Philosophy 110: Intro to Ethics: Forum 5: Salaam Bombay!

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Forum 5: Salaam Bombay!

Mumbai Skyline at Night
By Cididity Hat (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

General Instructions

Read all of the instructions below before beginning to work on your answer. Email me with questions.

Think about the questions below for at least 20 minutes before writing any answers down. Just read the question and ponder it for a while before you write anything.

Write your answer in a word processing program and save it. Then copy it and click on the "comments" link below this post. Paste your answer into the comment box that appears. Beneath the comment box, you'll see a drop down menu that says "Publish as:" - choose "anonymous" (unless you have a Google account or one of the other accounts listed, and you'd like to publish your comment under your account). Be sure that your first name and last initial are included in your comment. Click on "Publish." The page should reload, and you should see your comment. If it doesn't work, be sure you've followed the above steps carefully, and try again. If it's still not working, send me an email with your comment, and I'll post it for you.

**NOTE**

Don't forget to sign your name to your post! Put your first name and last initial so I can record your grade

Due Dates

Please post your response by Friday, May 3, at midnight. Then respond to one of your colleagues by Sunday, May 5 at midnight.

Question

Through most of the film, no one is stopping Krishna from doing anything - his behavior is almost totally uninhibited by anyone else.

Do you think Krishna is free? Say in detail why or why not.

What is a Good Answer?
A good answer will

offer a clear definition of freedom/liberty, or sketch out an idea of what real freedom/liberty looks like
refer to at least one of the philosophers we've studied in developing the answer
refer in detail to episodes from the film to support your argument
demonstrate that you took time to seriously consider and develop an answer - that means taking your initial response (the first things that pop into your head) and questioning it, asking yourself why you think so, and digging down into your reasons

What is a Good Response to a Colleague?
A good response to your colleague will drive the conversation forward in some way. You might raise a question for your colleague, based on what she said in her comment; you might use his comment as a jumping-off spot to think about an issue raised in more depth; you might challenge some assumptions or argue against the logic of her reasons. Naturally, you'll do all of this politely and respectfully. Responses that merely agree with the comment won't be counted toward your grade.

68 comments:

AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM
I think that Krishna is not free because he is just in an area where nobody cares about neither his actions nor him on a personal level. I believe freedom or liberty in humans is the power to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural or social restraints. Free will is denied by those who embrace any of various forms of determinism. Arguments for free will are based on the subjective experience of freedom, on revealed religion, and on universal of responsibility and incentive. Under the Roman law the “freeman” was one born free, the “freedman” was a manumitted slave, and had no equal rights with the freeman. For instance, Krishna cannot be free because of the simple fact that his mother kicked him out of his home and is now homeless looking to make enough money to go back home to his family. But because he is literally on his own and has nobody to shelter him or at least help him out in some way, the task to get money and a buy a ticket back to home has now become much more difficult. The homeless little boy, Krishna, is not going to be free until he meets his goal which was to make enough money to get back to his family. I find it impossible for Krishna to make some money while being in streets because living in the streets won’t get you anywhere in life. People in the streets steal; kill, and many other criminal acts and Krishna had to be a victim of the street crimes while he was just trying to make some money to get out of the streets of Bombay. For example, The scene in the film where Krishna was going to grab the money he was saving in his secret location and come to find out that all of his money is gone. That is why I do not think that Krishna is free until he goes back to his mother and brother and be happy. One of the questions I had in mind though, but not answered, by the film is, what should be done about these children? At one point Krishna and some friends are rounded up by the police and herded into a large institution that combines the worst features of an orphanage and a prison, but that doesn't seem to be the answer, and we are left with the troubling impression that in Bombay, at any event, the children seem to fare better on the streets. There they have an identity, and a measure of hope.
- John T.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Destry H.
I think Krishna was free living on the streets of Bombay for the most part. His mom made him leave home because he caused damage to a motorcycle now he owes for it. She just gave him away hoping he would come back one day with the money. It seems like his mom doesn't really care about what happens to him or if he comes home. He could end up dead or in jail and she would never know it. I'm guessing a lot of people neglect their kids having them stay on the streets like animals. He is homeless sleeping on the streets and no one even cares or tries to help him out. They don't care about his behavior or feelings so he has the freedom to do what he wants to. He has no responsibilities or worries so je has the free will to choose his situation and the people he hangs out with. It's like he's not there at all because no one tries to stop him from doing anything. His friends were bad influences on him making him rob people and trying to get him hooked on drugs. He was freed in his mind with the ability to express his own thoughts, opinions, and emotions. Since nobody cares about his actions, he lived by his own rules and regulations doing what he believed was right. He had to learn at a young age how to live independently working hard as kind of a slave for low pay. He had to hustle on the streets to survive so he could save enoughmoney to go home. Kids don't have equal rights over there because they don't take their word seriously. He wasn't really free until he was happy on his way back home with money. He didn't want to be where he was at he just wanted his family to respect him again. It was difficult for him to make money because people would hold him back asking for money and other things. He was living a hard and rough life out there with killing, stealing, and drug addiction. He was stuck in this horrible place with pimps and prostitutes. He couldnt manage to get away from the violence. At one point he gets stopped by the police and they thought he stole food so they took him to an institute/school. There he was a prisoner of the state until he got older. He didn't like it there because people got bullied. Krishna had to stand up for himself and others. Finally he broke out, ran away and never looked back. He went back to roming the streets, but I think he was more free and better off that way.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Carlin S.

