So, I guess the President bowed to the Japanese Emperor, and I guess this is a big deal somehow:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/
I guess he's shown too much respect to other leaders as well, although I didn't notice the BREAKING NEWS when that happened.
I'm just curious, since when does showing respect correlate to expressing weakness or servitude or whatever? Since when do you have to act like an asshole in order to retain the dignity of your position? Do you really think that anyone is going to forget that Obama is the President of the most powerful nation on Earth just because he bowed?
For that matter, if you were really concerned about the sanctity of the President's dignity, then what are you doing criticising him? You can't bash him with one hand and then get pissed that he doesn't demand the utmost respect with the other. I mean, I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things, but at least I'm consistent.
To bring it down to a level most people can relate to, if I step into my boss' office, he usually greets me with "Sir" - I'll bet this is pretty common, as several of my former bosses did this as well. I don't forget that he's my boss when he does this. I don't respect him less as a result - in fact, I respect him more. If he acted like an arrogant prick, I'd respect him less. See how that works? I'll bet pretty much everyone would have that reaction, whether you're Joe the plumber or Emperor Akihito or Barack Obama. They're just men, you know. It's not like Barack Obama is some sort of god, he's just a dude, and as a dude, he's subject to the rules of politeness that normally govern dudes. It's really pretty irrelevant how powerful a dude he is; it wouldn't give him the right to be a douche.
I'm pretty sure the Oaths of Office don't include the phrase "I will be a jackass to all foreign officials." I could be wrong, though. I also thought humility was supposed to be a virtue; personally, I'd like the most powerful man on Earth to be pretty damned virtuous, wouldn't you?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Human Rights, Part 2
So, let's see where we can get on this front. In order to avoid confusion, I will attempt to establish the convention of using "right" only in the sense of "a right", as opposed to "right and wrong." I will attempt to use synonyms whenever I desire the latter definition.
To start with, we should define what it means to have rights. A right, by definition, is something that you are entitled to at all times and without regard to any circumstances, correct? It is something that should never be taken away, regardless of any conceivable excuse. Then, we have certain modifiers such as civil rights or human rights. These, presumably, are rights which we are entitled to by virtue of possessing the appropriate quality; civil rights pertain to anyone who is a citizen and human rights pertain to whoever is a human. These rights cannot be taken away, so long as the person in question retains the appropriate quality - if a given person ceases to be a citizen, they are no longer entitled to civil rights, and correspondingly, if a given person ceases to be human, they are no longer entitled to human rights. For all practical purposes, this latter condition will never apply, so we may consider "human rights" to be those rights which it is wrong to take away from anyone, at any time, under any circumstances. This is the only definition I can think of that really makes sense; if anyone has another one or a modification to this one, feel free to add it.
I am aware that this runs contrary to the accepted use of the word in such cases as "rights" to free speech, assembly, arms-bearing, etc, because those "rights" can in fact be taken away; my contention is essentially that this is an improper use of the word. If it can be taken away, then why was it being called a right in the first place? The word becomes largely meaningless in this context.
This is one reason why I was hoping to avoid this discussion earlier - obviously with this definition, we will end up with very few human rights to consider, since there aren't a whole lot of things that people are unconditionally entitled to. I really don't think I can come up with a single one that is invariably acceptable, although the right to life is probably the strongest contender.
To start with, we should define what it means to have rights. A right, by definition, is something that you are entitled to at all times and without regard to any circumstances, correct? It is something that should never be taken away, regardless of any conceivable excuse. Then, we have certain modifiers such as civil rights or human rights. These, presumably, are rights which we are entitled to by virtue of possessing the appropriate quality; civil rights pertain to anyone who is a citizen and human rights pertain to whoever is a human. These rights cannot be taken away, so long as the person in question retains the appropriate quality - if a given person ceases to be a citizen, they are no longer entitled to civil rights, and correspondingly, if a given person ceases to be human, they are no longer entitled to human rights. For all practical purposes, this latter condition will never apply, so we may consider "human rights" to be those rights which it is wrong to take away from anyone, at any time, under any circumstances. This is the only definition I can think of that really makes sense; if anyone has another one or a modification to this one, feel free to add it.
