishna to be able to do anything. It also seemed like Chillum didn’t want to be helped. He always looked for drugs and stole Krishna’s money to buy more. His actions made it seem like he didn’t really want to be helped. And if a person doesn’t want to be helped, you just can’t help them.
Kristine Carlos to David:
ReplyDeletePART 2
In response to your other questions: Also, do you think that maybe it is their own faults for not trying hard enough to get out of poverty? Maybe they just get tired and lazy and don’t bother trying hard enough to pull themselves up?
-- I don’t think Krishna didn’t try hard enough to get out poverty. I think he was trying really hard to get out of poverty with the few skills he had and the young age he was. He could only do so little with the few resources he had and we also found out that you can’t trust anyone there because everyone else is trying to survive, too. In that kind of situation, it’s safe to say that it’s a dog-eat-dog world out in Bombay. So even though Krishna was young and had very few skills and resources, he still tried his hardest to escape poverty. But Chillum was the opposite. I think he didn’t try hard enough to get out of poverty, especially with his addiction to dope. I’m not a drug addict and I don’t know how difficult it is to quit hard drugs, but I would imagine that it’s extremely difficult. But even so, if he really wanted to save his own life and get out of poverty, he would have let go of the drugs a long time ago and saved up money to get out of Bombay and start a new life somewhere else.
So, I don’t think everyone who has lived in or lives in poverty are lazy. Some try their hardest to get out with what they’ve got (their skills resources, etc), like Krishna. But some accept defeat and instead of trying to escape hardship, they adapt to their situations in such a way that makes their lives even more difficult, like Chillum.
In the film, the little boy named Krishna (also known as Chaipau), was exiled at home and stranded in the streets of Bombay, worked laboriously in hopes of repaying his mother to return home. Though that never happened due to many misfortunes.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I thought the living conditions shown were too extreme. There seemed to be no human flourishing, except degradation. People were only living to work or working to live, barely making ends meet, which involved mostly with drugs and prostitution.
In my opinion, it depends on the situation and the reason whether it was in the person's control or not. I believe that in order to uphold a community and for human flourishing, it is important to focus on every person's well-being by helping one another to bring goodness and fairness to the community. If the individual brought the hardship upon oneself. For example, a person who has a decent life, deliberately gambles away all their possessions for pleasure. Consequentially, the person would be responsible. However, if someone's property was destroyed by a natural disaster, leaving the person with nothing. Justly, the community should be responsible.
Krishna made a mistake initially, but he made great efforts to atone for it despite adversities as clearly seen throughout the movie. Unfortunately, his mother was not present to witness.
@ Jordan C. --November 21, 2010 2:01 AM
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Manju was an interesting character and I like what you had to say about her “when Manju became incarcerated from her parents, we see that she goes into a state of withdrawal as she becomes extremely quiet and almost semi-catatonic because she no longer had the love that her mother occasionally gave her.” I had not thought of it that way, I just thought she was angry or in shock or maybe even content to be in a somewhat stable environment, but I think you are right. She only ever wanted attention from those around her and she rarely received it. I feel that not that it was taken away fully she has shut down and is maybe looking for a more stable love or trying to figure out how and why she ended up in the situation she is in. I also feel that she slightly blames her parents for losing her friends, and having to be put in the situation she is in, in order to receive more than few minutes of attention and being shown the love and appreciation and young girl her age hopes to be showered with by her parents.
As for her relationship with Krishna, I feel that she becomes jealous of sweet sixteen not only because she has a crush on him, but also because she fears that she will lose some, if not all, of the little amount of attention that she receives from him as it is. Krishna is like a brother to her and when she loses that relationship with him I think she puts that blame on her parents as well as everything else. Krishna was poor and living on the streets and yet it seemed like he had more of a family with the other kids living on the street with him than Manju had with her family.
Regarding your last paragraph I agree especially when you said “the idea that human flourishing is more about love and care rather than financial stability,” but I do not know how realistic that is. I mean that “idea” yes, but actual human flourishing is nearly impossible without some kind of financial stability, there is a balance needed that is definitely lacking in every character’s life in the film.