I feel that Krishna is not free for the simple fact that he lives in a third world country. In those countries no regular person is really free. Nobody really cares about him and he’s at a disadvantage in life from the beginning. He has the freedom to do whatever he wants to do because he has been kicked out of the house but that doesn’t mean that he has freedom mentally. He has nobody to teach him any specific skills so getting money is that much harder for him. As Mills states, we are supposed to do what creates the best welfare for the majority of people. This clearly isn’t happening in Krishna’s area as he finds out that the money he has been saving has been stolen. For Krishna to truly be free he must leave his country and embark on a journey of life somewhere else where he can make something of himself.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Alicia Flores
I think that Krishna is free but it clearly is not the kind of freedom that he wants. When he goes over to Bombay he is free to do what he wants but does not have the care from anyone. He is stuck doing hard labor and barley making enough money to go back home. I think if someone is free they have to be free from guilt free in the space that surrounds them and free to be happy. Krishna is neither, he feels guilty for breaking his brothers motorcycle and is on a hunt to repay him back in return of being welcomed back home. The place that he lives is not in the right condition for a kid his age and he experiences things he should not have been exposed to. He is living in the streets and working so hard only to constantly get ripped off. No one cares what happens to him or what he does through out the day. I think in the sense of being able to do what he wants makes him free but that is clearly not what he wants since he is raising money to go back home. He constantly talks about his mother and even intents to write a letter to her to reassure her he is okay and will be coming back home.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Gabriela D.

Freedom to me is seen as being able to speak or act without any hindrance from anyone. Krishna did have the ability to act and speak as he chose because no one cared about what he was doing. But on some occasions he was not able to act as he wanted or achieve what he needed to because something/ someone would hold him back.
Khrisna was not free when referring to the definition of freedom from Kant. As Kant believed, you truly achieve freedom if you followed the rule that reason gave you. Having the unrestrained ability to act on your desires is not considered as freedom to Kant. I think that throughout many times in the movie Khrisna was acting through desire because of the circumstances that he was in. He never was able to carry out what he truly needed to do in the way that was best because of all the interference. He was forced to live the way that everyone else was living. He hung out with children who were thieves and eventually had to become a thief himself to be able to get the last bit of money he needed to leave. Chillum also had control over him in a sense because he would take money from him and eventually Khrisna felt that he had to take care of him due to his drug addiction.
Ultimately, Krishna's money that he had been saving is stolen and he then has to start all over. This is why even though he was able to act or say as he pleased, he was never ever really free because he was surrounded with a lot of things that held him back. In the terms of Kant, he wasn't free either because he did on some occasions have to act on desire to get the things that he needed or to be able to survive in the streets of Bombay.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Rexx. S

I think that Krishna was not free because he was isolated in one area and wasn’t able to leave until he earned 500 rupees to pay for his brothers damaged bike. Having freedom is when you can go from one place to the next with anything or anyone stopping you, which was not the case for Krishna. Mill talks throughout his book how people who use liberty are able to make the own decisions, voice their opinion and do as they please. Krishna was someone who didn’t have any of those aspects. For example, Krishna had to follow orders and could never voice his opinion because when he did he would either be yelled at or beaten. He wasn’t free because he lived everything day in constant fear wondering if he would be robbed or possibly killed. Krishna lived with other local kids on the streets that were in the same situation meaning they lived by themselves which classified them as being free, but really weren’t due to the fact that they were treated like slaves by others. When Krishna was captured by the police and had to live in the foster care system he was isolated but in reality it was actually the life he had been living along. Though the area was much smaller he still was doing the same things that he was on the streets such as taking orders and being yelled at or beaten. It’s not until the end of the film when he finally realizes that in order to be free he has to be his own person and not be sacred of the obstacles that lie ahead.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Jasmeen C.

