Familiarity kills a certain perspective. Beginners luck is first time rut. No walls to climb nor dicks to suck.
Traveling slights flexibility to pave a way (to accomplish something you have to stick to a routine, worldview and goals). Disgust and similar emotions are the only ones that really matter at the core of decision making. They are the skin you peel, the main line of defense. The problem is that once broken they can never be reforged, those walls are broken down for good. What’s the difference between the two camps? Not the end result, but the impetus for entering their afterlife from choice? What sorts of people break down the disgust block and what sort keep it up?
___
You just have to do what seems appropriate, just be sure to have a wide enough view that the pros and cons are apparent. Perspective will seem appropriate because you are seeing THROUGH that perspective. The more you adopt the perspective the more that view seems accurate, as a 1:1 correlation. The better it seems the more in tune you are. The natural value is therefore either 100 (detraction) or 0 (addition).
The subconscious mind builds on itself. Does an immortal continuance reach a point where it has to stop trying? If we never reach the point then is that akin to having an infinite supply?
___
Is your brain fundamentally conscious or subconscious? Every brain is split, and that (along with experiences) determine result. Different bits of data (experiences) feed the split feeds. Whatever part of the brain ends up appearing correct is the dominant force. Do you go with what feels correct (subconscious), or with what you have deduced is right (conscious)?
Different flavors of thought = different parts of the brain? Just like memorization has a flavor, or the memory has a flavor imparted through the creation process, flavors of thought can feel mathy or artsy or anything.
You can feel nuances to a thought, and you can also receive data. An idea FEELS right so you take it. Thoughts are cards with feelings attached, and the feelings matter. The thoughts and feelings could have nothing in common, and would be sorted entirely by the thoughts. Thus we are relying on some part of our brain that isn’t conscious to appropriately sort thoughts and feelings, match them up, and deliver them to us.
The conscious mind accepting the necessity of moving the mechanisms of the subconscious, acknowledging the existence and (to some degree) truth present in the subconscious might not be all that matters. Our ability to suss out the important bits shown as the key shows that we have SOME sort of other power for sorting, independent from the subconscious god.
___
It’s all about frame of reference.
Once we accept the error-prone decision making of the subconscious we begin to question: why value the output of the subconscious? If the subconscious has a lot of influence, and we know that it is wrong at least some of the time, shouldn’t we be worried that it’s wrong a lot more but has so much influence we aren’t aware of it?
Everyone has their own tracks to run the train of life over, with advantages and less. The similarity of the track can show signs of underlying form but might not reveal any real wisdom.
This time will feel like the distant past, civil war or whatever, to those who come later. We are the shit medicine tech of the future. We will be remembered as the percent equivalence of the roman empire or the stone age or whatever percent we want. Any percent is possible given enough time with nothing being reset. Does it count if it’s totally by accident? Sure it might increase or decrease from this one, that’s understood, but going forward. Does it start/end a spiral? What are we dealing with? Negatives inflicted in constant are deposited into the minutia of history, but multiplication stays relevant. Where does it end? Or does it ever? See now we’re back to before. It’s a whole thing. Stay exactly even keel. Not even slightly too friendly. Mediocrity is the thing to care about, forever. Trust in the past or the future, we all end up the same given enough time. Does time exist before the creation of reality? False dichotomy, time as defined by time/space duality. No reason to define it that way, contamination!
___
All you have is the moment, so all you can do is steer a little bit, not any kind of monumental change. Sort of like a vote. Maybe it will make a difference, probably it won’t, but those little bits are the only things that EVER achieve anything lasting. You are a small part of the largest party. A bit of empty space in an atom.
___
Strength builds on itself. You should trust the feeling that outstrips the thoughts. There’s something, and there might be more, who’s to judge? Who’s to question.
As a group, fathers who skip out on their children are universally despised. There are websites for showcasing their shame [1] and for bringing them to justice. [2] There is even a new reality show about these “deadbeats.” [3] When we think of a man who skips out on paying child support, we don’t think of the man who cannot afford to pay (and is thrown in jail as a result) [4]. We don’t think of the man whose sperm was stolen from a sperm bank and then used to impregnate his ex-girlfriend [5]. We certainly don’t think of the 15-year-old who was forced to pay child support to the woman who went to jail for statutory rape [6]. No. We think of a caricature. We think of a prowling rake who, after seducing a chaste 16-year-old and convincing her that a condom is unnecessary, skips town as soon as he discovers he is a father.
