Recent Posts
This is the post that marks my return to the political channel. In honor of that puny event, I would like to dedicate this post to a discussion of a subject that has baffled me for a long time- abortion.
Usually, the phrases "morality" and "rationality" don't go hand in hand. We have millions of movies where robots, the most rational of all sentient beings, go nuts because morals have no basis in reason. This perspective, of course, adds a tenuous weight to fundamentalist claims that, without faith, the world will sink into anarchy and depravity. But I digress.
The entire debate rests on the defenition of the term "human being". In this article, that is the term I will attempt to define.
We will begin prior to conception. At this point, we have two cells: the egg, and the sperm. neither can be considered human, except in the sense that they come from humans. They don't even have the proper number of chromosomes to be considered human. Clearly, we must move on.
When the two cells have joined, they have the proper number of chromosomes for a human cell; Unlike your other cells, however, this cell will become a human child, given enough time. Undoubtedly, this is a momentous step; This is where I part company with some of my religious colleagues. For them, life begins with conception, which, supposedly, is when the fetus gains a soul. To them, I shall assign a task: first, prove that the Bible, or any other religious text, is divinely inspired; Next, find the specific passage dealing with fetal soul aquisition, and send it to me. Believe me, you won't find me very hard to convince. I would love to believe in a god, and an afterlife. All you have to do is use a rational form of persuasion, or summon a miracle; If you can't do that, though, I must conclude that the fetus, at this stage, is no more human than any other cell; It doesn't even have a brain, at this point. Thus, like any other part of the human body, it can be ampuutated if it could cause harm to its host. Feel free to disagree; That's your right, after all. But for me, the defining line between of humanity must be placed elsewhere: with the aquisition of a mind. The mind, after all, is the characteristic that sets humans apart from the animals. To put it simply: when any being which, given time, would reach the point of sentience, acquires a mind, however basic, that organism must be considered the moral equivalent of an adult of the same species. Call it a moral law, or call it garbage; regardless, it's a new perspective.
Looking back over my last post, I've realized that the title was completely nonsensical. I don't know if this kept anyone from reading the post, but if it did, I'm sorry. I was rather pressed for time yesterday, and the first thing I did upon sitting down was to write that title, which fit the idea I had for the post's content. When I was done, I forgot to replace it. The letters in the title, if you didn't know, are an acronym. They stand for the phrase "keep it simple, stupid," a very poignant summary of the idea known as Occam's razor. K.I.S.S. is often used as a stand-in for this idea in school textbooks. . . with the final "s" erased.
By the way, did you know that I'm not the person who started this blog? My posts begin with a very short piece of writing called "The Start of a Grand Tradition. . . Almost". Anything before that belongs to my esteemed predecessor. He, like me, appears to be an American, and seems to enjoy torturing the English language almost as much as I do. That's all I know about him, and that's all you'll get to know about me. It's a social experiment I'm running, you see. I will keep my race, gender, and national origin secret, thus removing any possibility of bias on your part. This blog shall be about ideas alone- never "human interest".
I also realize that, in my last post, I sounded like a crazy, anti-American jihadist for the duration of the first paragraph. Or, alternately, an intolerant snob. I would like to assure everyone that neither of these were my intention. Sometimes, I just put things wrong. If I were to proofread my paragraphs, nothing like that would happen. And yes, I know that there's sometimes a reason that people criticize the government. Without criticism, the world would never move forwards (or backwards, depending on your point of view). Forgive me.
Well, it's the Fourth of July again. In the USA, that means picnics, fireworks, concerts and carnival food. It is an enormous and gluttonous celebration. Most people are content to ignore its true meaning. The media prints a variety of patriotic articles, but few read them; There are Tom Clancy movies on TV; People watch those, but mostly not for patriotic reasons. It is a social holiday, meant to commemerate the founding of a government that most of our citizens continually complain about. It is American hypocrisy distilled.
