Q: How would I respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral values that apply to everyone ?
A: First, probably by suggesting that they couldn't suggest that, lest they stand in self-contradiction. Then I'd probably ask them "But in any case, if you could somehow be taken logically, then I ask why not?" Then they'd prolly give me all this BS about how different cultures view morals...then i'd prolly jack his glasses or something. He'd get on my case and I'd point out that there are absolutes that carry over - nobody likes things taken from them..etc etc. If this were a scenario where I was talking to a person, I'd probably have to settle with opening this door for them into actually thinking about that little statement they'd made. However, were I to come across this suggestion in written form, where my response would have to be in writing, I'd probably allow myself to go further into the logical journey where moral absolutes do end up popping up, tracing to a source outside ourselves, and eventually to God.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
It's Just Karma...........Right ..??
...Yeaaahhhhhh not so much.
Why not? Initially, Karma doesn't sound that unreasonable. If you make bad choices, you're likely to fall into bad situations. If you seek to be mentally aware and attentive in your present moment, considerate of your actions and their consequences, you're more likely to make wise choices with better outcomes. However, the flaws reveal themselves you get into the nitty-gritty of how Karma really works. Firstly, Karma acts on the principle that life in and of itself is fair. That is to say, every bad action will eventually lead to something bad happening to you (in essence, your bad choices fate you to bad life situations), and every good action will lead to some little bonus of goodness down the line somewhere in the same manner. However, how does that account for crooked people living successful, happy lives ? Or good people living crappy lives? Or, worst to consider, evils falling upon innocent children too young to have yet done any good or any wrong ? It simply cannot, unless it were to be defined as a repercussion of some evil done by one of the parents, making it instead a consequence for the parent. Even then, however, that could not possibly be Karma, as the death or harm of something innocent negates the idea that there was also some previous action of the child's that brought it -of it's own power - presently into the hands of those particular people in that moment in time to catch that disease or partake of that genetic flaw or even be killed. The child had not yet stored up any positive or negative Karma, therefore this occurrence would be considered unjust on the part of that younger-but-no-less-human child. Secondly, in order to make choices that are Karmicly positive, apparently one is supposed to pull some sort of Cosmic Humanist BS and -i exaggerate- feel for some bodily reaction consisting of either vomiting or getting retardedly giddy to know what's right. Two problems with this: it is assuming that all human moral compasses point true, and that there are sorts of absolute-ish moral rights and wrongs which, apparently, need not have an origin except in one's individually upset stomach. People justify doing bad things all the time, and sometimes they don't meet the consequences until they meet God. The funny thing is, if they do "bad" things, but they receive no repercussions, how can that thing be then deemed "bad" or "wrong" ? If the only place these standards come from is some result, some point in time, that was unfavorable, or bile in the back of your throat, there can be no "good" or "wrong" decisions. There can only be decisions, and the twisted playing of Fate by a thing called Chance. Wrong things can have good decisions, or something done that wasn't morally wrong can just result in something bad...etc, etc. Nothing's fair, people are dumb, and morals cannot be weighted by a bad case of IBS.