Krishna is free in that he isn’t told what to do, but he’s tied down with the burden of earning money to pay his brother for setting fire to a motorcycle and can’t return back home until he has earned that money. Just because no one tells Krishna what to do doesn’t mean that he’s free because being free means you don’t have any burden on yourself. Such as school, during the semester you’re not free because you have to worry about getting all your school work in, passing exams, and then the finals, but once you are done with that the burden is lifted and you feel free. Freedom is often referred to as the ability to do whatever you want without being told what to do by anyone, but in reality it means that you are not tied down by a burden or responsibilities. Such as paying the bills that is a responsibility that you have fulfill every month. In the same way Krishna has the responsibility of earning money and paying back his brother so he can return home. He also has to worry about how long it takes him to earn the money since his boss keeps deducting from his earnings and he has to worry about where he can keep his money without it being stolen. When he loses his job at the tea stall he has to worry about finding another job, so then he starts selling drugs with his friend Chillum, but when Chillum dies Krishna has to work different jobs and resorts to robbery to get money. Krishna is surrounded by problems which prevent him from making the money and going back home to his mother and brother and that is the restriction on his freedom. When Kant speaks on liberty he talks about how people think that the categorical Imperative is a restriction on our freedom and that people think freedom is the ability to unrestrainedly act on your desires. He also says that desires are grounded in the circumstances we are in so we are slaves to our desires so we are not truly free. In the same way Krishna is a slave to his desire which is earning money and going back so he is not truly free. In the process of getting to his desire he is being ruled by others, first the owner of the circus, then the owner of the tea stall, then selling drugs with Chillum who kept asking him for money and so on. There are so many things restraining him from getting what he wants. And also when you’re free you are free from any negative emotions like guilt, sadness, anger. To be really considered free means to be happy. The only way Krishna will be happy is by going back home to his mother and paying his brother for destroying the motorcycle. Although he may not be able to do whatever he wants, he fulfills the responsibility he is asked to do and he is freed of his burden.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Susanna V.

I don’t think Krishna is free. At least not the kind of freedom he wants. He was basically left behind and forced to live in an unknown city by himself at such a young age by living on the streets of Bombay where he would sleep on rags in an unknown area with kids his age who don’t seem to have anyone that cares about them either. He had a low paying job as a tea boy, hoping to save up money so he can return back home. Everyone in Bombay seems to only care for themselves and nobody else. It’s just a sad thing to see. Even before Bombay Krishna was not free he had to work at such a young age to survive. I guess in most third world countries, to make a living people don’t care what they have to do to get money. Even if it means; making someone their slaves, hurting the people they love or doing dangerous things. Etc. Like for example, Manju, the little girl who was friends with Krishna, her mother was a prostitute and her father ask people to do his dirty work by selling illegal drugs on the streets. No way is that considered freedom at all. Krishna is basically trapped a city where no one takes him seriously or cares for him. He is only “considered” important if he was a use to someone who needed him to do their dirty work. Other than that, he is just a homeless street boy to them. Sure he was able to roam freely on the streets and associated with people who are bad influences but that was because he had no one to tell him right from wrong. That doesn't necessarily make him free. It just means he had the ability to do that because no one cared. In reality he doesn't have a home to go to, people who care for him and the only way that he can eat is by working for it. During the end the film, he was crying because he basically lost everything him work so hard for and everything was just going wrong for him and by him crying, it was like a cry for help. That is in no way considered freedom.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Mark B.

i believe that krishna wasn't free because even though it looked like it he still was working for someone. everytime krishna was wandering off somewhere in bombay he was helping someone out or working. even when he was let go from delivering tea he still wasn't being free because he was still doing other stuff for other people. at the end of the movie where he was all alone i believe that was the point where he was free. free can come in different ways, it could be happy or sad. in krishnas case, it was a sad free because he was all alone and noone who would really help him out.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Akwasi A.

To me I thought Krishna was free, he basically has the opportunity to do whatever he pleases. Freedom to me is defined where your able to do whatever you want without any rules or regulations and that’s what I see Krishna doing, having the freedom to do whatever he pleases. I do feel bad for him though he’s a young boy roaming the streets of Bombay without a complete understanding of how to survive on his own. On the other hand do understand why he chose to leave he feels that he has no one to care for him so why bother being in a house where he’s not loved. I would have done it differently. Instead of running away to the streets I would ask a family member to take me in for the time being.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM
shaniera o
I don’t think Krishna is free because free means enjoying personal rights or liberty. Krishna never enjoyed his life even though he was not brought as a slave. For example, Krishna mother kicked him out of his home because he damaged the motorcycle. Krishna is now in Bombay where he feels abandoned and neglected after being kicked out of his house. Krishna is now homeless living in a devour area in Bombay. Krishna witnesses tragic things happening to other people around him. It was very hard for him to see killing, stealing, and drug addiction, pimping and prostitution. Krishna was not free because he had to sell tea at a young age in order to survive and fend for himself. Krishna would put his money in the hole of the wall, which led him to be robed by people he thought was his friends. One of Plato’s quotes that relates to Krishna’s experience without his family is, “But Socrates, if you leave us will you not be able to live quietly, without talking?” (pg 41). This quote relates to Krishna because he was barley living because he did not have his mother or brother to run to. At the end of the film he was crying because he was separated from Manju mother. He began to reminisce the times being separated from his own mother and having no one to turn to. In order for Krishna to be and to feel free he would need to raise enough money to go back home to his mother and his brother where he can get the love and support that he truly needs.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM
Georgina Serrano

In an increasingly westernized society like Bombay, freedom can only be acquired with money. Krishna will never be free in the society he is forced to live in. He will slave his life away for a meager amount of money - possibly never being able to make the small amount he needs to get home. Krishna is forced to do anything possible to get some money which gets him into trouble regardless of how honestly he has come by it. He’s also a slave to Chillum’s drug addiction, something that he shouldn’t have been burdened with - especially as a child already dealing with being homeless and alone in a world in which is dominated by the few who are extremely affluent.