I am aware that this runs contrary to the accepted use of the word in such cases as "rights" to free speech, assembly, arms-bearing, etc, because those "rights" can in fact be taken away; my contention is essentially that this is an improper use of the word. If it can be taken away, then why was it being called a right in the first place? The word becomes largely meaningless in this context.
This is one reason why I was hoping to avoid this discussion earlier - obviously with this definition, we will end up with very few human rights to consider, since there aren't a whole lot of things that people are unconditionally entitled to. I really don't think I can come up with a single one that is invariably acceptable, although the right to life is probably the strongest contender.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Human Rights
I was having a conversation a few days ago in which an interesting question was brought up: do people have a right to reproduce? I was unable to come up with a definitive answer for this question, so I thought I'd post it and see what everyone else's thoughts are. The context was a debate over the idea of compulsory, but reversible, sterilization for all citizens as a social policy.
On the "yes" side, I believe involuntary human sterilization is generally regarded as an atrocity, from what I know of it occurring under the Nazi regime and scattered incidents of punitive sterilization, and certainly it (and its potential abuses) seem like pretty bad things. However, I cannot really come up with a convincing reason why this should be so. The ability to bring life into the world is probably one of the largest responsibilities a human being can have, after all, and as such, the unrestrained proliferation of this ability has the potential to cause a great deal of suffering - we have only to look to the innumerable cases of single mothers, broken families, etc to see the misery that it can and does cause. I'm not sure why such a huge responsibility should be regarded as an inherent human right.
Say we implemented a policy that all males were to be sterilized at birth. Then, according to some set of criteria, when the individual is deemed "fit" to reproduce, the sterilization could be reversed. This criteria could range from the mild to the Orwellian - it could be a simple age restriction (based on when a person is on average "settled" enough to have a child), it could be a combination of age, financial situation, and marital status, or it could be done on a case-by-case review basis. This final option, in my mind, would be the most ideal setup, although obviously it is also the most prone to abuse.
On a larger scale, it is also easy to see the advantages of involuntary sterilization. I'm positive that the following ideas are considered...shall we say "taboo," but again, I'm not certain why. If we were able, as a society, to choose who among us could reproduce, we could in effect reinstate natural selection without inviting the pain of death back into our lives. I promise, I'm not a neo-Nazi, but if we're totally honest with ourselves, and assuming that my previous idea that we do not have an inherent right to reproduce is correct, can we really argue against a eugenics process? We could ensure humanity's survival by tailoring each generation to be stronger, faster, and smarter than the one before; and what would we really lose?
The main objection that I can see is the simple "we shouldn't be playing God" objection, which, while I do agree to some extent, I see more as a plea for caution than a moral imperative.
Obviously there are immediate emotional responses to such an idea, and I'm not suggesting that it is any way likely or feasible for this to be introduced as a serious proposal. There are also simpler, less Orwellian ways to achieve a similar result, like, say, a free, easy, 100% effective contraceptive; I'm sure the majority of "undesirable" pregnancies are probably also unwanted. Free abortions would probably also achieve a similar result - the book Freakonomics proposes that the legalization of abortion was responsible for the crime drop in the 1990s. I'm just curious as to the actual ethics of this particular concept.
On the "yes" side, I believe involuntary human sterilization is generally regarded as an atrocity, from what I know of it occurring under the Nazi regime and scattered incidents of punitive sterilization, and certainly it (and its potential abuses) seem like pretty bad things. However, I cannot really come up with a convincing reason why this should be so. The ability to bring life into the world is probably one of the largest responsibilities a human being can have, after all, and as such, the unrestrained proliferation of this ability has the potential to cause a great deal of suffering - we have only to look to the innumerable cases of single mothers, broken families, etc to see the misery that it can and does cause. I'm not sure why such a huge responsibility should be regarded as an inherent human right.
Say we implemented a policy that all males were to be sterilized at birth. Then, according to some set of criteria, when the individual is deemed "fit" to reproduce, the sterilization could be reversed. This criteria could range from the mild to the Orwellian - it could be a simple age restriction (based on when a person is on average "settled" enough to have a child), it could be a combination of age, financial situation, and marital status, or it could be done on a case-by-case review basis. This final option, in my mind, would be the most ideal setup, although obviously it is also the most prone to abuse.