“Fine,” says the pro-choice progressive, “but those examples you cited are extreme situations. Most ‘deadbeat dads’ could have been more careful and, failing that, they should have paid!”
Let’s look at that first claim. Can we reasonably expect men to “be more careful”? According to Planned Parenthood, men have five options when it comes to male birth control [7]. The first option is using a condom, an option that has an 83% success rate (with typical use) [8]. The next option is “withdrawal,” a method that surpasses condoms in failure, with an 82% success rate [8]. No reliable options so far. The next option is a vasectomy. That’s a bit more permanent than most men would want. Can we really expect every young man to get a vasectomy before ever having sex? The last two options are “outercourse” and abstinence, neither of which are likely to be implemented by very many young couples (those most in need of consistent birth control).
Let’s take a look at one such hypothetical young couple. Jack and Jill are two young lovers who engage in vigorous sex whenever they have the opportunity. They are responsible, so Jack wears a condom. Unfortunately, they are not lucky. Jill becomes pregnant. They are both young professionals, and they see their mentally sculpted futures come crashing to the ground as they tearfully run to the drugstore to purchase another pregnancy test. An hour later, their bathroom floor is covered in used pregnancy tests, and they have to face reality. Jill runs through her options. It’s a bit late in the game, so she really only has three. She can have an abortion (now legal in the vast majority of the developed world), she can give the child up for adoption, or she can keep the baby.
What can Jack do? He has one option: abide by the will of the mother. If she chooses to have an abortion, it doesn’t matter what he wants. If she chooses to give the child up for adoption, he can choose whether he wants to raise it on his own, and he can ask for child support. If she chooses to keep the baby, he is forced to pay child support for a full eighteen years or risk going to jail. He has the “right” to consult with the mother, but, like the pre-19th Amendment housewife who is told she can talk to her husband about his votes (but not vote herself); such a “right” is hardly reassuring.
So should men and women have exactly equal reproductive rights? Probably not. Men and women are not the same. Women get pregnant, men don’t. Women should not be forced to carry a child they do not want, so women should be able to terminate a pregnancy even if the father would rather keep the baby. It’s a sad situation, but it’s the closest to “right” that we are going to get. On the other hand, a man shouldn’t be able to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. He is not carrying the baby. The question then arises, what rights should the man have in that situation, if the mother wants to keep the baby, and the father does not?
If the only argument we ever heard from those who are “pro-choice” was in regards to the pregnancy itself, then it might seem reasonable to say that the man shouldn’t have any rights at all. That isn’t the case, though. As I wrote about in an earlier post [9], a major reason we are “pro-choice” is compassion. We don’t want a woman’s life to be demolished because of one night’s mistake or a failed condom. This argument applies equally well to men. Men shouldn’t have to bear the financial, emotional and legal responsibilities that come with a child (unless they choose to). We have already decided that it’s a tad extreme to argue that a man should be able to force an abortion on a woman, so what are we left with? Opting out. A man should be able to opt-out of being a father.
Yes, that sucks for the mother. If she wants to keep the baby, then she will have to support it on her own. What a person has to recognize, though, is this “unfair” choice that the woman is left with is far superior to what a man has now. As it stands, if the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not, then the father is out of luck. If he pleads and pleads and she is exceptionally compassionate, she might choose to carry the baby and pay child support, but she has the much cheaper and easier option of just getting an abortion.
Let’s join with people like Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women [10], in advocating for a move toward fairness, a move toward compassion, and a move toward fathers’ rights. Let’s also give men the option to opt-out of parenthood.
Abortion is now legal across the vast majority of developed countries, including Russia, China and India, three countries that aren’t exactly known for their championing of human rights. [1] But long after Roe v Wade, the abortion debate continues in the United States. Like most emotionally charged issues, the “debate” is largely a shouting match between two sides, with neither paying very much attention to the points and arguments of the other. The “pro-life” advocates often focus on the argument that a fetus constitutes a human life and that an abortion is the equivalent of murder. The “pro-choice” advocates often focus on “a woman’s right to choose,” when engaged in shouting matches, but that isn’t the real reason most people are pro-choice.