Yes, Krishna can go move about freely without inhibitions except that his options are extremely limited. Uneducated and extremely poor, Krishna was never given the skills to succeed. Krishna does, however, learn how to survive out in the unforgiving streets. In the juvenile home where he has a bit more stability, the ways in which he has learned to protect himself and survive do not apply. So, Krishna escapes back into the world he has grown used to despite the incredible adversity he faces only to return to a place that has become worse. The ending shows a heart-wrenchingly sad and defeated Krishna showing that he will never truly be from the damning situations life has put him through.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Loan H.

In my opinion, freedom is the right to act with our own reasons, and we are not controlled by any powers in our actions as long as the actions do not create any harm to others.

Regarding to Kant, freedom or liberty is “What you have that is truly your own is reason. When you follow the rule that reason gives you, you are self-ruling”. Here, Krishna is not free because whatever he does, there is always some powers from other people control his actions.

The most powerful thing control Krishna is he needs to earn 500 rupees to be able to come home to see his mother. This power makes him completely “not freedom”. As a kid, he needs to have the freedom of living at home with his family. When he tells Chillum the reason he was kicked out of the house. We can see Krishna is not freedom because he did not have the right to express himself. Even though he put the bike, which his brother stole at work, on fire, he is only an innocent young boy. And his action had a good purpose, to prevent his brother from stealing things.

Living on the lower-class neighborhood in Bombay with all types of crimes, such as drugs, thieves, and violence is almost everywhere, Krishna always has to watch out his action. In addition, this environment is really hard to survive when no one cares about others and they are willing to do whatever even harms others to get what they need. As a tea boy, Krishna is threatened by a bigger boy on the street who always wants to take free tea. For instance, one time, he took one glass of tea on Krishna’s hand and broke the glass. As a result, Krishna has to pay for the fine of 2 rupees for that broken glass.

In addition, after working too hard to save up to 300 rupees, all of Krishna’s money was stolen. He is hopeless when thinking about his way to come back home. I think it is too much for him to surfer as his young age and his soul is not free because he is afraid of not having a chance to come back to see his mother again.

Also when he tries to help “sixteen-sweety-girl” escape from the evil place, he is caught by Baba and forbidden to return the place. Obviously, despite his action is the right thing to do, however, he could not do it.

Krishna is not "freedom" in the movie because he “letting others people rule him”. In his circumstance, he could not control his actions; on the other hand, he is influenced by others, such as his mother, Chillum, other kids on the street, etc,… As a result, his “own reason” to act is locked. Instead, he only follows his desire of earning money to come home and surviving. Clearly, he is not genuinely freedom because he let his desires to guide him and he also does not have other choices.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 10:18 PM
Rajwinder K.
I think Krishna was free because he was living an independent life. He was free to do whatever he wants too. He was like that because no one tried to stop him from doing anything. He was kicked out from his house because he burned his brother’s motorcycle, besides his mother told him don’t come back home until he earn that money. In the movie, it’s showed how he worked in many place so he can earn some money. He did work in circus, as a tea boy then ended up start selling drug with his friend Chillum. He was working very hard so he can collect money, and can go back home. This is not freedom. The definition of freedom is that you are free from any burden, responsibilities and worries. He had the responsibility to earn money, so he can give to his brother and he can go back home. He was worries about the sixteen year old girl and he even helped her to run away so she will not be prostitute, but not successful. He was living a hard life, where killing, stealing, drug addiction happen all the time and even his friends ask money from him. So he was not really happy. As Kant said following the rule that reason gives you is the only way that we are genuinely free. When we are thinking about categorical imperative as a restraint on freedom, we are thinking that freedom to totally unrestrained ability to act on our desires. But our desires are very strongly grounded in the circumstance we are in, so if we follow our desire we are letting everyone else rules us. That is what happened to Krishna he follows his desire and everyone else rules on him, so he was not free. In the end of the movie he cried because he lost everything, his friends, his job, and his place to live.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 11:01 PM
I don't think that Krishna is free at all. He may do a lot of crazy things like have a lot of different jobs, not go to school, and sleep on the streets, but thats not the kind of life a kid should have nor the kind of life that he wants. His own family kicked him out and he was forced into the life that he has right now, he wants the stable restrictions that normal kids have like being forced to go to school, cleaning up his room, and having normal friends. He has learned that he must do whatever he needs to do in order to stay alive and sometimes that means doing some things and getting away with some things. He steals food to feed himself not to mess with anyone. He had to help his friend sell drugs to earn some money to go back to his parents. He even tried to set a house on fire to save a girl from prostitution when she didn't care for him back. Hes not free or does whatever he wants, he restricted to use what he has to get ahead in life and he does whatever he needs to to keep ahead. If he had lived with his parents he would've had a different childhood than what he is living with right now. He is very street smart and if he went to school and put his efforts in educating himself, his potential would be great. He has the potential to be anything he wanted to be if he were in a different situation.
Kim M.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Ronny Fajardo
When originally looking at the film I did feel like Krishna was free to a certain extent based on most of the consequences of his actions. In that same way I feel that liberty was to pursuit what makes you happy and in living the way he did and viewing one specific scene where Krishna was crying wanting to go home that’s when I remember what John Stuart Mill outlined the region of liberty which he included experimental living which he was doing but to me freedom is to be happy and noticing that he wasn’t brought me the idea that he isn’t fully free. Second I felt that him even if with the freedom that he does have he is making the wrong decisions that can harm him and others around him like doing drugs, stealing or even killing because though the film does not show consequence the audience believes he will do an action that will end what little freedom he has. All in all I believe Krishna has a small amount of freedom that slowly diminished as the film progressed.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Ron P.