On a larger scale, it is also easy to see the advantages of involuntary sterilization. I'm positive that the following ideas are considered...shall we say "taboo," but again, I'm not certain why. If we were able, as a society, to choose who among us could reproduce, we could in effect reinstate natural selection without inviting the pain of death back into our lives. I promise, I'm not a neo-Nazi, but if we're totally honest with ourselves, and assuming that my previous idea that we do not have an inherent right to reproduce is correct, can we really argue against a eugenics process? We could ensure humanity's survival by tailoring each generation to be stronger, faster, and smarter than the one before; and what would we really lose?
The main objection that I can see is the simple "we shouldn't be playing God" objection, which, while I do agree to some extent, I see more as a plea for caution than a moral imperative.
Obviously there are immediate emotional responses to such an idea, and I'm not suggesting that it is any way likely or feasible for this to be introduced as a serious proposal. There are also simpler, less Orwellian ways to achieve a similar result, like, say, a free, easy, 100% effective contraceptive; I'm sure the majority of "undesirable" pregnancies are probably also unwanted. Free abortions would probably also achieve a similar result - the book Freakonomics proposes that the legalization of abortion was responsible for the crime drop in the 1990s. I'm just curious as to the actual ethics of this particular concept.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Semantics
Speaking of semantics - the economic stimulus.
I just have one thing to say:
It's not investing if I take 5 dollars from you and then give you back 3.
That is all.
I just have one thing to say:
It's not investing if I take 5 dollars from you and then give you back 3.
That is all.
Friday, February 6, 2009
So Greedy, Foul, and Infantile
I generally try to keep up on the most important news of the day. I don't watch TV, but I check news websites about once a day during the week. I saw a link to a story titled "Cambridge Girls Booze and Sex Shame," which, naturally, I had to investigate further. Midway through the article, the following list appears:
Other snaps to have emerged from Cambridge's bizarre boozing rituals show:
- a male and female student simulating oral sex simultaneously in front of a historic university building in broad daylight
- a male student proudly holding up two jugs filled with his own vomit and
- male and female students frolicking with midgets dressed as Oompah Loompas from the film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The vile photographs, taken earlier this year, illustrate the twisted initiation rituals students must go through to enter some of the top university's clubs and societies.
I think that list probably should have been looked over a second time; I'm pretty sure frolicking with Oompa Loompas doesn't qualify as a "vile" activity; twisted, maybe, but vile, not so much. There's a fairly large gap between the offensive quality of the first two examples and the third one.
I guess you could interpret it as offensive to vertically challenged individuals, but judging by the use of the word "frolicking," we must assume that it was a consensual activity. With the number of stories we read about people dying during actually dangerous initiation stunts, I think we can chalk this one up as relatively harmless...
Other snaps to have emerged from Cambridge's bizarre boozing rituals show:
- a male and female student simulating oral sex simultaneously in front of a historic university building in broad daylight
- a male student proudly holding up two jugs filled with his own vomit and
- male and female students frolicking with midgets dressed as Oompah Loompas from the film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The vile photographs, taken earlier this year, illustrate the twisted initiation rituals students must go through to enter some of the top university's clubs and societies.
I think that list probably should have been looked over a second time; I'm pretty sure frolicking with Oompa Loompas doesn't qualify as a "vile" activity; twisted, maybe, but vile, not so much. There's a fairly large gap between the offensive quality of the first two examples and the third one.
I guess you could interpret it as offensive to vertically challenged individuals, but judging by the use of the word "frolicking," we must assume that it was a consensual activity. With the number of stories we read about people dying during actually dangerous initiation stunts, I think we can chalk this one up as relatively harmless...
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Absurdity
I have officially become frustrated enough to make a new post. Technically this belongs in my conversation with Tao over at the Atlantean Conspiracy, but in the event that this rant would even be read, it would be sure to be interpreted as rude (to be fair, it is rude) and surely wouldn't be welcome in that forum. Therefore I shall use the power of the Internet to rant on my own forum, in which I define what is welcome.
"Tao" over there, who appears to be a regular commentor (although I am not, I have read a decent number of old posts, and his name appears as often as any other), has finally expressed an opinion which I cannot call anything less than insanity. He has postulated that the universe is inherently unknowable, and to use rationality is "irrational." In the interests of being fully accurate, I have quoted his statements below:
"feeling over rationality: I'd rather be feel happy than be right, and as no one can know only guess then it is a good place to sit."
