Interesting Thoughts (based on my biased vantage point)

There are some days where I can’t bring myself to focus on the content of some of my classes (I’m looking at you Spanish 202). On such days, I will often write out random thoughts in my notebook, which for the most part, are utterly meaningless. Every now and then, however, I write something that I find to be worth being rethought or revisited. Here are a few such passages from this week:

“So much so, that many people have used these observations to justify the belief in the existence of numbers, evolution, and God (among other things). That is, almost everything fits... Qualia sticks out like a sore, unexplainable, parakeet. Qualia as qualia doesn't fit into such theories as well as we'd hope. This observation has proved troublesome for scientists and believers in theories that can't explain them (behaviorism, physicalism, etc.), and have fueled many movements that challenge or disagree with such doctrines (many religions and spiritual movements for examples). In light of Russell's theory of logical atomism, it seems as though it is because "what there is" is qualia; everything else, on the other hand, we make up. Why does it all fit so logically together? Because our minds run, when we use them, logically.”

I believe that in order to want, desire, wish, hope, care, or love anything or anyone one must believe in Realism. To believe in that is to believe that where objectivity can be, it is and without contradiction. The priority of usefulness, even if false, is inescapable. To those that deny this, please PLEASE get out of the way.

As children, we are ingrained with a lot, A LOT, of very bad ideas. Youth is determining which ones are good and which ones bad.

Moral Actions Based on Selfish Grounds

My last post read:

“…[T]he pursuit of happiness also guides our actions of what not to do: do not kill, do not cheat, do not lie, etc. All of these actions can be defended on selfish grounds. I hope to cover how.”

There are beliefs and arguments that such actions as killing, stealing, and lying are only restricted based on “moral” principles that somehow overcome the self; that is, such actions are selfish and benefit the individual. Since I have previously argued and currently maintain that all actions are essentially selfish, I will not argue the first point. The claim that “such actions benefit the individual,” however, is a claim that depends upon factors outside of an individual’s mindset or motivations. This can be seen in any scenario where someone is convinced that some mean will attain some end that is entirely unrelated. What are the benefits of such actions? To name a few: ridding the world of someone you’d prefer not to exist, attaining goods without the nuisance of earning them, and convincing a relevant someone that reality is a different than its actuality.

The cons?

The cons largely depend upon what society you commit these actions within (since such actions are generally heavily frowned upon). Taken in the extreme, perhaps for some ideal, situation that there would be no social consequence, these actions still have negative consequences for the individual. These include: constantly attempting to maintain one’s lies, not attaining the comfort and happiness attributed to earning things desired, and living within a society where murder, theft, and deceit are permissible/ easily achievable. This does not end the debate, but I think the idea that morality can be structured for the sake of the individual is often overlooked.

The Pursuit of Happiness

In my last post, I touched upon the broad role morality should have on life: a benefit to those involved. Some might chastise this as “selfish” (although, I’m not sold on the moral weight of such an “accusation”), but I think the same can be said for human behavior in general and moralities commonly viewed as “altruistic.” I don’t believe true altruism exists; that is, the ability or position of one person to act solely for another or others in sacrifice of his or her own desires. Moreover, many “altruistic” moralities are sold on the principle that they offer the biggest benefits for those subscribed: everlasting life. How the desire to have everlasting life is often seen as altruistic is beyond me. I think we would be better off just removing “selfish” from our list of necessarily negative adjectives (certainly irrational and unsuccessful selfishness can be a negative, such as theft). What does the fact that people are universally driven for their own gain derive from? Evolution answers this one way (self-preservation) and religion another (the devil?). But to put it simply: pain hurts, pleasure feels good, and happiness makes us happy. “The pursuit of happiness” then is the standard that frees us to pursue this universal end. It is important to distinguish what this does, and doesn’t say. It does say that people are free to pursue their happiness. It doesn’t say that we have a right to happiness. Not only would such a standard be virtually impossible (what evidence do we have that happiness is the same or quantifiable from one person to the next), but it would be self-defeating: if happiness is a house with green grass and a white picket fence, then I have a right to it. But houses don’t fall from the sky. Someone must build it. If they do so because they must, because I have a right to it, then we have adopted slavery. Instead, the pursuit of happiness also guides our actions of what not to do: do not kill, do not cheat, do not lie, etc. All of these actions can be defended on selfish grounds. I hope to cover how.

