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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)