The death penalty violates basic human rights, and by invoking it, we are being completely hypocritical.
To "Kill and be killed" is a concept that has existed since time began, and it is a basic human instinct to want to eliminate a threat.
But in today's society we are above such things. We have the ability to comprehend human morals, and we must distinguish ourselves from animals. As a government, to approve of the death penalty is to approve of killing, and is completely unorthodox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The death penalty should not be invoked upon any criminals, because only through kindness and forgiveness can we truly move toward a more peaceful society.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Which way does your Moral Compass point?
How often do you question what you believe?
Do you think that your belief system can be categorized?
The article "Which Way does your Moral Compass Point," by Douglas Todd, discusses the categories of Canadians' morals. But how accurately can somebody categorize another's belief?
The article categorizes people into 5 different groups, of which I fit into none. This, more than anything, has made me disbelieve that one cannot categorize a person's values. However, I also believe that religion does just that. When people are brought into a certain religion, they are automatically forced to believe in the beliefs of it, and therefore categorized. One can say that a person has "Christian values," if they are a Christian. This conformist aspect of society is what causes people to never question what they believe, and strips them of their own right to choose their beliefs.
I question what I believe every day, and I try to critically analyze all moral situations I am presented with.
I believe that the three most important factors in my life that affect what my value system are my parents, religion, and culture.
My parents are amazing critical thinkers, and they have taught me the difference between right and wrong. Not only that, but they have helped me learn to critically analyze moral situations. They have not told me what to believe, but given me the tools to make my own decision.
I am an Atheist, and it is more my lack of religion, than my religion, that has allowed me to make moral choices. Not having a religion has allowed me to make my own choices about my morals, rather than having them told to me.
My culture has also influenced my morals. Rather than make me conform to the norm in western society, people's unerring belief in certain ideologies has made me question why I should believe in them. I have also been able to experience many different cultures, and this has made me more open to question my beliefs.
The ideologies presented by all people are acceptable, on certain conditions. If they have had a chance to question their beliefs, and still accept them, then they are acceptable. If people have had a chance to explore a different number of beliefs, and not simply be forced into believing something simply because it is a part of their heritage, then they have had a chance to choose what they will believe, and have therefore critically examined what they choose to believe.
I have a very strong sense of what I believe is right and wrong, but I am able to see the grey areas, and do not accept anything at face value. It is important to be able to see all sides of an issue before you choose one.
My morals have never been completely set. My morals are constantly changing, depending on situations that present themselves. The influence of other people makes me constantly call into question my beliefs, and I try never to be too set in what I think.
It is important to make your opinion heard, but if people truly believe it is wrong, you cannot force them to see the right. As long as people have really examined my viewpoint, and not simply rejected it because it is not the same as theirs, then I will not attempt to impress it upon them.
Do you think that your belief system can be categorized?
The article "Which Way does your Moral Compass Point," by Douglas Todd, discusses the categories of Canadians' morals. But how accurately can somebody categorize another's belief?
The article categorizes people into 5 different groups, of which I fit into none. This, more than anything, has made me disbelieve that one cannot categorize a person's values. However, I also believe that religion does just that. When people are brought into a certain religion, they are automatically forced to believe in the beliefs of it, and therefore categorized. One can say that a person has "Christian values," if they are a Christian. This conformist aspect of society is what causes people to never question what they believe, and strips them of their own right to choose their beliefs.
I question what I believe every day, and I try to critically analyze all moral situations I am presented with.
I believe that the three most important factors in my life that affect what my value system are my parents, religion, and culture.
My parents are amazing critical thinkers, and they have taught me the difference between right and wrong. Not only that, but they have helped me learn to critically analyze moral situations. They have not told me what to believe, but given me the tools to make my own decision.
I am an Atheist, and it is more my lack of religion, than my religion, that has allowed me to make moral choices. Not having a religion has allowed me to make my own choices about my morals, rather than having them told to me.
My culture has also influenced my morals. Rather than make me conform to the norm in western society, people's unerring belief in certain ideologies has made me question why I should believe in them. I have also been able to experience many different cultures, and this has made me more open to question my beliefs.
The ideologies presented by all people are acceptable, on certain conditions. If they have had a chance to question their beliefs, and still accept them, then they are acceptable. If people have had a chance to explore a different number of beliefs, and not simply be forced into believing something simply because it is a part of their heritage, then they have had a chance to choose what they will believe, and have therefore critically examined what they choose to believe.
