Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Moral relativity? Or subjectivity? |
| 06.30.04 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
|
Another post courtesy of [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress'[/url] inspiration, I would simply like to present a different approach to the discussion of moral relativity addressed in her post, which you can read [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]here[/url]. There is an error in thought regarding absolute or subjective morality. Morals cannot seemingly be absolute unless there is no variance among individual moralities. Accordingly, morals cannot seemingly be subjective (dependent on the individual/society/cultur e) and still have a meaning. Let me explain. If it is argued that morality is absolute, it implies that there is an ultimate Morality, a universal standard by which to distinguish right and wrong. This would only be possible if all systems of morality maintain the same standards and same values. This simply isn't realistic. Cultural values tend to dictate morality, and views of morality vary from culture to culture, as well as among individuals. It is obvious that we do not all maintain the same moral code. Under the flawed thought in place, this would 'prove' that no absolute moral code can exist. Similarly, if we approach morality from a subjectivist view, we contend that moral codes are only subject to the ideals of the individual. This implies (again, under the flawed thought often used) that, in the grand scheme of things, morality can not be judged from the outside- no one can condemn another's moral values. This would mean that morals are ultimately meaningless, or at least unimportant. If one person's views of morality are to be held in equal regard to your own, what does it matter which moral code you follow? Well, the problem with these misconceptions concerning morality is oversimplification. There seems to be an abhorrence of considering a gray area when it comes to morality. This is certainly a debatable subject, but my opinion is that there can be 'absolutes,' but that they may simultaneously only apply to the individual. I have very strong moral standards that I would view as absolutes, but others may not comply to my views. There may also be moral 'absolutes' that vary according to situation. Most would agree that killing is wrong, but that self-defense may require killing in some situations, and that is not immoral. If values are subjective, it does not follow that they are meaningless. In fact, that perhaps gives them more meaning. The individual must determine which values to accept, and discerning morality is what gives it meaning. If there was an absolute moral code by which we all naturally adhered without consideration, would that be meaningful? Now, I do agree with RedTigress in her conclusion that we must all as individuals examine, determine, and express our moral views. We may not all agree on what is to be considered right and wrong, but it is important to know what you personally value, and what you as an individual stand for. |
| 21 Comments |
| The politics of prostitution and polygamy |
| 06.29.04 (4:34 pm) [edit] |
|
That's right- I'm back! Sorry for going so long without posting; I hope none of you have been suffering through withdrawal or anything like that :wink:. I just returned from a lovely trip to Philadelphia/a really small hick town in northern PA, and I will hopefully be posting more frequently now. A discussion I had with [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] a few weeks ago inspired me to post my thoughts on prostitution and the law, but I had forgotten about it until reading [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]this post[/url] on polygamy, by RedTigress. In other words, this is all the influence of Red. :wink: In an attempt to make this brief, I am only going to highlight my views on the issues and then I'll argue/discuss matters further in the comments, as usual. In most areas of the United States, prostitution is illegal. It is a crime to have sex for money, or to pay money for sex. Most Americans would likely reach a consensus view that prostitution is an unethical act, thus it should not be condoned. And this is the basis for the illegality of the act. However, prostitution is really only harmful in certain situations, as is any act (going down a slide can be dangerous and injurious to others). So long as the act is between consenting adults, how is it that it should be against the law? For those who wish to legislate morality, whose morality should be legislated? As I said, I believe that most of us would be morally opposed to prostitution. But should our morals always dictate our laws? Just because you or I may not like the idea of prostitution, does that mean that no one should be allowed to do it? If I, or the majority of citizens, consider eating snails (or escargot, for those French-inclined) to be disgusting and unwholesome (or at least salty and squishy), does it follow that eating snails should be illegal? No- it is a personal decision, just as who we have sex with and under what circumstances is a private matter. The government should not interfere with such decisions, nor should it legislate our actions in regard to private morality. Prostitution is often called a victimless crime. So long as it is between consenting adults, there is no harm. Ironically, by making prostitution illegal, it has made the 'profession' very dangerous. Similar to bootlegging in the times of prohibition, prostitution now must be conducted in a very risky manner, and the prostitute faces constant danger. Perhaps prostitution shouldn't be heralded as a wonderful practice, but I see no