I have been lately reading a little bit about the animal rights concept, especially as it applies to justify veganism as an ethical choice, and one concept is introduced titled "speciesism", which is roughly defined as discriminating life forms according to their species. The purpose of this term is to draw parallels between sexism and racism which are generally considered as questionable practices, and raising the question of why speciesism is considered acceptable.
It should be noted that for me personally, my general attitude against racism and sexism is not axiomatic (axiomatic roughly means being regarded as an assumption). It is a derivative position. In other words, it is a consequence of other principles that I consider axiomatic, rather than a position that I hold for it's own sake. Additionally, I believe that people have a right to practice private sexism and private racism, my objection lies in institutionalized sexism and racism. In other words, sexism and racism should not exist in the legal system, however private citizens are still allowed to practice sexism and racism.
If this idea is not clear, let's see what criminalization of private sexism and racism would entail. If private racism was not allowed, there would be laws against having an unequal number of while-skinned and black-skinned friends. Would you think that a law should exist that prevents individuals from having all their friends white-skinned and none black-skinned?! I don't think that such law is desirable in any way. Same applies to opposing private sexism. Opposing private sexism would come into direct contradiction with LGBT rights for example. Should there be laws banning individuals from having sexual orientations like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and requiring all individuals to become bisexuals because this is the direct consequence of abandoning gender discrimination?! Obviously, such law is abusive and undesirable. This does not mean that racism and sexism are desirable in private interactions, however it does mean that there should not exist laws that ban the practice for private citizens.
These examples show why sexism and racism should not be considered axiomatic. This at least opens up speciesism to the view that abandoning this practice should not be considered axiomatic.
Let's explore the reason that animal rights advocates claim that killing animals constitutes speciesism. The argument goes that if we as humans consider it illegal to kill other human beings, why is it that animals are not held in the same regard. Such argument might seem reasonable at first, but I can identify few problems.
The first problem I see is that what animal rights advocates claim to be abandoning speciesism is itself an act of speciesism. It is natural that animals prey on other animals. Animal rights advocates (I assume) would not object if a lion killed a deer for food. But they would object if a human did that same action. Isn't that a form of discrimination?! I find it hard to argue that this would not entail some forms of discrimination. The only solution to this problem is to ban carnivores from preying on other animals, which would bring a whole new set of problems.
Another problem I see is the discrimination of the plant kingdom and animal kingdom, which is being systematically advocated by veganism. This of course is also a form of speciesism(*). Animal rights advocates ask the question of why we are willing to give humans rights, without providing the same rights to animals. But then again, why not give plants the same rights as those animals?! If discrimination is the principle involved that is deemed objectionable, then discriminating animals and plants raises serious questions in regards to that principle.
It should be noted that those problems are not sufficient arguments to discredit animal rights, but they do challenge speciesism as an argument for that position.
(*)PS: Technically, this should be called "kingdomism" not "speciesism". However, the underlying principle is the same. Why is it okay to practice kingdomism but not speciesism?!
Showing posts with label Darwinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwinism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Homosexuality And Darwinism
The other day I was thinking of how homosexuality came into existence, and whether or not homosexuality might be genetically influenced. The idea is that if homosexuality was nothing more than an anomaly, you would expect it to vanish, or at least be a very rare case. But the matter of fact is that homosexuality is common, and it would be very hard to suggest that it's an anomaly.
One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".
But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.
This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:
In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted
One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".
But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.
This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:
Darwin had very specific sex roles for males and females. He wrote that females are docile and dainty and always prefer mates who are attractive and vigorous. But the world doesn't work like that. A quick look at humans tells you that women don't always prefer musclebound models. It's really obvious, but women choose all kinds of men as mates, and very rarely do those choices have to do with exhibited traits, like the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers, that Darwin thought represented "good genes."
In fact, the whole good-gene idea is suspect. The idea that a female could look at a male and tell by his appearance how good his genes are and how those genes are going to play out in 20 years is extremely far-fetched. Scientists have been trying to prove this idea experimentally, and it never bears out. It doesn't bear out, because not even supercomputers can offer that kind of predictability. (source)
In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted
Friday, March 21, 2008
Slaves Until Things Change
This post was provoked by a fictional story about a fictional girl character who is a spinster. The theme [-that is relevant to this post-] is that this girl lives in a conservative society where pre-marital relationships are taboo. This girl is disconnected from the male-world for too long that she got to an age where she is no longer marriage material. This girl feels that she has been unfairly made into an outcast. At some point she says (and I quote): "I protected their honor. I played with their rules. I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough." - This sentence provoked me by what I would consider extreme stupidity - the thing that I consider the greatest sin of all sins.