I have a very strong sense of what I believe is right and wrong, but I am able to see the grey areas, and do not accept anything at face value. It is important to be able to see all sides of an issue before you choose one.
My morals have never been completely set. My morals are constantly changing, depending on situations that present themselves. The influence of other people makes me constantly call into question my beliefs, and I try never to be too set in what I think.
It is important to make your opinion heard, but if people truly believe it is wrong, you cannot force them to see the right. As long as people have really examined my viewpoint, and not simply rejected it because it is not the same as theirs, then I will not attempt to impress it upon them.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Orthodoxy is unconsciousness
"How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." ~pg. 56
Within this passage, Syme discusses the dictionary of Newspeak, and the fact that when it is published, it will abolish all opposites. Not only that, but it will destroy scores of words, and "[cut] the language down to the bone."
The concept that "freedom is slavery" is a prevalent theme in the book, yet the idea that freedom will be abolished completely changes the entire "climate of thought" of the society. One must question how slavery can exist when freedom has been abolished. For instance, can one say "unslavery is slavery," or simply "slavery?"
By the quote "freedom is slavery," the government means that one does not have the burden of thought if one is a slave, and in this we truly achieve freedom. And yet, if one abolishes the concept of freedom, is one still truly free if they are not burdened with thought, or in this unconsciousness are we truly oppressed? To say that "orthodoxy is unconsciousness" is the same as saying "heresy is consciousness," but how are those who follow orthodoxy to know of heresy if they are truly slaves of thought? And are the leaders of the society truly heretic, because they must consciously oppress their followers?
Propaganda is one of the most important tools of the government. It allows them to gain control of others' thoughts by warping the meaning of different concepts. Unfortunately, by abolishing various concepts, such as freedom, they are essentially abolishing their ability to control the public, and therefore abolishing their regime. To replace a slogan such as "freedom is slavery" with "unslavery is slavery" would open the minds of the citizens to the thought that in "unslavery," how can one find "slavery," as they directly contradict each other. Yet to use the quote "slavery," would give rise to the understanding that the citizens are all truly slaves.
In total, is language truly a contributing factor in the oppression of a society, or do the conscious thoughts and actions of a totalitarian government make or break the regime?
Within this passage, Syme discusses the dictionary of Newspeak, and the fact that when it is published, it will abolish all opposites. Not only that, but it will destroy scores of words, and "[cut] the language down to the bone."
The concept that "freedom is slavery" is a prevalent theme in the book, yet the idea that freedom will be abolished completely changes the entire "climate of thought" of the society. One must question how slavery can exist when freedom has been abolished. For instance, can one say "unslavery is slavery," or simply "slavery?"
By the quote "freedom is slavery," the government means that one does not have the burden of thought if one is a slave, and in this we truly achieve freedom. And yet, if one abolishes the concept of freedom, is one still truly free if they are not burdened with thought, or in this unconsciousness are we truly oppressed? To say that "orthodoxy is unconsciousness" is the same as saying "heresy is consciousness," but how are those who follow orthodoxy to know of heresy if they are truly slaves of thought? And are the leaders of the society truly heretic, because they must consciously oppress their followers?
Propaganda is one of the most important tools of the government. It allows them to gain control of others' thoughts by warping the meaning of different concepts. Unfortunately, by abolishing various concepts, such as freedom, they are essentially abolishing their ability to control the public, and therefore abolishing their regime. To replace a slogan such as "freedom is slavery" with "unslavery is slavery" would open the minds of the citizens to the thought that in "unslavery," how can one find "slavery," as they directly contradict each other. Yet to use the quote "slavery," would give rise to the understanding that the citizens are all truly slaves.
In total, is language truly a contributing factor in the oppression of a society, or do the conscious thoughts and actions of a totalitarian government make or break the regime?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Something to talk about....
-Gossip has 2 sides.
-Gossip can make people feel superior to others.
-Gossip can help us gather information we need to know.
-If you stay within limits, gossip is an ethical activity.
-Gossip is given a bad name by people who take it too far.
The article "Gossip, when it's not too nasty, it has it's good side," by Douglas Todd, examines the two very different sides of gossip, and how it can be an ethical activity, though it is given a bad name.