"In a universe that ultimately no one can ever know, then to use rationality is entirely irrational."
To start with, the universe is knowable. To deny this fact is nothing short of insanity. It is impossible to function at all without accepting this. There is no point in eating if you don't know whether it will satiate your hunger; there is no point in drinking if you don't know whether it will slake your thirst; there is no point in Mr. Tao pressing the "post" button if he doesn't know whether it will put his post up or not. When I push my foot against the ground, I know that I will move forward; otherwise, I would never walk anywhere. If Mr. Tao truly believes the universe is irrational, then he might as well wave his arms as his feet in order to cover distances, he may as well press "delete" as "post." The fact that he does things with clear intent, as he must in order to survive, indicates that whatever he may say, he knows that the universe is rational and follows rational laws. It is impossible to live without this. The rationality of the universe is apparent not only in the sciences, but in every minute of every day, when events proceed in a predictable manner.
Now, I know there are mysteries. We don't know why gravity exists. We don't know what the smallest particle is. We don't know if matter is particles or waves, or both. So what? It doesn't matter how or why it happens; it just matters that it happens rationally. If I hold a ball 5 feet off the ground and then drop it, it will fall. I don't have the slightest clue why it will fall; but I know, with absolute certainty, that it will. And so does Mr. Tao. A denial of this is indicative of what I can't describe as anything but an underlying insanity - a denial of what you know to be true.
On to the second thing that irks me: "I'd rather be feel happy than be right." This...saddens me, actually, more than it irks me. Man is reason. Reason is that quality which distinguishes man from beast. Without reason, therefore, man is not man, he is beast. To deny our reason is to deny the gift we have received (from God or evolution, I don't care what you believe) and relegate ourselves among the animals. A lion might as well shed his teeth and claws and live with his prey. I cannot comprehend why anyone would willingly do this to themselves. Why don't we all just get doctors to induce artificial comas and set up intravenous dopamine drips? You'd be feeling real good for the rest of your life - setting aside for the moment the little problem that the universe is unknowable and therefore, so is your brain, and therefore, dopamine is as likely to stimulate agony as pleasure.
It's completely absurd. Sorry for the rant.
"Tao" over there, who appears to be a regular commentor (although I am not, I have read a decent number of old posts, and his name appears as often as any other), has finally expressed an opinion which I cannot call anything less than insanity. He has postulated that the universe is inherently unknowable, and to use rationality is "irrational." In the interests of being fully accurate, I have quoted his statements below:
"feeling over rationality: I'd rather be feel happy than be right, and as no one can know only guess then it is a good place to sit."
"In a universe that ultimately no one can ever know, then to use rationality is entirely irrational."
To start with, the universe is knowable. To deny this fact is nothing short of insanity. It is impossible to function at all without accepting this. There is no point in eating if you don't know whether it will satiate your hunger; there is no point in drinking if you don't know whether it will slake your thirst; there is no point in Mr. Tao pressing the "post" button if he doesn't know whether it will put his post up or not. When I push my foot against the ground, I know that I will move forward; otherwise, I would never walk anywhere. If Mr. Tao truly believes the universe is irrational, then he might as well wave his arms as his feet in order to cover distances, he may as well press "delete" as "post." The fact that he does things with clear intent, as he must in order to survive, indicates that whatever he may say, he knows that the universe is rational and follows rational laws. It is impossible to live without this. The rationality of the universe is apparent not only in the sciences, but in every minute of every day, when events proceed in a predictable manner.
Now, I know there are mysteries. We don't know why gravity exists. We don't know what the smallest particle is. We don't know if matter is particles or waves, or both. So what? It doesn't matter how or why it happens; it just matters that it happens rationally. If I hold a ball 5 feet off the ground and then drop it, it will fall. I don't have the slightest clue why it will fall; but I know, with absolute certainty, that it will. And so does Mr. Tao. A denial of this is indicative of what I can't describe as anything but an underlying insanity - a denial of what you know to be true.