Krishna is a caged bird.

According to Kant, following the rule that reason gives us is the only way that we can genuinely be free. Freedom is not described by being totally unrestrained with the ability to act out on our desires. Our situations, environment, and personal biases heavily influence our desires. If we succumb to our desires, the want that comes from our circumstance, we let everyone else rule us.

And this is exactly what Krishna did. He acted out on his desires, whatever they may be, which were substantially shaped from his situations. He let his circumstances rule him, and with that he is not free. He is caged in by his environment. Restrained by the situations in which he was put under.

The only thing he possessed was his reason, and this is all his own. He did not follow the rule that his reason gave him, stealing things here, stabbing someone there. He helped steal to get money, money he needed to get home. He lied to Manju and her mother to get money, money he used to buy something illegal for Chillum. He stole a baby a chick, stole it in hopes to impress a Sweet Sixteen. He followed not his reason but his desires, desires controlled by circumstances. These circumstances confined him.

In the end, after following all his desires, the cage opened. He became free, free from his friends, free from his close ones, free from all the situations that he let rule him. But it wasn't until then that he realized freedom isn't sweet, and by then, he is too broken to fly.

He still wasn't free.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 3, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Krishna is just a kid with no family and no one to help him but himself and he's forced to do odd jobs to stay alive. He is not free to do what other kids his age are doing like get an education or just have fun because he has to stay alive. That is one of the freedoms a lot of kids in America is taking for granted. He may not get stopped for doing some of the things he does like drinking alcohol, and robbing people but he was still stopped by the police and sent to juvie for walking down the street at night. Hes a good kid and doesn't deserve the life he got but he's making the best out of it. Freedom is being happy with what you're doing, and having a choice in what you do and how you live. Krishna doesn't have those freedoms and thats why i dont think hes free.
Cathy S.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 12:00 AM
According to Kant, the only thing you have that is completely your own is reason, and by following the rule that reason gives you, only then do you become truly self-ruling and are therefore free. We often believe that freedom means having no restrictions and being able to do whatever you desire, but Kant says that our desires are strongly influenced by the circumstances that we are currently involved in and when we follow these desires, we are actually letting our friends and society rule us.

In the film, no one was stopping Krishna from doing anything that he wanted to, however he was not free. I believe that Krishna was at the mercy of those around him and they controlled his actions for the most part, not himself. Just as Kant explained, Krishna was influenced by the circumstances he was in, greatly so. He was kicked out of his home and then left by the circus so he was left homeless and on the streets. In order to survive and earn the money he needed to be able to go back home, Krishna had to get a job. Krishna was not working because he wanted to, he was working because he needed to. Furthermore, Krishna was stuck in a seemingly never ending cycle. Every time he saved up money, it would get taken from him and he was back where he started, having to earn the money all over again. He would get so close to being able to go home and then the rug would be pulled out from under him, time and time again. This is not something I would call freedom, Krishna was not happy; he was not living the life he wanted to live. What he wanted most was to be able to go home back to his family. The situation Krishna was in, the environment, and his friends all played a big role in directing his behaviors. Krishna was stuck and was essentially imprisoned in this life that he could not get away from. Bombay is where he is stuck; it is his prison. If only he could get out of that life, then maybe he would be able to obtain freedom.