The argument by Douglas Todd that gossip can at times be an ethical activity is unfounded and repetitive. Todd opens with an introduction, and then proceeds to spend a third of his article citing the more usual argument concerning the negative implications of gossip. He states that journalists can "revel too much in negative, unsubstantiated tales about others," and that "malicious gossip...led to the untimely deaths of both Jesus and Socrates." Todd then states that "If you define gossip as spreading derogatory, unconfirmed information about someone, clearly that is unfair and dangerous." Unfortunately, he fails to state how he would define gossip more positively.
The correct definition of gossip, according to dictionary.com, is "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others." Todd confuses meaningful communication about factual information, personal or otherwise, with the term "gossip," which, by dictionary definition is an incorrect use of the word.
Some of his examples, such as the "initially murky tip," regarding Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest, perhaps should not have been published, as they were merely "malicious gossip," until later confirmed by independent sources. However, Todd's argument is that unconfirmed reports, such as this one, can, in effect, act as advertising for further substantiated information.
Hypocritical Todd would have us believe that by "publicizing revelations" about J. Edgar Hoover, we would prevent Hoover from "publicizing revelations" about other Americans. What this example illustrates, more than anything, is the morality of the press at the time, and their unwillingness to attack powerful governmental figures.
I would also make the point that while Todd thinks that truth is a justification of vicious gossip, some truthful gossip can be used as a weapon, just as much as untruthful gossip.
The remainder of Todd's argument comes down to the fact that gossip can be good if good people do it with discretion, and don't make it the center of their lives. Unfortunately, if you asked most people, they would probably consider themselves good.
Response to Sam's blog post:
I agree with Sam, unfortunately, the statistics in Todd's article suggest that gossip is not going to go away. Simply disagreeing with gossip does not change the amount of gossip that is spread. It also does not provide a moral framework with which to judge gossip upon. While Sam makes good points about the confusing feelings gossip can cause, she does not back up her argument, or provide a solution for the problems gossip poses.
-Gossip can make people feel superior to others.
-Gossip can help us gather information we need to know.
-If you stay within limits, gossip is an ethical activity.
-Gossip is given a bad name by people who take it too far.
The article "Gossip, when it's not too nasty, it has it's good side," by Douglas Todd, examines the two very different sides of gossip, and how it can be an ethical activity, though it is given a bad name.
The argument by Douglas Todd that gossip can at times be an ethical activity is unfounded and repetitive. Todd opens with an introduction, and then proceeds to spend a third of his article citing the more usual argument concerning the negative implications of gossip. He states that journalists can "revel too much in negative, unsubstantiated tales about others," and that "malicious gossip...led to the untimely deaths of both Jesus and Socrates." Todd then states that "If you define gossip as spreading derogatory, unconfirmed information about someone, clearly that is unfair and dangerous." Unfortunately, he fails to state how he would define gossip more positively.
The correct definition of gossip, according to dictionary.com, is "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others." Todd confuses meaningful communication about factual information, personal or otherwise, with the term "gossip," which, by dictionary definition is an incorrect use of the word.
Some of his examples, such as the "initially murky tip," regarding Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest, perhaps should not have been published, as they were merely "malicious gossip," until later confirmed by independent sources. However, Todd's argument is that unconfirmed reports, such as this one, can, in effect, act as advertising for further substantiated information.
Hypocritical Todd would have us believe that by "publicizing revelations" about J. Edgar Hoover, we would prevent Hoover from "publicizing revelations" about other Americans. What this example illustrates, more than anything, is the morality of the press at the time, and their unwillingness to attack powerful governmental figures.
I would also make the point that while Todd thinks that truth is a justification of vicious gossip, some truthful gossip can be used as a weapon, just as much as untruthful gossip.
The remainder of Todd's argument comes down to the fact that gossip can be good if good people do it with discretion, and don't make it the center of their lives. Unfortunately, if you asked most people, they would probably consider themselves good.
Response to Sam's blog post:
I agree with Sam, unfortunately, the statistics in Todd's article suggest that gossip is not going to go away. Simply disagreeing with gossip does not change the amount of gossip that is spread. It also does not provide a moral framework with which to judge gossip upon. While Sam makes good points about the confusing feelings gossip can cause, she does not back up her argument, or provide a solution for the problems gossip poses.
Does your digital self reflect your identity or create it?
-Our "thirst to be understood" is what drives us to seek out connections, and lie, online.