On to the second thing that irks me: "I'd rather be feel happy than be right." This...saddens me, actually, more than it irks me. Man is reason. Reason is that quality which distinguishes man from beast. Without reason, therefore, man is not man, he is beast. To deny our reason is to deny the gift we have received (from God or evolution, I don't care what you believe) and relegate ourselves among the animals. A lion might as well shed his teeth and claws and live with his prey. I cannot comprehend why anyone would willingly do this to themselves. Why don't we all just get doctors to induce artificial comas and set up intravenous dopamine drips? You'd be feeling real good for the rest of your life - setting aside for the moment the little problem that the universe is unknowable and therefore, so is your brain, and therefore, dopamine is as likely to stimulate agony as pleasure.
It's completely absurd. Sorry for the rant.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Memes.
A while ago I was challenged by a certain amateur philosopher to respond to one of these "meme" things - a challenge which I have, thus far, failed to undertake. This changes tonight.
Three out of the four options, while intriguing, didn't interest me enough to make a post about. Sorry bro. The one I'd like to respond to is the following one:
2) You are a selfish, bad person. Odd, I know. We don't think of ourselves this way, but can you honestly tell me one good thing you have ever done? Something which was good in and of its self but didn't do ANYTHING for you personally? Not even make you feel good? This one gives me the heebie jeebies.
What I find interesting about this is that this is the exact conclusion I came to about human behavior a couple years ago. I think, actually, that I did a post about this once; the idea that seemingly altruistic behavior is not actually altruistic, but in fact a selfish act designed to either make you feel good or prevent you from feeling bad. I believe the discussion on that post turned to the topic of the martyr, and how in order to be a martyr, you must either be religious or confused.
It seems to me, from looking at all of these ideas, that the only way to be absolutely certain that you are a selfless person is to become a martyr, while not believing in a life after death. People who believe in a life after death can't be certain they're good people because that act could simply have been selfishly intended to get them into Heaven. Only by actually becoming a martyr and giving up your life can you be absolutely certain that the act wasn't intended to get a good feeling or to avoid guilt.
Of course, the trouble with this is, up until the very point where you die, you can't be certain that you're good, and after that point, well...it doesn't really matter anymore, because you're dead, and there is no afterlife. I suppose there might be an infinitesimal instant between before death and after death, when you'd know you were a truly selfless person, but...man, that sucks.
To take this further, people who die for a cause aren't really selfless, because they are simply dying for something that they know they want even more than life itself. It's still something they care about, and something they want, so they are achieving their own goal in death. So really, the only way to know that you are truly selfless is to die for a cause that you know you hate.
I think I'd rather accept the possibility that I'm selfish...hopefully that in and of itself isn't selfish...shit!
Three out of the four options, while intriguing, didn't interest me enough to make a post about. Sorry bro. The one I'd like to respond to is the following one:
2) You are a selfish, bad person. Odd, I know. We don't think of ourselves this way, but can you honestly tell me one good thing you have ever done? Something which was good in and of its self but didn't do ANYTHING for you personally? Not even make you feel good? This one gives me the heebie jeebies.
What I find interesting about this is that this is the exact conclusion I came to about human behavior a couple years ago. I think, actually, that I did a post about this once; the idea that seemingly altruistic behavior is not actually altruistic, but in fact a selfish act designed to either make you feel good or prevent you from feeling bad. I believe the discussion on that post turned to the topic of the martyr, and how in order to be a martyr, you must either be religious or confused.
It seems to me, from looking at all of these ideas, that the only way to be absolutely certain that you are a selfless person is to become a martyr, while not believing in a life after death. People who believe in a life after death can't be certain they're good people because that act could simply have been selfishly intended to get them into Heaven. Only by actually becoming a martyr and giving up your life can you be absolutely certain that the act wasn't intended to get a good feeling or to avoid guilt.
Of course, the trouble with this is, up until the very point where you die, you can't be certain that you're good, and after that point, well...it doesn't really matter anymore, because you're dead, and there is no afterlife. I suppose there might be an infinitesimal instant between before death and after death, when you'd know you were a truly selfless person, but...man, that sucks.
To take this further, people who die for a cause aren't really selfless, because they are simply dying for something that they know they want even more than life itself. It's still something they care about, and something they want, so they are achieving their own goal in death. So really, the only way to know that you are truly selfless is to die for a cause that you know you hate.
I think I'd rather accept the possibility that I'm selfish...hopefully that in and of itself isn't selfish...shit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)