No one would respect an "ass-kisser"!! If someone spends his\her life trying to play by other people's rules, they become slaves. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the rules people make are self-interested. Each person makes the rules that serve them, and if someone else plays by those rules, they become slaves to the person/system who made those rules!!
Sure everyone loves to have a slave, but no-one respects a slave. And thats exactly whats going on: People make some rules about how a "nice" person behaves... And someone decides to be the "nice" person... And they get all the compliments... In case of our fictional character, it's the girl who is too busy being nice, because she is being called "honorable", "pure", and "chaste"... Or in other words: A good slave! A good slave who nobody wants to do anything with, except to keep her a slave for as long as possible!!
This fictional character was too busy being a humble slave that she forgets about herself. She thinks that when people applaud her, they applaud her for being a good person, when in fact they applaud her for being an ignorant person and a good slave! And not until later in her life the she understood the hypocrisy of the system that she was indulging in...
She argues: "I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough.", oblivious to the fact that working hard to make everyone happy is exactly the reason why she has never been good enough... No slave is ever good enough, there are always more things that a slave needs to do to please his\her master! Heck, the argument itself seems like an "ass-kissing" attempt...
This spinster girl is also taken as a model for the topic of suppression of women. If we go the sexists' way, and model men and women as systems in and of themselves, we may say that each system has its own self-interesting rules that each wishes to enforce. It is generally thought that the men's system of rules are dominant. Under this assumption -which I actually don't think actually holds- it is said that women are suppressed by men. If men were suppressing women, for all I know, they should continue doing so, until women wake up from their nap! Its like a slave humbly asking his master to set him free... But this slave won't get his freedom by begging for it, but rather by fighting for it!
But in truth, this is not a case of one gender dominating the other... Each and everyone of us -who wishes to be free- needs to fight... No slave is set free by a begging! It has been said: "People are born free!" which is true, the question is: "Why did they sell themselves to slavery?!"
It's easier said than done, but I think we should stop for a second and ask ourselves: Do I want to be an ass-kisser?! Will ass-kissing get me anywhere beside being eventually neglected?!
Viva La Revolution!
PS: This post does NOT reflect the original character in the aforementioned story. The character was purposefully taken out-of-context for the purpose of making this post!
PS: Here is an alternative link to the story
No one would respect an "ass-kisser"!! If someone spends his\her life trying to play by other people's rules, they become slaves. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the rules people make are self-interested. Each person makes the rules that serve them, and if someone else plays by those rules, they become slaves to the person/system who made those rules!!
Sure everyone loves to have a slave, but no-one respects a slave. And thats exactly whats going on: People make some rules about how a "nice" person behaves... And someone decides to be the "nice" person... And they get all the compliments... In case of our fictional character, it's the girl who is too busy being nice, because she is being called "honorable", "pure", and "chaste"... Or in other words: A good slave! A good slave who nobody wants to do anything with, except to keep her a slave for as long as possible!!
This fictional character was too busy being a humble slave that she forgets about herself. She thinks that when people applaud her, they applaud her for being a good person, when in fact they applaud her for being an ignorant person and a good slave! And not until later in her life the she understood the hypocrisy of the system that she was indulging in...
She argues: "I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough.", oblivious to the fact that working hard to make everyone happy is exactly the reason why she has never been good enough... No slave is ever good enough, there are always more things that a slave needs to do to please his\her master! Heck, the argument itself seems like an "ass-kissing" attempt...
This spinster girl is also taken as a model for the topic of suppression of women. If we go the sexists' way, and model men and women as systems in and of themselves, we may say that each system has its own self-interesting rules that each wishes to enforce. It is generally thought that the men's system of rules are dominant. Under this assumption -which I actually don't think actually holds- it is said that women are suppressed by men. If men were suppressing women, for all I know, they should continue doing so, until women wake up from their nap! Its like a slave humbly asking his master to set him free... But this slave won't get his freedom by begging for it, but rather by fighting for it!