Is there reason behind the constant whining? How can a country which has such control over the election of its leaders find themselves so continually dissatified with said leaders? These are the questions. I can't answer them right off the bat, and perhaps I shouldn't be able to; You can't make a rational inquiry into any subject when you assume you already know the answer (google "confirmation bias", if you want to know why). In the spirit of rationalism, then, I shall propose hypotheses, and try to systematically disprove them. The usual rules of engagement apply (meaning that if you, the reader, think I've missed something, you post a comment and I'll look it over). Let's get to it, then.
Hypothesis 1: The Problem is the Type of Government
This is essentially an argument made from a cynical perspective. The government in question is a republic, in which the people elect leaders to speak for them. If there is a problem with the form of government, then it seems logical to conclude that the problem lies with one of two components: the people, or the leaders. We will examine each in turn.
Hypothesis 2: The Problem is the People
This feeds into both hypotheses. If the people can't elect good leaders, it might be because they are (a.) underinformed, or (b.) natively stupid. If (a.) is true, then hypothesis 2 is true; The type of government is workable, if the people would better themselves ( as if). If (b.) is true, the type of government is unworkable, because native stupidity cannot be changed (save, perhaps, by some as-yet-to-be-discovered drug). If (b.) is, in general, true, another type of government would yield better results, and Hypothesis 1 is correct.
Hypotheses 3: The Problem is the Leaders
As I've typed that last paragraph, I've formulated the final probability, which is that the people were misled by their would-be leader (who is a very good actor). Either the leader lied about what they would do when in office, and then did something else, or the people changed their minds between election and the passage of legislation. In the first case, if no one could tell the leader was lying, the problem is with the people; If there was no way they could tell he was lying, then the leader is primarily at fault. And finally, if the people changed their minds, the leader is at fault for not listening to the ever-changeing whims of the people.
Goodnight, everyone. Hopefully I'll have some comments by morning.
No, this is not going to be an outrageously emotional confession a la Opera Winfrey. I just wanted to tell anyone who was following this blog that I've transferred my blog address. New items will now be posted on philosophyphilosophy Really Long Link Just so you know, I don't like the name either. It's not mine.
Morality is a natural, adaptive phenomenom, that much we know So, why do some people behave in ways that, if they were animals, would cause them to be forcibly ejected from their pack? Does this not undermine the arguments stated above?
Well, no, actually. We, unlike the animals, have cultural norms and a language which allows us to state our thoughts in a very persuasive fashion. You see, rationality is also a tool. Used properly, we can use it to uncover great truths about ourselves and our universe. Used improperly, it can justify anything. Most people would think nothing of stealing, if they were hungry; The death penalty uses killing to right a wrong; The Nazis killed millions, mostly because they were afraid of being killed themselves (by the "loyal" Nazis.) Entire cultures have been founded based on rationalizations. Some, by codifying morality and truth, strengthened our sense of morality, even to the point where we would die merely for a principle (like freedom). Others detract from our sense of morality, placating us with the promise of a better future while simultaniously threatening use with punishment if we disobey (like fascism. . . or religion
[ Click here to read more ]
In any discussion of morality, the gods are bound to pop up some place. So, like pulling your own teeth (a barbaric custom, but a neccessary one in some places,) let's get this over with quick, before I lose my nerve. It's bound to be less painfull in the long run.
I consider myself an Athiest. I was born into a Catholic family. When I was little, I laughed at religion. I complained about going to church, and always tried to slip some toys into my pockets before we went, to liven up hours of dullness. Now, my family is not excessively religous, but we attended church every Saturday. This was annoying to me, because all my friends went to church on Sunday, so I never saw them on weekends. For that reason alone, I developed a healthy contempt for religion
[ Click here to read more ]
To continue where we left off. . . ahh, but I must say something first. I have noticed that my blog, while attractin a fairly large number of votes, has attracted no comments. If anyone would like to comment on something I may have been missing, feel free. I will read them and answer them to the best of my ability in the next column. If the question at hand has been addressed in a previous post or an outside source, I will make reference to that source.