Agnosticism Revisited

On February 28^th, I wrote on agnosticism. “GoodWorks” responded with some questions aimed at things that were either unclear or absent. I think that they deserve attention. Rather than answering the questions in light or in “defense” of my post, I will treat them as new questions, and therefore avoiding semantic arguments as much as possible. GoodWorks asked one question that I think, if answered, addresses the others:

“The problem lies in that you posit the moralistic concepts of "right" and "wrong" as isolated from any reference point. How do you assert a reference point for such transient concepts?”

Adhering to agnosticism isn’t giving up morality or more specifically, a reference point. While people of faith often attribute the cause of morality as God, agnosticism is the claim that there is not enough evidence to make or deny this assertion with certainty. The reference point then is life. Admittedly, I have not gone into much detail on what this entails specifically, but I think this can be defended broadly as well: from both religious and secular viewpoints (a possible appeal of agnosticism). The relationship between God and faith are not exactly pellucid: did God choose what is moral based on its merits or out of shear whim? Some have answered that what is moral is moral simply because God chose it. Others have noted that God is perfect and therefore would, out of all possible (maybe even impossible?) options, have chosen the best option. On one hand we have an arbitrary morality, and on the other we have a God shackled by determinism. If the answer is “arbitrary morality,” then we are in some serious trouble: how do we, simple mortals, understand a morality defined outside of the scope of our reason? Most will say that we must turn to the Bible (or other texts), but this is little consolation: how should we interpret it? Will our reason help in this regard? Why should it? Even if it does, there have been different interpretations on very important aspects of morality made by various intelligent people. The other option, if not objectively correct, is certainly more useful (what good is a morality we can’t hope to understand?). If God chose a morality based on its merits, then it is possible to learn and follow this morality based on the realization of its merits. It is then possible to have a morality, perhaps identical to one a person of faith would, or rather should, follow, without a clear understanding or faith in God. As those without God follow, or at least should, follow moralities based on the value it has to their own lives (such as social contracts: don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.), agnostics are free to do the same. The only difference being that agnostics claim that it is still possible, and consistent, to have all things derive from a higher power(s). The reference point is our own lives.

The Slippery Slope of Censorship

My last post was on the censorship of the human body. The issues there reflect a bigger issue: when is it justified to censor? Certainly the argument in favor of legalizing nudity isn’t that everyone looks good naked or that there are those that everyone will enjoy viewing. The idea is that one’s actions don’t have to conform to others wishes. But isn’t there a right not to be offended? Imagine the girth of such a legal code. Some people are offended by leisure, others by overworking. Some people are offended by the consumption of alcohol, others by the lack of consumption of alcohol. Some people are offended by sexual intercourse, others by children—so much for the continuation of the human race. The standards for censorship are not based on a coherent understanding of rights: there is no right to impede on the rights of others. If we allow censorship for such reasons as “majority rule,” then we justify further and further censorship on the same grounds (as is often the case with nudity and/or “decency”).

The argument for a lack of censorship is not an argument for overall tolerance. There is no coercion to accept or agree with others’ words, expressions, or actions. We have the right to disagree, to be angry, et cetera. We have the right to deny friendship, to socially ostracize, to make up our own minds on our own actions. That is the standard. Our freedom is limited only to the point at which it infringes on the liberty of others.

On nudity

It probably isn’t too strong of a statement to say that we all, for the most part, have some sort of combination of the same body parts. Certainly the support of this argument is inductive. It is not with extreme certainty that I make this claim. It mirrors the claim that we all have brains within our heads—regardless of opening each one up to check. It is with such support that I say all human beings generally have a penis, a vagina, or some mutation/combination thereof. And yet, many cultures, including our own, seek to censor certain areas of the body (despite the existence of mirrors and necks capable of moving the head down). It is bizarre that something that everyone shares is seen as off limits for society (consisting of genitalia-having individuals). Some common arguments include: think of the children (which someone implies censorship) and protection of females (whether it be for their physical or mental protection). One legitimate argument is a plea for sanitation. While I admit that allowing people to sit naked on public benches would probably result in negative consequences, this is nowhere near enough to say that the human body should be censored.

The most problematic factor to this censorship is inconsistency. First off, the standard of “decency” is relative to each society—ranging from extreme in Saudi Arabia to European Beaches. This is a case for freedom: there’s no objective reason to oppose nudity. The second issue is perhaps the most arbitrary and unjustified: laws against, and only against, topless women. What’s more: women can often acceptably show 90 percent of their breast, as long as the nipple is covered. Any change in skin pigment is, apparently, offensive.