TheSocraticClub's Xanga

How do we know what is right and wrong?

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:30:50 GMT

So instead of writing my essay, I decided to blog about something...philosophical.

Let's start from the beginning.

When someone enters the world he/she necessarily accepts two propositions on blind faith:

I exist.

The world around me exists, including the people, animals and plants that inhabit it.

These two assertions are impossible to prove, but they must be accepted nonetheless, or else a person will have no motivation for any kind of action.

When these two propositions have been accepted, a person has accepted that some sort of absolute truth exists. At the very least the person accepts the absolute existence of the world. There is no subjective aspect to the world; it exists whether or not you believe it does.

By accepting this first absolute truth--that the world exists--a person is forced to accept other absolutes.

It is human nature to naturally seek something intangible. The ancient philosophers called this thing happiness. Men know from experience that they are indeed seeking something. Happiness can be simply and circularly defined as that thing which men seek.

With this notion of happiness comes a new absolute: the concept of ought. This is the idea that there are appropriate ways to pursue happiness and inappropriate ways to do so. It arises from the simple observation that some people appear to acquire happiness, while others do not. The conclusion from this observation is that there are ways you ought to pursue happiness and ways you ought not to. Or, there are right ways and wrong ways.

Thus, this concept of ought is essentially the idea of morality. Morality's ultimate goal is human happiness. Good actions are actions that promote human happiness. Bad actions are actions that discourage human happiness. For myself, the questions that are difficult to answer are these:

Do the same actions that encourage happiness in one person encourage it in another? Is morality absolute?

How do we know what actions promote happiness? How do we know what is right and wrong?

Death and Politics

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:48:05 GMT
Some statistics:

Approximately 35 murders are committed in the U.S. each day. (Source)

Approximately 89 people die from suicide in the U.S. each day. (Source)

Approximately 115 people are killed in car accidents in the U.S. every day. (Source)

Approximately 1200 people die from smoking in the U.S. each day. (Source)

Approximately 3700 unborn babies are aborted in the U.S. each day. (Source)

35 + 89 + 115 + 1200 + 3700 =

Approximately 5139 Americans die of these unnecessary causes each day in the U.S.

Now consider this statistic:

Approximately 2.8 American soldiers die in Iraq each day. (Source)

Apparently the average American considers the War in Iraq to be the most important social issue in the approaching election. What do you think?

(I did the math myself. Check it if you will.)

The Resurrection

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:44:55 GMT
As Easter Sunday passed by I was thinking about the concept of the Resurrection. I don't understand it very well. Perhaps you theologians can provide answers to these questions.

"The wages of sin is death." Christ died, but why did he rise? Shouldn't he be dead forever? Man's punishment for sin was eternal death, but Christ erased the punishment by dying for three days. Why?

Why three days?

Why did Christ have to die? Why not an angel?

How does the death of one perfect Man purge the sins of billions of imperfect men?

These Christian doctrines are all so complicated.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:44:39 GMT
Homeschooling in California goes the way of the dodo...

...or at least it will if a California judge has his way. On February 28, the California Court of Appeals ruled that it is "unconstitutional" for parents to homeschool their children, unless they possess teaching credentials. The HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) is working its magic, but I don't know if anything can be done (Shouldn't the ACLU swing in to defend us about now? I guess they care about other "civil liberties"). If this new ruling is followed, then homeschooling is, from here on, illegal in California.

I, my siblings, my parents, many of my friends and all the 166,000 homeschoolers in California are, or will be, criminals. This makes me so angry I don't know where to begin. This is tyranny.

In today's world, education is considered the job of the government. I don't know why, but that's how it is. People go their whole lives without questioning the idea that the government should school their children. I wrote before about how government education is dangerous. When the politicians control the values that are instilled in our children, the politicians control the people. When the politicians control the people, they control the power. When the politicians control the power, we are no longer a republic, but rather some sort of oligarchy.

If you want to send your kids to the government schools, where the government will teach them the values it espouses, then be my guest. For those of us who want to teach our children how to be independent thinkers and ethical human beings, we'll homeschool our children or send them to private school.

My three younger siblings are homeschooled I could be considered some sort of homeschooler myself. There about 166,000 homeschooled children in California. Those of you who attended the government schools undoubtedly have negative opinions about homeschooling. For example you probably hold one or more of the following opinions:

"Children need social interaction and homeschooling doesn't provide that." That may be true of a few children in Montana, but for the rest of the homeschooling world, there is plenty of social interaction. I go to more social events than any of my friends in school--and a further plus is that these are social events without the drugs and sex.

"Homeschooling parents aren't trained to teach children. The children do not receive the same quality education." Oh, please. Public school education high quality? That's why a ridiculous amount of high school students graduate high school, but still can't read? While you were reading The Cat in the Hat we were translating Virgil from Latin to English.

