Who says what's right and wrong?

Are right and wrong absolute? The answer is no.

We would like to believe that there are a few universal right and wrongs that are accepted everywhere as being right or wrong. Things like, murder, sexual crimes, and stealing are viewed as wrong all across the world.

However, there are areas where these acts are not always seen as being wrong. In South Africa, roughly 1/4 of the men, admit to raping women, and it is considered normal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/18/south-africa-rape-study-1_n_217266.html. Even here in America, some men will drug and rape a woman, and feel no moral complications from it. There are entire groups of people who will "Gang-rape" the same woman, as a form of bonding among the members of the collection. These acts normally viewed as repulsive by much of society, are viewed as normal by some.

Of course those acts are viewed as wrong by most of the world, no matter where. So how about something more controversial, something a little more cultural. Is killing people for religious reasons wrong? Now days most would say so, yes. However, during the crusades hundreds of thousands of people died for religious differences, yet those who killed in the name of their god were viewed as heroes. This still goes on today, as most of the world views the terrorist section of Muslims, as criminals and murderers, as being in the wrong. But, the terrorist see themselves as liberators, and heroes, warriors of god, even. They see their actions as trying to purify the world, we see them as acts of cruelty, and other Muslims see it as blasphemy, and murder of the worst kind.

Lets discuss another controversial issue. Legal age of consent. We here in America have put the age limit at eighteen, and we view any infractions of this age limit as, by even one year, as being a statutory rape. However in Canada, and Japan, the legal age of consent is only 14. Two of our closest ally countries have age limits four years below our own, in America those are grounds for child molestation charges. Most countries, in fact, have a age of consent around 16 years old, www.ageofconsent.com, yet do we view them as being criminal infested? Do we say they are wrong for their ways? No, we say their ages are different because their cultures are different.

Of course, culture is not the only factor that weighs in on what is right or wrong. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances that change what would normally be considered ethical. To illustrate my point, allow me to present to you a situation I came up with during one of my other college classes.

In a Hotel there is a bomb large enough to bring the entire building down, and it is going to explode in ten minutes. There are also two people trapped in the building. You are the only person left, except for those two, who are trapped on separate floors. There is a 65-year-old grandmother on the 4th floor, who is disoriented, which is preventing her from undoing the locks on her door. There is also the 5-year-old girl on the 12th floor, who is not tall enough to undo the top lock on the hotel door. You are on the 1st floor, and no one is allowed in because of the danger, and the elevators are in lockdown. There is not enough time to rescue both people, whom do you rescue? Ethically, the choice would be the 5-year-old girl; she is more prominent then the 65 years old because of the age difference. However, You are not in great physical shape, but running flat out, you think you might be able to climb the twelve floors in five to six minutes. You have a vague idea what number the girls apartment is, however you would still have to break the door down to get to her, there is a fire axe at the end of the hallway, and between getting that and breaking the door, that is another two minutes. So getting the girl would cost you minimum seven minutes, plus you would still need to get back down. The odds are heavily against you for getting the girl, and getting both of you out alive, but there is a slim chance, as you could carry the girl, and going downstairs would be much easier. However, the grandmother is only on the fourth floor. You know you can climb the stairs to her apartment in two-three minutes, getting the axe at the end of her hallway and breaking down her door would take two minutes, leaving you with five minutes to get her, and go back down stairs which will take another two-three minutes, leaving you with an extra two minutes to take her outside and get away from the building. There is a good chance of you succeeding in rescuing the grandmother, and both of you getting out alive. However you would for sure be condemning the girl to death. Who do you save? Barring a miracle, going after the girl would almost positively be a death sentence for all three. So is it not right too save the grandmother instead, both you and she would live, wouldn't be better for two people to guarantee live, then for three to most likely die?

There are a variety of factors that need to be considered when deciding what right, and wrong, and no one person is able to positively decide what is, and is not, right for everyone. There is no absolute right, or wrong.

If i was a book.

If i could be one book, i would be " The Social Contract" by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Why would i be this book? Because it was an exemplary piece of liteature that described the methods of how to set up a justly governing body, that served the peoples will.

In the book Rousseau argues against forms of government that were ruled by a single person, or even a small group of people. He insisted that it was only when the people of the state collectively set up the ruling form of government, that it could be considered a just one.

