| Monday, August 07, 2006 |
| Well... duty or that other thing... lol |
Well, for this particular entry I decided to back it up with a bit of research so I logged on to wikipedia and typed up deontologism. Well, in that same entry, they had a segment on the arguments provided against deontologism. And I would like to note that they were very similar to my arguments... hehe. One was that "... it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion" another was that, "deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance."
Well, I stumbled upon these two guys Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
Aside from agreeing with them on Utilitarianism, I believe that they also happen to share the same quadrant of the political spectrum with me (libertarian left). I agree with them on several counts:
- economic freedom
- separation of church and state
- freedom of expression
- equal rights for women
- animal rights
- the end of slavery
- the right to divorce
- free trade
- in defense of homosexuality
John Stuyart Mill's defense of the harm principle where he said that :"people should be free to engage in whatever behavior they wish as long as it does not harm others, acting in order to prevent the individual from harming himself is not legitimate" Is something I've always said I agreed with. Furthermore, his belief that, "we could never be sure if a silenced opinion did not hold some portion of the truth. Ingeniously he also argued that even false opinions have worth, in that in refuting false opinions the holders of true opinions have their beliefs reaffirmed. Without having to defend one's beliefs, Mill argued, the beliefs would become dead and we would forget why we held them at all. Mill argued that opposing arguments and opinions should be encouraged. The more a position is accepted the more it is important to have an advocate making the best contrary argument against it, and if one did not exist it should even be invented." is something I've always tried to live by. I say that I live by it because I always enjoy playing the "Devil's Advocate". Oftentimes I argue for the sake of arguing and to see how a person defends his/her beliefs. I don't think that my beliefs are superior to anyone else's beliefs. They are simply what I live by and I myself recognize their flaws since I often argue on both sides. I welcome critiques of my beliefs because they help me improve on them. I'm not arrogant enough to think that what I believe is flawless. I'm only human and the things I believe is right might just very well turn out to be wrong.
As John Stuart Mill said:
"Ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions now general will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present"
Well, seeing as how one's ethical standpoint is the means by which a person distingushes right from wron it only makes sense that I'd have the same stance as they do on a lot of issues. |
posted by Samantha @ 7:04 PM
 |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, August 02, 2006 |
| Let's play catch... or is it catch up? |
Ah, well I suppose I should be posting something meaningful since this is my first post in a really long while, but I thnik my brain's too fried from finishing upour markser paper due this friday to think up anything worthwhile so this'll just be me ranting and rambling until I get the urge to go back to writing the paper....
Do you know what it feels like when things suddenly get out of control? One moment you're fine, feeling like you can handle everything life throws at you, but as if that thing called 'life' (whatever that is) heard your boast, it dusts off that old gatling gun it had lying in the 'ol closet and starts firing for the heck of it and you find yourself frantically trying to catch the pieces hurled your way very much like cartoon characters do whenever they're carrying something breakable and they trip. You're jumping left and right trying to keep from tripping all over yourself 'coz you know that once you trip it's all over and you'll wake up neck deep in the shattered pieces of whatever it was 'life' decided to hurl your way. The realization that things are a tad out of control (just a tad 'coz it'll all be over once you admit that everything's gone to heck) washes over you like someone dumping a pailful of ice cold water and for just one moment, one tiny little instant, you feel like giving up, dropping everything, just standing still and not try to dodge or scramble after and just letting everything fall and shatter to a tiny million pieces and if you're unlucky, you'll still be around to pick up the pieces and try to piece them together, but maybe that's better than losing your sanity trying to keep them from shattering in the first place. But then what would 'others' think if you let even one piece shatter...no, you have to tough it out. So the feeling passes and you're back catching the next piece hurtling your way, placing it somewhere safe. It's a little cracked from the wild save, but it's still whole so everything's OK. So what if you're left with a million damaged pieces. You can do something to hide the cracks. No one ever really pays that close attention. A million fractured pieces but at least they're not shattered beyond repair. No one has to know. As long as you don't sit and stare hard, you won't even notice yourself.... everything's good... that thing called 'life' has to slow down sometime so you just have to do your best until that lull finally comes along and you can finally ease off a bit and let the tension drain... for now, you concentrate on trying to keep things from shattering beyond repair....
Eh? Seems like I was in a bit of an introspective mood. LOL but, I'm feeling much better now so it's time to get back to work. |
| posted by Samantha @ 8:35 AM
|
|
|
|
| Sunday, July 02, 2006 |
| Red or Blue? Which pill will you take? |
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. ~ Morpheus form The Matrix This is something I had been meaning to write about ages ago but with all the distractions, I hadn't been able to get to it.
Anyway, reading the Myth of the Cave brought The Matrix to the top of my mind. I think the movie was a good interpretation. Anyway, in the Myth of the Cave, we have a person who has become exposed to the truth after being kept in the dark for so long and then when he goes back to tell his fellows of what he has learned, he is thought to be insane, shunned, and very possibly persecuted.
This scenario really isn't all that unthinkable. How many of the great thinkers were shunned or punished for being 'ahead of their time'? People like Galileo who are credited with great discoveries but who were, in their days, criticized.
Given the chance, which would you choose to be; the enlightened but ostracized or accpeted but ignorant? Would you choose to seek the truth and risk losing acceptance or would you simply accept things as they are? Given the choice, which pill would you take? The blue or the red?
Personally, I think that I'd pick the red pill. Curiosity always gets the better of me and I believe that the knowlege and the satisfaction that comes from knowing is enough to offset any of the bad effects. like they always say, "curiosity kills the cat, but satisfaction brings it back" hehe.
|
| posted by Samantha @ 10:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