Why not? Initially, Karma doesn't sound that unreasonable. If you make bad choices, you're likely to fall into bad situations. If you seek to be mentally aware and attentive in your present moment, considerate of your actions and their consequences, you're more likely to make wise choices with better outcomes. However, the flaws reveal themselves you get into the nitty-gritty of how Karma really works. Firstly, Karma acts on the principle that life in and of itself is fair. That is to say, every bad action will eventually lead to something bad happening to you (in essence, your bad choices fate you to bad life situations), and every good action will lead to some little bonus of goodness down the line somewhere in the same manner. However, how does that account for crooked people living successful, happy lives ? Or good people living crappy lives? Or, worst to consider, evils falling upon innocent children too young to have yet done any good or any wrong ? It simply cannot, unless it were to be defined as a repercussion of some evil done by one of the parents, making it instead a consequence for the parent. Even then, however, that could not possibly be Karma, as the death or harm of something innocent negates the idea that there was also some previous action of the child's that brought it -of it's own power - presently into the hands of those particular people in that moment in time to catch that disease or partake of that genetic flaw or even be killed. The child had not yet stored up any positive or negative Karma, therefore this occurrence would be considered unjust on the part of that younger-but-no-less-human child. Secondly, in order to make choices that are Karmicly positive, apparently one is supposed to pull some sort of Cosmic Humanist BS and -i exaggerate- feel for some bodily reaction consisting of either vomiting or getting retardedly giddy to know what's right. Two problems with this: it is assuming that all human moral compasses point true, and that there are sorts of absolute-ish moral rights and wrongs which, apparently, need not have an origin except in one's individually upset stomach. People justify doing bad things all the time, and sometimes they don't meet the consequences until they meet God. The funny thing is, if they do "bad" things, but they receive no repercussions, how can that thing be then deemed "bad" or "wrong" ? If the only place these standards come from is some result, some point in time, that was unfavorable, or bile in the back of your throat, there can be no "good" or "wrong" decisions. There can only be decisions, and the twisted playing of Fate by a thing called Chance. Wrong things can have good decisions, or something done that wasn't morally wrong can just result in something bad...etc, etc. Nothing's fair, people are dumb, and morals cannot be weighted by a bad case of IBS.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Haemon in Antigone
The Quote (er..chunk i guess):
Creon: Of course, if you're on the woman's side-
Haemon: no, no- Unless you're the woman. It's you I'm fighting for.
...
Creon: Yet you plead her cause.
Haemon: No, yours, and that of the gods of the dead
Despite Creon's reasonable defense that a good leader needs to stick to his guns, it is Haemon's argument here that reveals Creon's flaws of execution. These quotes have a bigger impact in context, though. Haemon here is concluding that all the things he said previous about the burial of Polyneices and the release of Antigone were for Creon's benefit. Both the people of Thebes whom Creon was ruling and the "gods of the dead" should desire Polyneices buried and have deemed Antigone in the right. When Creon tries to avoid this responsibility towards the people and the gods, he blames Haemon for saying these things merely for the sake of his love. However, when Haemon turns this argument on it's head, claiming that it is Creon that he is fighting for, Creon's immovable decision makes him out for sort of a tyrant. That is, even as his own son is pledging loyalty to Creon's kingship and makes the point that he is only trying to help him be a good king, Creon refuses to humble himself enough to even consider his reasoning, let alone even care for the opinions of the people of Thebes. Instead, he waves off what Haemon has to say, claiming that he is just fighting to save Antigone, and in doing so he is aiding the hand of Fate that is bringing him to his demise. A king who will not consider council is in fact a Tyrant, and Haemon's statement of a pure motive in these quotes serve only, due to Creon's close-mindedness on the matter, to emphasize the point.
What gets me about these quotes, though, has nothing to do with my analysis. I know that when I personally am fighting for what I know is true and/or for one of the few people I know I can defend without the character of that person turning my help on its head, I get really heated. It frustrates me to the dickens when people are making arguments or acting upon things that are not logical, close-minded, points under-educated, or against someone I care for. Were I in Haemon's position, I would have been throwing logic in Creon's face SO hard, like "Can you not SEE that you are over-reacting? Really, what is the REAL harm in burying a man? What do you serve to gain but the animosity of all the subjects of Thebes??" However, even when Haemon has the life of his one true love on the line, and all the logic and religion on his side, he still gave time to mention that the one he was fighting for was Creon himself. My respect for Haemon absolutely skyrocketed in these few lines. THAT is the love and levelheadedness I've been striving for ever since I dedicated my life to the Lord - the kind of love that, even in the face of sheer stupidity and ignorance, works to love and fight FOR that stupid ignorant person (or the slightly misguided person, or some other person with problems that can be worded much much less harshly...). Yeah, I think Haemon is my favorite character from anything ever now. Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)