Rousseau also talked about mankind's rights, and ability to live freely, while serving their fellow man, and how to set up the foundations of a sociable community. By everyone taking up a small bit of responsibility, Rousseau explained that the whole of the community was free, because no one member was given to much work.

Rousseau’s most famous phrase, “Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains,” was a widely popular cry that helped to inspire the revolutions that are responsible for the modern world today. Although not very long, over the span of about 300 pages, Rousseau describes how to create a nearly perfect community, and a decent form of government. Though I do not agree with everything in the book, it is none-the-less a spectacular read.

While some have argued that Rousseau was speaking about a society that would have to be communist in order to exist, http://www.theneohumanist.net/TheNeoCommunistManifesto/rousseaus-general-will, we should remember that Rousseau was a romanticist philosopher, and was a supporter of nationalism, and equality for all members of society, both of which are the basis of communism when taken to the extreme. So of course there would be some communist sounding thoughts. However, Rousseau was also a strong believer that everyone should have the right to be free, be able to live their lives how they want, and that the government should have limited control of the public, quite contrary to communism.

My answer to why I would want to be this book, is that it promoted ideas of ethical, moral, and civil wellness for a society in a time, and place when monarchs ruled the lands however they saw fit. It was a brave piece of liteature, that the founding fathers of American society based many ideas of freedom, and the role of government on. Although there are several other books that would no doubt be more fun to be, like Sherlock Holmes, this is one of the most important books in history, and should be preserved.

If you want to read the social contract, it is available for free at http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

Why do people believe in things that are not, or cannot be proven?

This broad question usually applies, but is not limited to, the existence of God, or any supernatural entities, things like aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, and other paranormal creatures are thought to be real by some, even though they have never been proven to exist after hundreds of years of rumors, and supposed sightings. So why are people still debating that such things exist?

Probably the most prominent reason that people continue to believe is that it gives them hope of something better. If we take a moment to think about life, to think about the world and the people in it, it can be pretty darn depressing. Everyday hundreds of people die in third world countries from diseases, hunger, and civil wars, small militias in Africa continue to kill women, and children because of their ethnic differences. All around the world children are being abused, homeless people are dying in the streets, and with the economy the way it is, more and more people are getting close to being homeless.

Some people try everyday to make a better life for themselves. They say nice guys finish last, that’s because they don’t undercut their friends, they work hard, they follow the rules, and obey the law, only to see criminals, snobs, and jerks being the ones to live happily. They try to live right hoping life will get better, that someway, somehow their life will improve. People hope that what we experience in our life is not all there is, that there is something out there that will be better then what we are living through, or at the very least, make life more bearable. People believe in God, or other divine entities because they hope that by living as a good person in life, they will be rewarded in death, and that they will be protected from the harm others suffer.

Believing in superstitions also gives people a sense of comfort, being able to say that some things are just meant to be when life goes wrong. People, who believe in ghosts, aliens, or other paranormal figures, believe in them because it would show that there is more to life then what we know.

Another reason why people believe in things that cannot be proven is that they cannot be disproven either. While many people say something cannot possibly be real, if there is no proof that it does not exist, then there is a possibility it does exist. Faith does not have to be logical, something does not have to exist to affect a persons life. Who has never broken a mirror, and had something unfortunate happen to them? I have.

Several years ago I broke a mirror while sweeping, and later that day my pet bird died. I don’t believe that the two events are related, but who’s to say they’re not, it was after all, a healthy bird, only six years old, and it just dropped dead for no reason. Was it just coincidence, or was it because I broke the mirror? Many people have their own little rituals, or good luck charms that they truly believe bring them luck, and since it cannot be proven that they don’t, who’s to say it doesn’t?

Of course there are those who say that it is because we believe in something, that it exists at all. http://www.helium.com/items/1604436-superstition-origin-start. Many atheltes have good luck rituals they perform before they compete, whether it’s a prayer, or wearing a certain piece of clothing, it does matter to them if they do it. Scientists call this the placebo affect, where our actions are affected subconsciously by our beliefs when we are put out of our comfort zone.