Sarah H.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 12:50 AM
I think Krishna was not free because he was kicked out of the house by his mother and told not to return until he has five hundred rupees to pay for a motorcycle he had ruined. He was not free due to the fact that he was surrounded by great responsibility and he had to search a job so that he can earn enough money to pay his mother in order to return to his family. He arrived in Bombay for collecting money which is such a big city where every person thinks about himself/herself. A free person has independence for everything and moreover a free person is not under any kind of pressure and is away from frauds. But Krishna was under pressure and when he did not get anything he ends up murdering a man. Even though he never wants to be a part of street crime but his situations made him a person that can’t live freely. When he lost his job at tea stall, then under stress he follows the thieves and befriends them. A person cannot achieve anything by living in the street where his companions are thieves. One night while returning home, Krishna was apprehended by the police and taken to a juvenile home. Eventually, Krishna escapes and goes back to his world of drug-pushers, pimps and prostitutes, still nurturing his dream of one day returning to his mother. So he was never free. The problems always surrounded the poor Krishna and he always had to face new challenge by living on the streets because of hope to go back to his house. As Kant points out that our desires are very strongly conditioned by our circumstances. We let everyone rule us to follow our desires. This was what happened to Krishna. He let everyone rules him for his desire to go back home and that is why he was never free. It is important to surround yourself with optimistic people and not with thieves to live life freely. But in hope to save money and go back home, Krishna was bounded by wrong society and he was always in worries due to bad environment he was in which never let him to be free from difficulties of life and he was never free.

Amandeep K.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Anthony R.

Krishna was a prisoner trapped in a world where poverty ran everything. It is what makes the streets what they are and is what causes mostly everything to happen. Freedom is when someone is unrestricted by any force, and is able to do anything that they please, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the freedom of others. But being free has different meanings in different situations. In Krishna’s case, and for all children who live in poverty, they are definitely not free. They do not have the privileges that most kids around their age have, so do not have the same type of freedom that others have. Being educated is a huge role in someone’s freedom because it allows them to open more doors to different opportunities in life. It also lets them acquire knowledge that would help them in the real world. These kids born into poverty, however, already live in the real world. They are forced to break the law just to survive, and when they break the law they break their freedom. Aristotle believed that everyone should maximize their potential as a human being in order to fulfill their human essence. But these kids are not able to do so because their potential is heavily restricted due to the situations they live in. These kids are definitely not free in the sense of having freedom in a culture and society, but do have freedom as human beings. Aristotle also believed that by executing the things you can achieve, your potential, than you would live a happy life. Therefore, when these kids overcome something that is nearly impossible for them, the joy they receive when accomplishing it sets them free. For example, when Krishna saved all that money that he needed in order for him to go home, he was happy. His opportunity to save money was slim, but he was able to do it, and was able to accomplish a task nearly impossible for his situation. Even though his money was stolen in the end, it still does not change the fact that he actually did save it. His freedom when he had the money was short lived, but the happiness he receives from knowing he reached a goal lasts forever.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Chelsea B.

To answer this question we must discover the definition of free. It is easy to initially respond that free means the ability to do whatever one may wish; uninhibited. Taken to reason this definition is nearly impossible for, unless one were able to make their will absolute on the world, their interests and wants will either conflict with others or have to adjust to cooperate with others in the world.

So, what is free then??? I believe free is just as much a state of mind as well as a state of living and most important of all to be able to have these things in conjunction.

Pertaining to the mind; we constrain ourselves just as easily as some other force exterior of us may. What we believe is possible creates the region of possibilities for the individual. In order to live a free life, one must accept freedom within themselves; an openness to the possible freedoms of the world.

For example, to prejudge a person sets boundaries as to how that person can form in your mind. If you consistently tell yourself the person is unintelligent you will come to believe they are whether you substantiate the thought with reason or not. Same goes for if you believe you can not do something, in thinking this you restrict your freedom. We ourselves are our first trial towards attaining freedom. One must be free in mind so that they may be able to act as freely as possible in life.

Throughout the movie Krishna exhibits fearlessness towards life. He does not falter for he believes he can live better and wants to. Because his will is strong Krishna manages to survive in a standard of living we can barely conceive, while managing to find happiness along the way. This shows how his state of mind allows him to continually attempt living life in his own manner by his own will. Though he pushes his way through Bombay it pushes right back.

Leading to the next point of being free; to be able to live and act according to one’s own will. While Krishna is able to make a little money and spend such as he wishes, he by no means is able to accumulate the necessary standard of living which would enable him to more completely fulfill his wants. During the film he is only working in order to save enough money to travel back home, but he never makes enough. He does not even have enough to keep himself clean, well fed, or housed; things which we feel are part of living a free life.

ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Chelsea B.
...continued

Now at this point I must say that while a certain standard of living is necessary to be free that standard must be reached by means of the individual and not the state alone. By accepting care from an outside group one hands over their right to choice, further restraining personal liberty There is a delicate balance between government intervention and individual pursuit of freedom. It is essentially borrowing something; nothing is free and sooner or later the debt collector will present himself upon the accepting individuals.

The community in Bombay hardly cultivates the individual’s pursuit of freedom, again it is a cycle of poverty, one which government along with community would need to actively fix in order heighten their peoples freedom. Do take to heart that it is not just the government which is to be held accountable for the society and each individual within its make up are all present as influences in the workings of the world.