-The Internet was not created for us.
-Our compulsion to "deceive both ourselves and others" is a "fundamental part of human nature."
"Can we trust anything people say online?"
The Internet can not only warp your definition of reality, but it can profoundly alter your morals. Many people try to deceive both themselves and others by creating an alternate persona for themselves online. This blatant denial of reality is an increasing problem in our society. While we do have a "thirst to be understood," I do not believe that devoting time to the Internet is the way to interact and develop relationships with people. The Internet can not only create a "dysfunctional intimacy," it can deceive us into believing that what happens online is truly as important as our face to face interactions. The Internet was "designed by the Cold War," and we must remember that it was created as a tool of espionage and deceit. Although the article states that our compulsion to "deceive both ourselves and others" is a "fundamental part of human nature," I would be much more willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt in person, and to distrust them on the Internet. However, there are certain aspects of the Internet which can be useful. If we are connecting with people we already know, are communicating with people who are important and meaningful in other facets of our lives, or are gathering information from a trusted source, then the Internet can be a tool of amazing force. If you are not careful, the Internet can addict you, and warp your definition of reality, human nature, and morality.
-The Internet was not created for us.
-Our compulsion to "deceive both ourselves and others" is a "fundamental part of human nature."
"Can we trust anything people say online?"
The Internet can not only warp your definition of reality, but it can profoundly alter your morals. Many people try to deceive both themselves and others by creating an alternate persona for themselves online. This blatant denial of reality is an increasing problem in our society. While we do have a "thirst to be understood," I do not believe that devoting time to the Internet is the way to interact and develop relationships with people. The Internet can not only create a "dysfunctional intimacy," it can deceive us into believing that what happens online is truly as important as our face to face interactions. The Internet was "designed by the Cold War," and we must remember that it was created as a tool of espionage and deceit. Although the article states that our compulsion to "deceive both ourselves and others" is a "fundamental part of human nature," I would be much more willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt in person, and to distrust them on the Internet. However, there are certain aspects of the Internet which can be useful. If we are connecting with people we already know, are communicating with people who are important and meaningful in other facets of our lives, or are gathering information from a trusted source, then the Internet can be a tool of amazing force. If you are not careful, the Internet can addict you, and warp your definition of reality, human nature, and morality.
Friday, November 16, 2007
The Silent Raga
I have just started reading the novel "Silent Raga," by Ameen Merchant, after seeing him give a lecture at the Vancouver International Writer's Festival. This book is amazing.
When Merchant was young, he read a novel by a famous Indian author that tells the tale of a girl who's sister runs away from home, unfortunately, the novel told nothing about what happened to the sister, and he decided to tell her story.
The novel is filled with beautiful images of southern India, and the story is insightful and extremely well written.
I would highly recommend this book.
When Merchant was young, he read a novel by a famous Indian author that tells the tale of a girl who's sister runs away from home, unfortunately, the novel told nothing about what happened to the sister, and he decided to tell her story.
The novel is filled with beautiful images of southern India, and the story is insightful and extremely well written.
I would highly recommend this book.
What is this quintessence of dust?
The painting "Starry Night," by Vincent Van Gogh, has a similar emotional reaction and theme to the poem "What a Piece of Work is Man," by William Shakespeare. The dark colours and textures of the painting bring to mind the "brave o'erhanging firmament" of the sky, and how it is a "magestical roof fretted with golden fire." Although the painting is beautiful, it also brings to mind the feeling that the sky is a "foul and pestilent congregation of vapours." The small town in the painting, with its prominent church, gives a feeling of cozy comfort, peace, and serenity, and depicts man as "the beauty of the world, [and] the paragon of animals." The skill of the artist and the beauties of the painting show man as "noble in reason...infinite in faculty," and "express and admirable" in form and reason. The theme of the painting, and of the poem, directly compare, as they are both about man's small and insignificant place in the universe. However, the poem's theme is also a connotation of a pessimistic view of life, and a "[loss] of mirth," while the painting more directly brings to mind optimism at the vast beauty of the universe. All in all, the emotions and themes of the painting "Starry Night," by Vincent Van Gogh, and the poem "What a piece of work is Man," by William Shakespeare, share many similarities, and both bring to mind man's insignificant place in the universe. What are we, if not a "quintessence of dust?"
~
~
Link to "What a piece of Work is Man?"
Lines 305-320
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)