With that uninspiring (but common and neccesary) bit of prose out of the way, let us continue our discussion of the sources of morality (hmm, I'm starting to sound like a college professor.) Right away, I'm going to discard the notion that human beings, without culture, would forever be at each other's throats like snarling animals. Anyway, the phrase "like snarling animals" holds little meaning when you are talking about a single species. Animals have a primitive sense of morality within their own species. They do not kill, or steal mates or food, except when it is absolutely neccessary to their personal survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Species who engaged in pointless, wholesale slaughter of their own species have a better chance of destroying themselves then those that do not. Some, seeking to undermine this argument, might claim that such behavior acts as a "selection pressure" for strength and cunning. However, nature already "thins the herd" on its own. This particular behavior would reduce the gene pool to "below acceptable" levels. It would also mean that their would be many more creatures of one sex than of the other (since one sex is usually bigger and stronger in any species, if the animal in question is fighting with it's own species all of the time, selection favors the stronger sex. Or gender. Whatever. Do I have to be politically collect when I'm talking about an undefined "animal"?!?) To put it in human terms, imagine that we kept just the top fifty NFL quarterbacks and eight Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders alive. Since an adult female can only bear one child per year. . . well, this isn't going to work out very well, is it? And if, during the period of pregnancy, the males attack and kill the females (remember, our creature has no morality), our numbers get even worse. Of the survivors, what are the chances that one will be a carrier for a deadly genetic disorder? As you can see, strength and beauty aren't everything when it comes to creating a "survivor" race. It also helps to have a wide gene pool. Thus, creatures are evolutionarily receptive to the display of intra-species (but not intra-species) morality. Since homo sapiens are a type of animal, this is true of them as well. If it was not true, we wouldn't be here.
Hello once again. It has been a very long while since my last post, if anyone noticed (excuse me while I weep). This time, something other than dinner interrupted me: my grandmother came to visit. For many people, this might be a cause for celebration. For me, however, it is not. My grandmother is quite possibly the most dull person in the world (with the possible exception of an old man I met in a waiting room, who used the words "mashed potatoes" three times in a single sentence).
By the way, have you noticed I use "asides" excessively? This, for instance, is an aside. Apparently they are an outdated method of humorous writing commonly found in Elizabethan plays. They produce a conspiratorial atmosphere. This doesn't happen when I proofread, but I don't proofread my blog
[ Click here to read more ]
Back to our discussion (see Philosophizin' part I, on the political channel, for details).
Politics, although not inherantly good or evil, seem to have a tendancy to be petty, with little actual discussion between opposing factions. Psychological experiments have shown that when a homogenous group of people displaying a moderate level of prejudice meet to discuss their beliefs, they tend to become more prejudiced (for a complete listing of these experiments, see Exploring Psychology by David Myers, a very engaging school text). This leads to a growing rift in patterns of thought, one which is increasingly difficult to heal. This phenomenon is what some conservatives like to call "America's Culture War". Such splits are dangerous, if history has taught us anything. I'm not saying society needs to be homogenous; far from it! There is room in the world for all sorts of people. We need to be willing to listen to "the other side", at least until we are sure we have heard and can refute their arguments in the manner neccessary to convince them of their error. If we can't convince "them", then we may be missing something.
[ Click here to read more ]
Well, now you've seen my frustrated side. Yes, I'm quick to anger, but I'm working on it ("control, control, you must learn control!"). For the sake of my credibility, I think it would be best if I confined myself to subjects on which I have no strong feelings. As recompense for my earlier outburst, I give you. . . philosophy!
How do we define politics? To me, it is the manipulation of people by a leader in order to maintain power or reach a goal. Any action a leader might make fits inside this definition. An argument might be made that people who are not leaders engage in politics; for example, the controlling, manipulative parent. But, then, is just anyone who engages in manipulation also engaging in politics? Perhaps, in an even broader sense. But to most, the word "politics" is intrinsically linked with government, as inseperable from one another as a pair of siamese twins. Maybe my defininition is a matter of personal taste; If it is, there is nothing I can do to convince you that it is the correct one, just as I cannot make you see why a particular work of art is (to me) beautiful
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
Recent Comments
I've not commented on anything yet :(
|
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More