"When homeschoolers leave the nest they don't know how to react to this shocking world." With the internet, advertising and media in general, even the most protective parents can't hide their children from the dark side of life. Homeschoolers do just as well as anyone else after they leave the nest. Here's a not very thorough list of famous homeschoolers.

Homeschooling is as good a choice as private school, and a better choice than public school. To make it illegal is a crime and a step towards fascism. Every recent oppressive dictatorship has used the government schools to indoctrinate the new generation in order to stay in power. The government never had a right to tell me how I or my children should be educated. To do so now is an encroachment upon my liberty and your liberty--the liberty the Founding Fathers worked hard to protect and the liberty thousands of Americans have died for.

Think I'm overreacting? Wait until the government takes away a liberty that matters to you. The California government is already in the process of taking away our right to free education; more rights can't be far behind.

(But what is the government really going to do? Arrest all 166,000 of us? If any sort of arrests start, which seems to me unlikely, most of the homeschooled children won't be going to public school. They'll either enroll in private school or move to another state.)

Dante and Human Nature

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:23:16 GMT

He who the fast-days as a child has known,
   Will every dish in every season have
   Ere out of baby-talk he scarce has grown;

Or who affection to his mother gave
   In lisping childhood, learning at her knee,
   In manhood longs to see her in her grave.

~Paradiso, Canto XXVII

Learn a lesson about human nature. The root of all the problems in this world is neither government, nor religion, nor weapons, nor art, nor environment, nor any other such thing. The root of the problems is man.

Obama, Abortion and Infanticide

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:44:26 GMT

He looks good enough but before you even consider voting for Obama read this-- Life News:

In his speech, he [Obama] decried the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal ban on the gruesome abortion procedure known as partial-birth abortion:

"[T]here’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong."

What claptrap.

Nowhere in his speech is there any concern over the unborn child who is stabbed in the back of the neck while her head remains inside her mother. Nowhere is shock expressed that her brains are then suctioned out with a suction machine. Nowhere is there any concern over that child’s pain or death as he panders before a pro-abortion, largely female audience, his concern is over whether banning the procedure encroaches on women’s rights.

What of the little girls who have been killed using this heinous procedure? What of their equal rights?

And it gets worse-- Philadelphia Inquirer:

...consider his [Obama's] position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

This sickens me. Vote for Hilary if you must, but not Obama.

Motion Pictures, World Problems and the Power of Art

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:04:26 GMT
Recently I watched two very different movies: Juno and Blood Diamond. Both were moving. Juno is about a teenage girl who gets pregnant and decides not to have an abortion. Blood Diamond is about the war and genocide in Sierra Leon over land, power and diamonds.

After I watched them both I thought, What is the difference between killing infants in the womb and killing children and adults in the streets? There are quite a few differences. Firstly, abortion doesn't result in the open societal blood and chaos that genocide does. Secondly, in abortion only a minority is endangered, whereas in genocide no one is safe. Finally, the aborted don't cry out for mercy; genocide victims do.

The abortion debate comes down to the question How do we define a human being? You can disregard a human embryo by referring to it as "a clump of cells", but are humans really defined solely by their bodies? That cannot be, since we do not refer to corpses as human beings, even though they are physically composed of the same elements as a living body. Perhaps it is self-awareness or the ability to reason? Those cannot be part of the definition either, since newborn babies lack those abilities. I can not attach a quality to humanity without finding exceptions. There are human beings who lack rationality, emotions, self-awareness, a developed body, etc. and yet they are still considered human beings. Therefore I must conclude that the main and perhaps only quality that defines humanity is life, life that should ideally result in a reasoning, feeling, acting human being. Yet that end result is not necessary to humanity; only the potential is necessary and the potential is only found in life.

About 3,700 human embryos are aborted daily in the United States alone and in the world, approximately 126,000 daily. (Source: The Center for Bioethical Reform) If human embryos are indeed human beings, then that is a genocide.

To rational and sentimental people, art is a powerful force that can be used to help problems like genocide. I think the director, writer and producers of Juno will never know how many live they affected--how many girls they influenced in the right direction. Likewise I think no one will ever no the positive impact of movies like Blood Diamond. How many people have avoided purchasing conflict diamonds because of that movie?

Yet although art can make us aware of the problems in our world and even alleviate them, I do not think it can solve them. What is the solution to these problems? How can we stop brainwashed African child soldiers from massacring a village? Or religious suicide bombers from exploding themselves in the streets? What can we do to stop an entire society that is determined to abort many of its children before they have a chance to even leave the womb?

I don't know.

Books You Should Read...