For many, “a woman’s right to choose” is a more positive way of saying “a woman’s right to an abortion,” just as both camps choose appropriately positive words “pro-life,” and “pro-choice,” to define their movements. Others take it further. “Pro-life” advocates insist that a human exists in that fetus, and that it constitutes murder to terminate the pregnancy. An attack on such a position is difficult, as the approach is slippery. We can say all the ways that a fetus is different from a fully grown “human being,” but at some point we have to make a decision. What exactly constitutes a human being? At what point does the state step in and preserve a life?
Men and women who are “pro-choice” believe that fetuses are not human beings, and are moved by sympathy. They recognize that a woman should have “reproductive rights,” as defined by the WHO (in part) as “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number, spacing and timing of their children.” [2] They are moved by empathy. As Barak Obama said during a town hall meeting, “if [his daughters] make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” [3] They believe that women don’t get abortions lightly. According to one poll, 74% of women get an abortion because a baby would “dramatically change” their life, and 73% because they can’t afford a baby. [4]
“A woman’s right to choose” is just a talking point, and the compassion that is the real reason behind “pro-choice” advocates is hidden, as if compassion is somehow shameful. Why do “pro-choice” advocates refrain from appealing to compassion in favor of a talking point? Anything else is messy. Framing the argument as a “rights” issue harkens back to a time that no one can realistically contest, the civil rights movement. If we frame the issue as a “rights” issue regardless of the circumstances involved, regardless of the motivations behind the abortion, we can avoid bringing up that women are asking for abortions out of self-interest. As soon as we abandon this illusory moral high ground and descend to arguments about in what situations a person should have the right to pursue something out of self-interest, we lose our ability to throw thunderbolts down onto Conservatives and Libertarians who are asking for just that right (in other situations).
I can generally speak only for myself. I am “pro-choice” because of two beliefs. First, a fetus does not constitute a human being, and the state does not have a responsibility to protect it. Second, if the state does not have a direct responsibility to protect the life or liberty of a human being, then the state should not act. I think that a woman has “the right to choose” because a woman has the right to do anything she wishes, so long as she doesn’t harm another human being, and we have already determined that a fetus is not a human being. That’s it.
We need to be honest with ourselves about just why we hold the beliefs we do. Our political stances aren’t what define us; our ideals are. We need to abandon talking points and focus on the motivations behind our political beliefs. It makes things messy, sure. Perhaps I’m “pro-choice” for a very different reason than you, or perhaps not. What matters is starting a discourse on the fundamental truths behind morality and government. If we hide behind the abstractions of our beliefs (political stances) we are doing ourselves, our countrymen, and our nation a disservice.
Throughout history there has been a seemingly endless stream of morally reprehensible actions that have been endorsed, supported, and furthered by the vast majority of people. Using the United States as an easy example, some of our most revered leaders throughout history participated in events and institutions that we now recognize as evil. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (the largest contributor to the Constitution) all inherited and then kept large slave plantations. Andrew Jackson’s experiences with slavery were perhaps worse because he started from nothing, and voluntarily choose to enter the slave trade. He also was the main force behind the Indian Removal Act that led to the Trail of Tears and thus the deaths of many innocent people.
How do we reconcile our images of these supposed great characters of history with their participation in such brutal events? The truth is that the vast majority of people will live within the bounds of society: patriotic and selfish, upstanding and backstabbing, kind and cruel. A rare sort of individual is required to buck this social trend: to not only reject society’s views but to actively campaign against them at risk to oneself. That is: to be truly virtuous.
The first reason for this “rarity of virtue” is diffusion of responsibility. The best example to illustrate this is the bystander effect. Basically, if person A is around when person B requires assistance, person A is less likely to help, the more other people are around. Everyone assumes that someone else will help, because helping is inconvenient, and there is probably someone better suited, right? A practical implication of this is that if you ever need someone to call 911 don’t just yell out, “somebody call 911!” Instead, point to someone specific, and tell them to call. To use slavery once again as an example, if you are a poor white person who is just trying to get by in life, and you know that making a fuss about slavery will make you many enemies among not only the elite but the everyman, why would you devote your life to the plight of the slaves? There are people much better suited, and who have much less to lose.