@ Laura November 22, 2010 10:33 PM
ReplyDeleteI’m a bit confused with something mentioned in your response to Will. “I’m not saying that the way they live is fair, but that they did this to themselves.” Are you trying to say that they’re living unfair lives (and by unfair lives I mean living in conditions that make human flourishing difficult) but it is “just” or “fair” because they are at fault for their current situation?
If that is what you’re saying, I must respectfully disagree. I do not think that they are at fault for their situation. Although, to a certain extent, the individuals in the movie did walk right into their circumstances, I still believe that all people deserve the opportunity to fulfill their potentials. Some people may see that these people already had the chance to flourish as human beings but that they lost that chance when they made the choices that brought them into their current lives. However, I believe human flourishing isn’t something that should be just one chance—it should be a continual opportunity available throughout a person’s life. For the simple fact being that they are human, they should not have just a one shot chance to flourish, but a continual opportunity.
Also, because he is a child, Chaipau’s life at that time is going to be shaped by his parents, which, in this case, is his mother. Being put in difficult situations has made Chaipau stronger because he learned how to mostly take care of himself. However, the situation he was put in made it near impossible to get out of without some form of help. Chaipau wasn’t able to do much about his situation, not because he wasn’t strong enough or didn’t want it enough, but because the situation was just too much for him to overcome without help.
- Kristi Phan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Priscilla on November 21, 2010 1:42 AM
ReplyDeleteI agree with your connection between the characters cirumstances in the film and utilitarianism;("Without good, there cannot be human flourishing. The good as defined by utilitarianism to promote human flourishing is absent within the lives of Salaam Bombay’s characters.") As i've stated in my post I also believe that a society that has people concerned with the welfare of others as well as themselves is essential for human flourishing. I also find it interesting and I like how you adressed the issue that human flourishing "is technically not IMPOSSIBLE to escape the circumstances, but to actually overcome the circumstances would be EXTREMELY difficult because of WHAT the circumstances are." The possibility of someone flourishing is something I failed to mention in my post, but I find this statement to be true because there is evidence. For an example, more recently, most characacters from Slumdog Millionaire came from virtually the same enviroment that was depicted in Salaam Bombay, and were able to overcome there adversities. However, one can argue that because these kids were "sought out" by producers who wanted actors who were came directly from th e enviroment of which the movie was depicted these kids overcame there adversities purely by luck. Whatever the case, this shows that although extremely difficult as you've said, it is possible for kids to rise above this enviroment and circumstance.
♥Jasmine Hubbard
@vidyacsingh: True, getting out of poverty in a large population will certainly take much time, especially for those who have been deeply rooted in such conditions. I also agree that there needs to be better laws set in place to protect human rights and provisions to reduce poverty.
ReplyDeleteStudies have indicated that poverty can affect children's learning ability. The children is our future as they will grow up and contribute to society. Consequently, adequate education is essential to raise awareness and establish a healthy foundation for societies to function more effectively. Youth programs are also necessary to help stimulate the young people's minds and develop the appropriate skills to succeed in life.
What are other ways to improve these issues?
Hardyal In Response to Edita
ReplyDeleteI am agreeing with you edita that the people living in the film Salaam Bombay were placed in was unjust.Poverty was the primarily reason why these people are experiencing social injustices.You are also right when you say they have no way of getting out of.So sad that the little girl had to be placed into jail and she got taken away from her parents.Due to the fact that her mom was a prostitute she was taken away from her parents. because they were not able to provide a proper moral living home to raise this young girl.She should not be treated like a criminal because her mom is a prostitute.She deserve a better life.So true that having a prostitute and pimp for parents are diffcult situation to overcome.So sad that the Young boy was jail because he was working to feed himself and family and then the police came and take away his money and put him in jail for reason only a corrupt state could explain.Human Flourishing is an unlikely situation in this case for these people living in these conditions because they are too poor to ever come out of poverty.Finally there government do not have a plan to get these people out of this grim depressing living slum for an area they call home.Hardyal