Justifications

Plato believed that there are 4 ways to Justify:

A) Empiricism
B) Reason (Both Inductive and Deductive)
C) Authority
D) Memory

Questions:

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosevic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster"?

I still believe, after learning how the Bosnian War began and the roles of Karadzic and Milosevic, that it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." However, the Independent would have been more justified in sharing the cast blame with the Milosevic. Milosevic is only mentioned twice in the article, and while the Independent does mention that Milosevic is "the man who still calls so many of the shots," they focus mainly on Karadzic's actions.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
According to Plato, this phrase would be justified mainly through Empiricism. Peter Maass actually went to Omarska and some other work camps, and saw the way that the Muslims were being treated, through the commands of Karadzic. Also, the images from the documentary The Death of Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing and mass exodus of Muslims, which is shown as Karadzic's doing, by what he says in the council, is also Empirical evidence to support the term "monster" in relation to Karadzic.

Another way this phrase can be justified platonically is by Authority. Authorities such as our government, the United Nations, our teachers, our parents, etc., tell us that genocide is horrible, terrible thing, and I have, in fact, heard my parents refer to those in charge of genocides, such as Hitler, as monsters. This knowledge by authority justifies calling Kardzic a "monster," as he is responsible for the mass killings, both on the street and in the camps, of the Bosnian Muslims.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
The definition or Monster from Dictionary.com is:

1.	a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.

2.	any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.

3.	any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.

4.	a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.

5.	any animal or thing huge in size.

When the term "Monster" is used by the Independent, I think that the 3rd and fourth definitions apply to what they are trying to express. When I hear the term "monster" used, I don't generally think of a literal monster. In relation to a person, i think of someone who has done something terrible, like crippling or killing someone.

It will be important to skim both articles again, in light of what you now know.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?

My answer has not changed since my first entry. I still believe that Karadzic c is a monster, justified by Empirical and Authoritative evidence. I believe that any race and/or religion should be permitted to exist, to live wherever they choose to call home, and not have to fear for their lives, simply because they a re a minority. Any person who thinks that those minorities should be exterminated, is, in my opinion, a monster. It is my belief that the act of killing another human being, let alone hundreds or thousands, is a terrible, horrible, monstrous thing.