Other scientists theorize that people believe in superstitions because they help us survive. Kevin Foster, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, in league with Hanna Kokko, have theorized that many superstitions have developed from people associating events that naturally occur together has having mystical meaning. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive.html

An example of such association is the superstition that a circling vulture is an omen of death. Vultures are scavengers with highly developed senses, they can naturally tell when a sick person, or animal is about to die by their scent, then they circle around the dying creature and wait. Its nothing mystic, but people believe it is because there was no other explanation so many hundreds of years ago when the superstition was founded.

So why do people continue to believe in things that cannot be proven? Is it out of ignorance, intuition, or imagination? Or is out of hope that there is something greater than ourselves, and the cruelty of the world? Either way, believing in something helps us by giving us hope. Whether you believe in science to come up with an equation to solve the problem, or you believe God will solve it for you, faith helps us live.

Should reasoning skills be taught in primary school?

This is a question that is more complex then it sounds. At first this question sounds like a no brainer, teaching children to be able to make good decisions based on reasoning and weighing the options, would sound like a good thing. However, there are pro’s and con’s to this.

Some pro’s include; Smarter, Logical, mature attitudes, and more responsible children. Kids would do better in school, and in general life because they would be able to reason the benefits of getting higher grades, staying out of trouble, and the possibilities that they could receive from those later in life.

However, con’s include nearly everything above as well. Smarter kids would be more independent, less emotionally attached to the parents for support. More logical children would also be able to realize the impossibility of things like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the other wonders that make childhood special. Adolescents with mature attitudes would be less likely to follow the advice of their parents, believing they know what best, leading them into trouble. More responsible children would also be more concerned with the affairs of the adult world. Things like war, poverty, the state of the economy, and the precarious balance of power between the nations, would make the kids into depressed limp sacks of sorrow, killing all the joy and memories childhood supposed to give you.

There is also a much darker possibility. Children, who are taught to reason and use logic in making decisions, do not posses the necessary experience to understand that sometimes a logical course of action is not always the best one.

For instance, if one were to use only logic, in a situation where that one is being made to suffer by another, as school kids often do to each other, logic would dictate that the only viable conclusion would be to remove the other to preserve the self. In other words, a child using only logic would see justification in killing another, if the other presented harm to the child. A child using only logic would not see the point in merely walking away, or reporting the incident to an adult because of the chance of revictimization, it would make much more sense to them, to make a permanent end to the problem.

It may be faulty reasoning, but it is logical.

So my final opinion is that reasoning skills should not be taught in primary school.

Is technology destroying our brains?

Are we getting stupider as our technology progresses?

I was in town the other day with friends at the mall, when i noticed four teenagers, probably only 4 or 5 years younger then myself. They were all texting, and despite their close proximety to each other, at least two of them were texting each other. Anyways, while they were texting they were ordering something to eat and when it came time for them to pick up their food, one of them couldn't figure out to put up his cell phone, so he could grab his food and drink. Instead this genius kept his cell phone in one hand picked up his drink and put the edge of the paper cup in between his teeth, and grabbed his food with his other hand. The paper cup of course ripped because of the weight of the fluids in it, and the drink spilled down his front. In that same day i also witnessed someone walk into one of those metal wires that keeps the telephone poles anchored while listening to their mp3 player, not sure if that because his brian was being destroyed by the mp3, but it was funny.

Over the past several years i have also witnessed multiple other acts of stupidity that all had one thing in common, technology.

One of these instances included a scene at best buy, where a couple of people were trying to operate a tv by touching its screen, even though there was a remote right by it. They kept at it for several minutes before one of them realized that it was remote controlled, and tried to operate it with the remote. I say tried, because they failed, they pressed the power off button and could not figure out how to turn it back on, even though there was a button on the front panel of the screen that said power. Eventually they gave up and moved on, but it was still amusing, they reminded me of monkeys at a zoo who stole a ladies cell phone.

I understand everyone has one of those moments where you feel like slapping yourself in the head because it was so obvious, but i could swear that kids these days are getting stupider, or they at least seem to posses less common sense. I bet if some of these kids were taken to the woods where there is no cell phone signal, even if they were given supplies like a tent and food and water, we could come back in a week, and they would all be dead because could not figure out how to build a fire to cook.

I know some people, personally, who would starve with out their microwave, and the only reading they ever do is on the internet. Lets face it, people have become to rely on technology to much.

Blog Test.

Is this thing working?