The second reason for the “rarity of virtue” is the difficulty in disobeying authority. First off, as illustrated by the Milgram experiment, and by the millions who either did nothing or even participated in the Nazi genocides, people really don’t want to disobey authority. People obey authority because it’s easy. People obey authority because it’s comforting to trust that someone knows what they’re doing. People obey authority because they could be punished if they don’t. This is especially troubling when you consider that those in power are often those who have the most to gain by preventing change.
The third and, in my opinion, the strongest reason for the “rarity of virtue” is that people don’t like to be separated from the group. The most striking example of this is the Asch conformity experiments. There is debate as to whether the participants generally knew that they were choosing the wrong answer (conformity) or whether they were truly swayed from what should have been obvious by the unanimous incorrect responses of the other participants. For our purposes, it doesn’t matter. Either way, these people were being swayed from what should have been obvious by the opinion of their peers.
A truly virtuous person is rare. A person, first, has to be confident in his own views. So confident that he denies the prevalent opinion and the opinion of those he feels should know better, those in power. Second, he has to feel an obligation to do what he feels is right. It doesn’t matter to him that others “should” be doing it. He sees an obligation to do the correct thing, regardless of the actions of others. Third, he has to be willing to take on great personal harm and ostracization for his opinions. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, such a person has to do something we personally agree with. There are plenty of examples throughout history of people who fit all these criteria but are the exact opposites of people we would call “virtuous.” People like mass murderers Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski were confident in their views, did what they wanted regardless of the thoughts and actions of others, and were willing to take on risk and ostracization. These societal barriers to greatness also serve as safety nets to protect us from the worst parts of human nature.
Thus, although it is easy to dismiss someone like George Washington as a terrible person because of his participation in slavery, it is important to understand the societal pressures with which he was living. It is easy to live in a society that hates slavery and imagine ourselves taking on great personal risk in order to fight for abolitionism, but he was living in a very different time. Instead of shaking our heads in disgust or letting these historical figures off easily, we should use them as a cautionary tale for our own betterment. If such upstanding, important, and “virtuous” characters as Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Jackson participated in such a horrendous practice, then we should be especially vigilant when it comes to our own lives.
I hope none of my readers knowingly participates in such an atrocious practice as slavery, but you have to understand that neither did Washington, Jefferson or the rest. They had a very different understanding of slavery, largely informed by the fact that EVERYONE SAW IT AS “THE WAY THINGS ARE.” It is a lot harder to reject something when everyone else around you doesn’t have a problem with it, and would likely persecute you for voicing a dissenting opinion.
This is a call to arms. Next time you wear fur, eat meat, drive a car, litter, insult someone, or spend money on an expensive bottle of wine instead of giving it to a family in need, ask yourself, “Is this really okay? Am I just letting myself off easy because this is what everyone else does?” If you really want to consider yourself a virtuous person, you have to seriously examine every part of your life, especially those that everyone else seems okay with. Don’t just be content with being against uncontroversial things that everyone around you is against. Be virtuous, not another cog in the machine.
It is fallacious to assume that a midpoint between two points of view is somehow more valid because of its blandness. All the same, in order to avoid false dichotomies, it is often important to reject easy absolutes in support of a much more nebulous, discomforting, and harder to pin down grey area. One dichotomy that necessarily crops up abundantly across our lives is just to what degree we should trust and obey authority.
On the one hand, having an authority that is obeyed is often the surest and fastest way to bring about change. The Romans understood that a supreme authority was a surer way to guarantee their survival during trying times, and so they would choose to replace their senate with a temporary dictator until peace once again reigned. Imperial Russia is filled with prime examples of a supreme monarch using his/her absolute power to bring about far reaching societal changes that were unpopular at the time but were for the good of the country (Peter the Great, for instance, who brought European culture, ideas, and military tactics to Russia). In certain spheres the necessity for some sort of hierarchy of supremacy is understood, as one can see in the militaries around the world.
On the other hand there are plenty of dangers to trusting and obeying authority. As soon as that supreme authority is after disastrous ends those same ends become achieved that much easier. If history is filled with examples of supreme leaders using their powers to achieve great change, it is filled with even more examples of leaders pursing destructive, selfish and genocidal goals. Although it is unclear just how much “wisdom of the crowd” there is, it’s easy enough to say that a large group of people, working in concert, won’t often knowingly contribute to the worsening of society for all of them.