When Krishna was taken by authorities from the streets. He lost all freedom while under the state’s care; however his basic living needs were met. They provided food, clothing, and shelter… yet no choice on his part; he had no freedom of voice in the matter of his own life.

Due to his wants Krishna does not appear to be free in the movie. He wishes to pursue a path back to his family, but is unable to attain his goal. If Krishna is able to let go of his idea of going back and change his mindset towards pursuing life in his present situation he may feel more free. Over all it is debatable as an outsider as to how free Krishna is for freedom is such a restricted state due to the duality of inner freedom and the difficulties in being able to exert such freedoms in the world.

In closing, freedom is set and gauged by each individual’s idea of what to them makes them free. Some find just being alive freeing in itself, never asking for more than one more morning while others feel they would be free if only they could just have ___blank_____. As for my definition of free I personally believe it is a state of contentment in one’s life with the ability to change and pursue what makes one feel they are free; or the opportunity to pursue life with as much personal liberty. Of course using the balance Mill presents of society vs. the individual in which both parties must work together to achieve optimal liberty for all.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Freedom is having no restriction and to act without burden, and being able to act in any manner one desires. In my opinion, Krishna from “Solaam Bombay” was not free. Though Krishna was independent from parent rule due to his circumstances of living on the street, he was still very much confined. In many instances the struggle Krishna faced to simply survive day by day was terrible for him as a child. He worked hard to make enough money to get “home” to his mother, yet he it seemed that his hard work never amounted to anything because of the people around him. During the time he spent in Bombay he saw plenty of darkness in the form of stealing, prostitution,and drug overdose. It is seen day by day how he struggle to earn money and the constant fear of having his money stolen, thus making it clear that he was not free to act as he wished, with constant fears.
Yes, in a literal sense Krishna was free to do as he pleased on the streets, however he was not free in the figurative sense. According to Kant being autonomous is the only possible freedom. In obeying reason it means to be self ruled, and respecting others. Krishna unfortunately was not ruled by his own reason, but the circumstances around him.One example would be when things got worse for him and he no longer had a job, so he decided to get involved with his peers in stealing from an elderly man. By doing so he gave into his desire of having money to get home to his mother, and also deceiving the elderly man treating him as a mean for his desire.

In Mill’s “On Liberty” he mentions that if people are forced to live in conformity to custom that they eventually are worn down, and that one achieves the highest human welfare by developing oneself and exercising the freedom of choice. The instance where Krishna offers “ Sweet Sixteen” another chance to escape with him from the prostitution house, she turns him down. Krishna doesn’t understand how she can turn dow n running away with him, but the problem is that she had been “tamed” to believe that staying near Baba would be in her best welfare. In this moment Krishna also realizes that his fantasies of running away with her are over, so once again he it is his desire that does not allow him to leave the damned. Then last scene in which Krishna decided he has had enough of Baba’s darkness and stabs him. In this scene it seems that Krishna is broken, yet in a way free of some of the darkness, because he no longer cares about the consequences even though his state of mind is lost and he feels alone in the crowd.

-Silvia O.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 1:49 PM
In some weird teenage rebellious sense, Krishna is free. He's living on his own, fending for his own, raising money on his own and living on his own (his friends are just their). He has the freedom that all American teenagers crave for after leaving the neat of their parents. BUT even with all this so called "freedom" he's not really free. To me, to be free is to live a life with stress as the least of your worries. To be at the farthest of your thoughts. Money is not the main objective. Material objects are without a concern. Though its difficult for Americans, hell even humanity to bear such a thought. This is true freedom.

To live life with the ultimate good, one must be achieve happiness. Aristotle would believe Krishna is not fulfilling the virtuos life he potentially has. He steals and lies only confining him to become trapped in his poor situations. Krishna is not in any shape or place to better his life with virtuous decisions which make him only searching for freedom in wrong places.

- Al John Jose
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Do I think Krishna is free? No, Krishna did what he had to do to survive. It seem like children who are struggling to stay alive are often over looked until they are caught doing something unfortunate and even than their just thrown into a justice system and forgot about. Again working day to day and trying to find a meal, sleeping outside with no home to go to does not give you freedom, what Krishna was is lost, misplaced. The only gaudiness he had was a drug user, a pimp, a prostitute and the older kids he ran with. What is freedom: to state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. What is liberty: freedom external or foreign rule; independence. So what is freedom/liberty it’s one in the same, to have no restriction or condition of hold you reframing you from doing anything. This is what John Stuart Mill wants for everyone to have freedom of speech and have no restrictions. To continue to develop and be proud for it.

Ebony.K
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Rolando V.

I'm sure we all have our own definitions of what freedom is. It varies from person to person, culture to culture, etc. I believe that freedom and happiness go hand in hand. So my personal definition of freedom would be being able to do whatever I please as long as it brings happiness to myself. So I think Krishna was free? Absolutely not. He may have been able to do anything that he wanted, but it is shown throughout the film that Krishna was not happy and just wanted to return back home.