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:24:07 GMT
I am by no means qualified to compile a book list since I really haven't read enough to do so. But it seems to be the popular thing to do whether you're qualified or not. The following are my ten favorite books that I have read in my four years of high school. When I'm done with four more years of college, perhaps I'll compile a more thorough book list (in the unlikely event that my blog is still alive).

1. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I'm not sure why I love this book so much. Perhaps it's because I relate to the main character to a ridiculous degree. Perhaps it's because the story is captivating. Perhaps it's the contrast between the Christian, the pagan and (especially) the nihilist. Perhaps it's the feeling I had when I finished the book. Perhaps it's all of the above.

2. The Consolation of Philosophy by Anicius Boethius

In the first half of this book has very little original ideas, but what makes it great is that it is a concise summary of much of the Greek philosophy that came before. The second half deals with the will and the determinism vs. free will problem. Read it and you'll never think about freedom of the will in the same way. Also, it is written as a dialogue between Lady Philosophy and Boethius himself, which is a plus for you artistic types.

3. Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

Every Christian in the world needs to read this book. It changes your perception of creation and Christianity. Chesterton has something to say about everything.

4. The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri

So I haven't finished it yet--I'm still on the Purgatorio. Yep it's so good I don't have to finish reading it before I put it on this list. Essentially it is the journey of Dante through hell, purgatory and heaven. Don't let purgatory turn you off Protestants--The Divine Comedy is as much an allegory of the Christian life and journey to God as a description of the afterlife.

5. Confessions by St. Augustine of Hippo

Augustine manages to write a philosophical work that is highly artistic and personal. He is so open about his faults and his quest to overcome lust is excellent reading for anyone who has ever struggled with sin (that would be all of us).

6. A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken

This memoir is a modern Confessions that ends in tragedy. Unrequited love, philosophical insights, a pursuit of truth and some unforgettable letters from C.S. Lewis--what more can you ask for? And unless you are a rational to an unhealthy degree you will feel this story intensely.

7. Phantastes by George MacDonald

MacDonald's forgotten fairy tale allegories are filled with aphorisms about human nature, truth, suffering, good, evil, heaven, hell and everything else. Of the MacDonald books I've read, Phantastes is the best.

8. Second Treatise on Government by John Locke

Everyone who votes should read this book. It was probably the book that most influenced the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers. If you want to understand the Declaration, Constitution and how our republic is supposed to work, pick the book up. It isn't long.

9. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I love Dostoevsky. Everyone should read the big five. But if you only read two of them, Crime and Punishment should definitely be the second. It's a perfect image of what utilitarian ends-justify-the-means ethics can drive a person to do. What's more it paints the mind of a particular type of criminal without error. Critics don't like the end because it is supposedly unrealistic, but I think given the personality of Raskolnikov (the main character), it's the natural conclusion to the story.

10. The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis

This is the modern Divine Comedy. Virgil is replaced by George MacDonald and heaven, purgatory and hell look a bit more modern. Lewis was no Dante, but he filled this book with insights that you shouldn't miss.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:44:27 GMT
I decided recently (but not firmly) that modern capitalism needs a little help.

Socialism is silly because it relies on man's goodwill to produce the best possible goods and service. Wake up socialists, men are selfish pigs. The only way to create an economic system that works well is to force men to help others in order to help themselves.

This is where capitalism comes in. Capitalism relies on man's selfishness (the only reliable quality) to produce the best possible goods and service. To help yourself, you have to help others. The better you help others, the better you help yourself.

Well, ideally that's how it's supposed to work. In reality it falls a bit short.

In industries that are easy to enter (think small businesses), the competition is fierce. Competition causes entrepreneurs to provide the best possible product at the lowest possible price. Everyone's happy.

However, in industries that are extremely difficult to enter (such as the airline industry) there is very little competition. Little competition means little choice. Little choice means that a business' profits are secure. This is not a good thing. If consumers have no choice between businesses, the businesses have no motivation to produce the best possible goods and services. The companies end up offering lazy service and defective products. In addition they will underpay their employees while grossly overpaying the people in the big chairs.

This is a problem. The solution might be more than anti-monopoly laws. I'm beginning to think the government should take a role in industries where no new entrepreneurs are able to enter. This doesn't mean the government should take over industries. That destroys all competition. (Governments are composed of men and men are wicked after all.) However, it might be a good idea for governments to offer a socialized option to people who want a choice in industries where there is little choice. That way the companies in high-and-mighty industries will be forced to raise their standards.

It's still a thought in development but please offer criticism.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:43:15 GMT
"I am a great man."
~Rush Limbaugh, this morning on his radio show. He also quoted from Friedrich Nietzsche to back up whatever stupid argument he was making...and he couldn't pronounce the man's name. I doubt he even knew who Nietzsche was, much less that he was a atheist-nihilist-enemy-of-conservative-values. And that was the first time I've ever listened to Limbaugh's show. What an ass. People are stupid.