reason for it to be illegal. Similarly, polygamy is an illegal form of marriage, though there is no reason for this. I may not agree with polygamy on principle (or marriage, you know), but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to practice this. RedTigress' [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post[/url] on this subject effectively points out the unreasonable attributes of laws banning a person from participating in consensual polygamy. Morality can be separate from policy, and in a land with so-called separation of church and state, this is necessary. Being morally opposed to something does not have to result in opposing the right for others to act. We should view issues such as prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, and abortion in this manner: there can be a moral view as well as a separate view regarding what is socially pertinent in terms of affording rights. Opposing an act on virtue of morality does not have to lead to denying the right of others to act in a way that does no harm to others. |
| 29 Comments |
| All apologies |
| 06.22.04 (7:32 pm) [edit] |
| I must apologize for: 1) not continuing my little series on God's non-existence, 2) not participating in the discussions inspired by these last few posts, and 3) simply being absent lately. I'm sure it's broken quite a few hearts :wink:. I have realized, however, that my approach to the discussion was misguided, and that in turn made me uninterested in even attempting to further the dialogue. Because of the way I broached the subject, it became a very broad discussion that was just too daunting to me. I much prefer structured debate over fruitless discussion of broad topics. In that vain, I recommend the new site for religious discussion, [url=http://ironblogrlgn.tblog.com...]Iron Blog Religion[/url], and also propose that anyone interested in discussing a specific aspect of religion/theology/philoso phy (or anything else, for that matter), feel free to suggest a topic to me for structured argument. Again, I apologize, and I will post something of some interest soon. |
| 6 Comments |
| Part Two: Refuting and reversing Pascal's Wager |
| 06.14.04 (8:02 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the most basic arguments for a belief in God is the famed wager by Pascal. Blaise Pascal argued that we are better off if we believe in God because we lose nothing if He does not exist, and gain if He does. Among the most common justifications for religious belief is this wager, which is based on assumption. If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist, and assume that if God does exist and we believe in Him and live our life in accordance to our religious faith, we will receive eternal rewards. By the same token, if we do not believe in God and it turns out He does exist, we will be condemned to eternal damnation. Therefore, based on these assumptions, it would be foolish not to believe in God, as there is more at risk if we do not believe in Him. This is a rather silly assertion. True belief lies not in going along with a belief because you could possibly benefit from it, but by acknowledging that the belief is actually beneficial. If I am told that I will be rewarded for believing that a flying purple unicorn placed the stars in the sky, I should go ahead and believe it, according to Pascal’s logic. This is rather illogical, however. I propose that we gain nothing and lose quite a bit by believing in God and devoting our lives to this belief if it turns out that God does not exist. The reversal of Pascal’s wager seems more logical: If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether or not God exists, and we further assume that God doesn't exist, and if we do not maintain a belief in this nonexistent God we will enjoy a life of rewards based on taking individual responsibility and accountability for our own actions. Our life will be more meaningful if it is lived for our own reasons; we will not base our moral standards on some arbitrary guide, but will exercise true morality; and we will be complete as individuals on our own. However, if we choose to believe in this nonexistent God we will not gain any rewards in this life or in eternity, but will have lost any meaning in our own life and live a life of falsity. In essence, placing a wager on God's existence lacks empirical evidence for maintaining a belief- particularly one that defines your life. |
| 20 Comments |
| Proofs of God's non-existence- Part One: Discrepencies in the definition of God |
| 06.13.04 (7:37 pm) [edit] |
|
The simplest proof that there is no God that I can offer you is that, with so many different religions that hold different ideas of who or what God is, it is clear that there can be no God, as there is no ultimate definition of God. If God is a being that we can conceive, we must first have an operable definition of what this being is and what its nature is, prior to accepting its existence. Since there are numerous religions, it is apparent that there is no operable definition of God. If we are talking about the Christian God, He is a supreme being that spoke the universe into existence and created man in His image. To combat sin, He sent His son, Jesus Christ, to the earth to die, absolving the sins of all mankind. According to Christian dogma, so long as we accept Christ as the savior and repent for our sins, we will be saved and have eternal life in the kingdom of God, Heaven. In Judaism as well as Islam, the same idea of God as a supreme being who created the universe, is worshipped. However, there are different ideas of salvation and the messiah. The Jewish belief, which Christianity is based on, parallels Christianity in its assertion that a messiah will come and deliver us to salvation. In Judaism, counter to Christianity, the belief is that the messiah has not come yet; Jesus Christ is not considered the savior. According to the Islamic faith, God is considered to be eternal and everlasting. He is the Creator and also the Preserver of all- He determines the ultimate cause of life. His attributes are eternal and unchanging, as well. The three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are in basic agreement on the nature of God, though each view varies. In each religion, God is considered to be a supernatural being that is omnipotent and omniscient. But this definition is not consistent with all religions. In Hinduism, the supreme God, Brahman, is actually embodied in the various gods and goddesses worshipped. Similarly, there are numerous gods worshipped in Shintoism. Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion, though there is no belief in God necessary. Given that there are so many religions that maintain different views on what the exact nature of God is, it is only natural to reach the conclusion that there can be no God. If each religion’s God exists, God’s nature is questionable- many religions assume that their God is the supreme being and coexisting with other supreme beings would be counter to their definitions of God. This means that we must consider that no religion is right if there does exist a God. Leaving religion out of the discussion, we must define God in some manner, unrestrained by the concepts of religious dogma. For the purposes of discussion, we can define God as an omnipotent, all-benevolent, and omniscient being that exists outside of time and space. However, this definition can not be true. Consider the problem of evil. Since there is evil in the world, God must not be entirely good or God must not be all-powerful. We can then change the definition to state that God is either all-powerful but not wholly benevolent, or God is all-good but not omnipotent. This weakens the case for God, and the fact that we must alter our definition demonstrates the flimsiness of the argument that God exists. |
| 9 Comments |
| Proofs of God's non-existence |
| 06.13.04 (7:35 pm) [edit] |
|
Over the next couple of blogs, I will be presenting some ideas concerning the existence of God. I hope to explain why it is I would contend that no such being exists. This is sort of a work in progress, so your comments will help to make me better clarify things, and maybe consider alternate ideas, as well. There are 6 parts to this, but I doubt that I will get around to posting all 5 at once, as they are not all complete as of yet. However, here are the 6 basic themes: Proofs of God’s non-existence 1. Considering the number of various religions and alternate definitions of God, there can be no God. 2. Pascal’s wager in reverse- if there is no God and we spend our lives believing and acting as though there is, we lose quite a bit. 3. Traditional arguments offer no proof- all rely on assumption. 4. To base one’s life on the possibility of a God is destructive and demeaning to life. 5. Morality is truer when applied by the individual, not on the basis of religious doctrine. 6. The evolutionary theory of morality- we have come to learn what is right and wrong in terms of what is beneficial to our survival and what is dangerous. Also, let me preface this with the acknowledgment that it is rather illogical to attempt to prove a negative. There is no way for me to actually prove that something does not exist. However, I can give reasons that explain the doubtful nature of God's existence. |
| 17 Comments |
| Liberty in our lifetime? |
| 06.11.04 (3:43 pm) [edit] |
 The United States was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty, but many of those ideals have been trampled on over the years. As our government continually expands its powers, we as individual citizens lose our liberties. The [url=http://freestateproject.org]Free State Project[/url] has a solution- that we reclaim our liberty. [i]The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to New Hampshire, where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.[/i] If you want to make a difference and take a stand for liberty, consider the Free State Project. Check out the site and learn what it's about. You can also read about the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party[/url] if you're interested in reclaiming liberty in the United States. |
| 34 Comments |
| Gay Activists Urge Boycott of Virginia |
| 06.11.04 (3:02 pm) [edit] |
|
In a rare cut-and-paste moment, I'd like to draw attention to the unappealing sentiment this whole issue stirs up for me:[LINE] RICHMOND, Va. - Gay activists are urging a boycott of Virginia because of a new ban on civil unions and other marriage-like arrangements for same-sex couples. VirginiaisforHaters.org urges people not to buy products or services from Virginia-based companies and suggests tourists visit other states. The name is a play on the state tourism motto, "Virginia is for lovers." Another group, Make Love Legal, is developing strategies for boycotting the 400th anniversary celebration of the founding of Jamestown in 2007. "This whole idea is: Don't spend your money in a place where people hurt you," said Diane Horvath, a Richmond attorney who is spearheading the Jamestown initiative. The state's Affirmation of Marriage Act, which prohibits gay marriage, was amended this year to also ban civil unions and arrangements "purporting to bestow the privileges of marriage." Gays fear it may interfere with legal contracts, such as powers of attorney, medical directives and wills. "This is a national issue," said Jay Porter of Seattle, who with his partner created the boycott Web site. "Someone came up with this really punitive legislation and got it through the state legislature and in my mind, that could happen just about anywhere in the U.S." The bill's sponsor, Republican Delegate Robert Marshall, said he believes the threat of economic harm to Virginia is remote. "If they don't like the expression of the will of the people of Virginia, they don't have to come here," he said. "This was done by freely elected representatives." Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner tried to amend the bill to make it less restrictive, but lawmakers rebuffed his attempts by veto-proof margins. "Governor Warner has devoted considerable time and effort to promoting Virginia tourism, and this certainly will not help," said Warner spokesman Kevin Hall. The new ban takes effect July 1, and gay-rights group Equality Virginia plans a legal challenge. Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has vowed to defend its constitutionality. The boycott Web site also targets companies that have contributed Marshall's campaign, including Altria Group Inc., parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris. Altria spokesman David Sylvia said his company contributes to both Democrats and Republicans and offers domestic partner benefits to employees. Another targeted company is clothing retailer J.Crew, which has a distribution and customer service center in the state and, according to the boycott organizers, many gay customers. A company representative declined to comment. [LINE] So, let's get this straight (not a pun, I promise)- because of an unsavory bill that somehow passed the legislature in Virginia (yes, my state of residency), gay activists propose a boycott of the entire state? That seems a bit extreme and unproductive to me. I understand the idea of not bringing revenue for something you do not support, but it just sounds silly to boycott a state. What's worse, however, is the response given by the bill's sponsor: "If they don't like the expression of the will of the people of Virginia, they don't have to come here," he said. "This was done by freely elected representatives." Talk about shallow and incompassionate. And I knew nothing of this act until reading this article- my will? I think not. But, other solutions would likely be more productive than to attack the state of Virginia itself and boycott such things as the anniversary of the Jamestown settlement- as far as I know, that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Instead, how about campaigning against those who created and passed the bill and drumming up support from the people they represent? |
| 11 Comments |
| Remodeling Dreams |
| 06.09.04 (10:55 pm) [edit] |
|
As you can see, I now have a lovely header, thanks to the talents and kindness of [url=redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url]. This of course meant that Lucid Dreams needed a complete makeover. Though the site looks absolutely nothing like a breeding ground for political discourse, I do believe it is a nice change. Now, for a brief explanation of the theme. The image in the header is entirely based on my screenname. Dragon bait refers to a princess. Princesses are often depicted in stories as damsels in distress, in need of rescue by the charming prince. However, the only way to truly be rescued from the dragon (or whatever one is in need of rescue from) is to rescue oneself. So, the princess in the image above has conquered her fear of the dragon, and has rescued herself (or at least we'll pretend she doesn't get eaten or engulfed in flames...). Anyway, I hope you like the new Lucid Dreams, much thanks to RedTigress, without whom you would be looking at a big mess of nasty colors right now. :wink: |
| 30 Comments |
| Why the Death Penalty is unconstitutional |
| 06.06.04 (6:50 pm) [edit] |
|
Many oppose the Death Penalty for reasons of legality, though few seem so concerned over the basic rights of the individual set forth in the constitution. The most basic of our inalienable rights is our right to life. Clearly, punishing a criminal by forcefully taking away his life is in violation of the citizen's rights. That sounds logical enough, but the argument can easily be made that once a person commits an atrocious crime (such as murder or rape), he forfeits his rights. If a person takes away the life of another, why should he deserve to maintain that right? Many would claim that the Death Penalty is necessary for justice- that the only way to truly serve justice is to take away the life of those committing the most heinous crimes. The "eye for an eye" view comes in to play here- a murderer must lose his life for justice to be served. Perhaps the most common argument against the implementation of the Death Penalty is that the system is flawed and that it is unfair to sentence prisoners to death when there is so much room for error. Sending an innocent person to his death counters the goal of serving justice. This argument (which I agree with) dismisses the Death Penalty solely on the grounds of a flawed legal system; the idea of the Death Penalty is still acceptible. Personally, I hold an extreme position in regard to the Death Penalty- I do not think a person deserves to be put to death by force under any circumstances. Given irrefutable evidence of a murderer's guilt, death still would not serve justice, in my opinion. Punishments are meant to fit the crime, not mirror it, and the death of a criminal does nothing to atone for the loss of the victim, nor does it compensate society. It is unfitting for a free society to partake in cruel punishments, and it is not in the interest of justice to send a person, even a murderer, to his death, by force. |
| 38 Comments |