To most people today, having a disconnect from their parents is what they consider "freedom," but in Krishna's case, I believe his true freedom would've been his homecoming. Job to job, city to city, he always kept the goal of being able to return home at the top of his list.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM
I feel that Krishna is totally free. He can come and good as he please and make choices on anything he wants any way he wants. Just because he's in a third world country doesn't mean he isn't free.

Thompson L.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM
Audrey C.

Krishna is far from being free. He may be able to run around as he pleases, and he “freed” himself from the detention facility, but the whole reason he’s in Bombay is to pay off a debt. This alone will control when he is able to return home. He delivers tea for work, but anything that goes wrong can result in a cut in his pay; this furthers his inability to return home. He is constantly being pulled back into the city he wants to leave. Then again, would Krishna make such poor decisions if he wanted to return home so badly? Because he is so young and may not have good influences in his circumstances, I suppose he may not have the faculties to use his better judgment. Kant explains that following your desires will allow others to have rule over you, and this makes Krishna unable to fulfill his own autonomy because a lot of his actions are based on desires. Krishna should instead perform the actions that reason will give him in order to truly be free. For example, when he wants to impress Sweet Sixteen, he steals a baby chick and presents it as a gift. He didn’t use reason and say, “Maybe I shouldn’t steal even if I am trying to impress this girl.” Another example is when he stabbed Baba. He was fueled by anger, and in the moment, it may have seemed like a good idea, but reason would say that killing is just wrong and shouldn’t be done.

This is not to say that Krishna is not strong-willed. He keeps pushing forward even when it gets hard or seems hopeless, and he does a good job at fighting on behalf of his region of liberty; he speaks his mind no matter what, but he also does not make the best actions concerning others’ welfare (e.g. stabbing Baba and giving drugs to Chillum). Again, his age and definitely his circumstances don’t give him an advantage toward reaching his goals and potential. So, while some aspects of his life appear to be without restraint, the other impeding elements make Krishna unable to truly be free.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I do not believe that krishna is free especially if we look at his life circumstances through john mills'utilitarian theory. krishna is not free because he is not living and acting in the welfare of humanity, and is in fact being a hindrance and a harm to others by acting the way he is acting. as a child his is not able to comprehend his actions properly and therefore should not be held acountable for most of his actions only the murder part which he acted in hate and revenge rather then self-defence. his actions were childish and more harmful to others then beneficial to himself. he steals, and does drugs and starts a fire thinking he is helping himself or others while in truth he is only acting on impulse and in ignorance of the whole situation. freedom is the pursuit of happiness as Aristotle says and he is not free although there is no laws governing him, and having no laws to follow just means that you are more unfree because if you do not have a categorical imperative you are only being influenced more by what others are doing and this leads to lesser freedom than abiding by the ultimate law as Kant states. he is not free because he is very influenced by others, like in the part where he and hillum sell babas drugs to the white man and then they go and waste the money by doing drugs and wasting money and time while hurting themselves and the people they sold the drugs to.

Ashraf A.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Krishna is far from being free, although he runs around and does as he pleases with himself. Everyone has their own definition of what freedom really means and what it takes to be free. Personally, I believe if you’re not happy with yourself and where you have placed yourself in life then you are not truly free. What I see being free is being able to do what you want, when you want, whatever pleases you as long as you’re happy with yourself because freedom and happiness go together and define one another. Going back to Krishna, he is far from being free because although he running around doing what he wants with himself. As Aristotle stated, “Freedom is the Pursuit of Happiness” and Krishna has no laws governing him or guiding him into what’s wrong from right, which is leading to making himself more un free. Although he was making his own decisions into what he thinks would make him happy, for example, working delivering tea. Even though he saw it as work and a possible gateway to maybe having freedom, during his time working there that job would always lead him into problems financially and wasn’t getting him anywhere. I do understand the fact Krishna was living in country that has a lot of poverty and children his age are unfortunate and do not have parents and are left to fend for themselves. So I don’t blame Krishna from not knowing what’s wrong from right, he is just a kid in country that has many children living in the street striving to survive. Even though he’s surrounded by unfortunate children, that doesn’t stop Krishna in reaching his goal, finding freedom, and in finding freedom that will lead into happiness.

Jose H.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousMay 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Magda M.

I believe that Krishna was never truly free. He was able to wander around and come and go as he pleased. He did only what his conscious made him do. Even though he was surrounded by kids his age he wasn’t fully influenced by them. He followed some of them around for a while but even then he did as he pleased. Yes that is a type of freedom but in reality it wasn’t the freedom he wanted. He wanted to leave his town but never managed to make enough money to leave and when he did come close something always had to get in the way or ruined it for him. His happy place was to leave but it seemed as if the more he tried the further he was from it. Because of this I believe that he was honestly nowhere near to freedom.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Philosophy 110: Intro to Ethics

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Forum 5: Salaam Bombay!

68 comments:

About Me

Blog Archive