JUDAS: A Modern Journal

1894, Paris. Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the French Army is accused of handing top-secret military documents to members of the Imperial German military.  An investigation by the French army had found damning evidence against Dreyfus, the worst being a letter to the German military attache in Paris penned in Dreyfus' own handwriting.  But why would Dreyfus commit such a crime? He was a wealthy man from a prominent family, with no need for the alleged payoffs from the German Empire. He reportedly loved France and enjoyed serving his nation in the army. Dreyfus himself refused to confess, adamant he had done nothing wrong. Although France wasn't convinced, they believed Dreyfus was a liar. But why? Well, Dreyfus was a Jew.  Whilst Dreyfus sat in jail awaiting his trial, France's right-wing newspapers got a hold of the story and used it as a catalyst for their already popular anti-semitism. One of France's biggest talking points in the 1890s was the Jewish people; particularl...

Barbie is almost always criticized by feminists, who claim that Barbie exemplifies the kind of compulsory heterosexuality, white imperialism, and oppressive patriarchy that feminists so hate. These claims aren't just based on suppositions, but more so on the heap of ethnographic research conducted amongst Mattel's consumers.  Barbie is a household name, having been a computer engineer, astronaut, rockstar, doctor, and even a presidential candidate. Over the last few years, Mattel has given Barbie a woke new makeover fit for the 21st century. I don't doubt for even a second that Mattel's re-invigoration of Barbie is motivated by anything but a consumerist need for more profit, but that doesn't mean that she isn't a feminist. One can have skewed motivations for their feminism, whilst still existing in a space that benefits and benefits and uplifts women. One of their latest adverts really does exemplify Mattel's newfound liberalism - and pulls on my heartstrin...

For years, single-sex education has been hailed as a bastion of reason, with parents across incomes scrambling to send their little one to The X School for Boys  or The X School for Girls . For years, the public image of single-sex schools has gone pretty untarnished, with little thought (by parents) on the effects of segregatory, sexist, and exclusionary education.  Firstly, single-sex schools promote gender stereotyping. In 'the west' (a concept I generally dislike) we live in a very gendered society - dictating how boys and girls should act. You've heard it all before, it's nothing new: girls play with dolls and like pink, and boys wrestle in the mud and like cars. Now just imagine how easy it must be to fall into gendered stereotypes surrounded only by others following the same set of societal rules. Even if, as a girl, you don't like dolls and hate pink, the appearance that everyone else likes it (even if they don't) lets you paint yourself as an outsider, ...

In philosophy, Utilitarianism is a group of beliefs within normative (behavioural) ethics that, very basically, attempts to maximize utility - often defined as well-being, or the abstract 'greater good.' To give an example, Jeremy Bentham - often regarded as the father of utilitarianism - described Utilitarianism as  "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness … to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered."  Utilitarianism is a form of  consequentialism , which is another group of philosophical beliefs that argues the consequences of any action are the only means of describing morality - for this argument: right and wrong.  Utilitarianism.net is a site run by utilitarians and furthers their argument that utilitarianism is the only morally correct ideology on the matter because 's uffering is bad, and happiness is good. What could be...

Decisions concerning only oneself are not arguments, but simple decisions. Often framed in terms of pros and cons, this simple debate is one where either answer is valid and acceptable. You shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated just because it's good for you. As an autonomous individual, you get to decide when to take risks, when to go against statistics, and when to engage in a little recreational danger. This kind of risk is something we do a lot of as a species: motorcycling because it's fun even though cars are safer; base jumping from the Burj Khalifa when it's much safer to just not ; dodging essential vaccines even though that's really stupid (whatever gets you that adrenaline rush, I guess.) I would have no objection to people opting out of vaccination if it only affected them, but it doesn't, it affects everyone, like all 7.97 billion of us. Because it affects more people than just yourself, it's a moral question.  So, let's talk about how your ...