It is important not to become bogged down by a fear of authority. Yes, great harm can more easily be done, but really, anything is made more easy. By creating an entirely democratic society, for instance, it will be harder for the society to target and damage a large percentage of the population, but it will be equally hard to make informed and unpopular decisions for the benefit of the country.
It is my understanding that we must evaluate each situation independently, and figure out just how much authority is warranted in that situation. By delegating increased powers we are increasing the possibility of abuse, but we are also increasing the ability of a person to accrue positive change. Although it is tempting to reject an increased danger out of hand, such an appeal to extremes is unwarranted. As always, the correct course is a dispassionate, patient evaluation of the facts, and to come to a logical conclusion.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the best result is the one that causes the most net positive value overall, however that is defined.
For instance, if it is agreed that any year of life is equal to any other year of life, then if a person who has 50 years of life left can be killed to save 51 years spread across 51 people, without their consent, then that is the right thing to do. Moreover, a moral imperative exists, and not murdering this person is morally wrong. Does this sound okay? If not then you believe (most likely) in some degree of personal liberty, as it conflicts with the utilitarianism choice.
I am a compassionate man. If I saw someone fumbling with a door, I would stop to help. Shoot, I would run to the aid of someone in trouble, if I thought I would make a difference, putting myself in harms way. When it comes to me, if I understand that I could help someone with a lesser cost to myself, I will. To that degree, I believe in utilitarianism.
All of that changes when you involve another person. If person A trips and falls, and struggles to get up, and person B sees, and doesn’t help, I am sad. I think less of person B, and am maybe a little angry. I do not, however, feel that it is a moral imperative for B to stop and help. A person has a right to do what he wants, as long as it does not interfere with another’s similar right. I do not subscribe to the idea that inaction is the same as action. Tripping someone is not the same as not helping someone up.
By being for personal liberty and against utilitarianism, I am willing to make hard choices. It is easy to love your friends; there is no virtue in it. Similarly, there is nothing profound about saying a man should have the right to have a cooking blog. The strength of a person’s convictions is marked by the edges, and I will defend a skinhead’s right to propagate hate. I believe in free speech, even if it will lead to deaths.
I think that this is a disconnect many liberals have with people who advocate conservative financial decisions. I don’t think it is generous to pass legislation to take money from one person and give to another. It is generous to give your own money. Republicans do not believe that poor people do not deserve sympathy, and are subhuman. Republicans acknowledge the terrible condition that people live in, and feel sympathy, they are just less Utilitarian. Just because a person does not do what we would do in their place, and what we feel like they should (ie give money to the poor, instead of buying your fourth house) that does not give us the right to force them to.
I’m still trying to figure out where exactly I fall in the utilitarianism-liberty spectrum, but I think that it is an important idea to contemplate. Jefferson acknowledged this tradeoff, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
I am not absolutely certain about anything. To be absolutely certain one has to mean that no amount of evidence would change his mind. I just don’t have that certainty. All of the memories I have, and the world around me right now, seem to fit perfectly into my understanding of it. If I saw or experienced something that made me question this understanding of the world, I would no doubt gravitate toward my original understanding, simply because one lone experience can’t compete with a lifetime filled with them. If an explanation presented itself that explained both my prior experiences and those I had at that moment, then maybe I would change my worldview.
I say this to illustrate the fact that my lack of complete confidence in anything doesn’t practically affect much, because it changes my evaluation of everything equally.
I think that most people share this method of evaluating ideas.
Agnosticism, to my understanding, is this worldview. The general understanding of the word “agnostic” is to be not sure about something. As I have said, I’m not (really) sure about anything, so this isn’t exceptional to a belief in God. So one can say that it is unknowable absolutely, and I do hold that view, just as I hold it for literally everything else.
Most people are agnostic about most things, with the main exception being a belief in God. For this reason, I can understand why it might make some sense to say that one is “Agnostic when it comes to belief in a God.” The problem comes in when someone answers, “Do you believe in God?” With, “I’m an agnostic.” That isn’t answering the question in any sense. One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. For any possible belief, there is a corresponding range of confidence with which a person holds that belief.
For this reason, I will always be answering “I’m an atheist,” because at the end of the day, that is the belief I hold, even if I’m not absolutely certain of it.
journeymanskeptic 