But in truth, this is not a case of one gender dominating the other... Each and everyone of us -who wishes to be free- needs to fight... No slave is set free by a begging! It has been said: "People are born free!" which is true, the question is: "Why did they sell themselves to slavery?!"
It's easier said than done, but I think we should stop for a second and ask ourselves: Do I want to be an ass-kisser?! Will ass-kissing get me anywhere beside being eventually neglected?!
Viva La Revolution!
PS: This post does NOT reflect the original character in the aforementioned story. The character was purposefully taken out-of-context for the purpose of making this post!
PS: Here is an alternative link to the story
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?
Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?: A question posed by Natasha in this blog entry that I felt is interesting to further analyze.
Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.
Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.
Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.
Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.
Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!
Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.
Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.
Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.
Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.
Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!
Monday, May 14, 2007
Keeping Myself Alive Through Your Empathy
Keeping myself alive...
Through your EMPATHY (Slipknot - Skin Ticket)
Begging is an art. Sure we all get annoyed by those nuisances who get in our ways in public places asking for our money. But from a different perspective, they have learnt some lessons in life that an average person wouldn't know: The human fragility, ego, sympathy and empathy.
Humans express a wide range of emotions, and being able to interact with those emotions is an art. Consider this little girl, dressed in a nice modest-looking dress, selling a small white or red flower for at some overpriced rate. Guess most of us have seen her one time or another.... A classic, we've all heard bedtime stories about a princess with a flower in her hand... So boom, there goes that girl shattering all that you know as child, asking for your "generosity"... Can you resist the temptation?!.... So, how much of an effort did that girl put to come up with such a brilliant idea?! It needs an expert psychologist to figure this one out!!!
In some cultures, parents would not give their daughters to a man for marriage if he didn't get out begging for at least a week. They believe that a man who cannot beg is not worthy of their daughter... Why is begging so important in such a culture that it can make a difference between a worthy husband and an unworthy one?!
It is true that in many cases a nice word or a simple gesture, can achieve more than hardship. Maybe this is the lesson that beggars understand better than anyone else. Maybe we can have a new requirement for certain jobs to get a "begging tour". Jobs like customer care, or maybe sales representatives (practically, "sales" is "corporate beggary") can make use of experience gained through begging.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Contractism And Social Order
Contractism is the notion that humans have their full spectrum of personal liberties where ONLY some forms contracts (mutual agreement) can be binding by law. Many of current practices involve contractism. Capitalism is one of the systems that closely resemble contractism. In our world, almost everyone is familiar with the standard procedure for making contracts. A printed paper with two signatures. The terms of the agreement are binding to both parties. This is the simplest form making contracts.
In contractism, all laws are abandoned in favor of contracts. Thats to say, contracts are the whole law. People are born with neither rights nor duties. No law applies to anyone unless they explicitly agreed to be binded by that law. This is the simplest concept contractism. Our current policies are not completely compatible with contractism. The first problem is that contracts are NOT fully enforced. Second, the current laws impose limitations on contracts.
Living in society is a form of a social contract. A community of people agree to certain rules that members of that community (alternatively called "citizens") are expected to follow in order to retain certain services back from their community. This would be the simplest form of what we might call a "government".
Think about it this way: You are born with neither rights nor duties. [This is the natural state everyone is living in.] The place you live in is a Jungle. People are killing each other, stealing from one another, everything is in a mayhem. Being concerned about your own security, you reach out to other people in your community as agree that: "I will not fight you, if you dont fight me. I will not take your food, if you don't take mine. I promise not to attack you, if you promise not to attach me.".... This is the simplest form of social order. This mutual agreement now becomes the new law. At this point, not all those who live with you have agreed to this "peace agreement", so you make more agreements with your fellows. Say, you agree that: "If a person or an animal attacked you, I will get your back, if you promise to get my back in a similar situation." In this example, we can see how people can agree to a law, and how they can protect one another and defend them from external threats. This collection of social contracts and conventions are called social order.
In this view we can realize a few things: In contractism, social contracts are optional. Social contracts are reached through mutual agreements. If someone refuses to be bound by the social contract, that would be their free choice, but they have no rights and no grantees about anything. To give a few examples of what this means, consider these scenarios: A person has the right to refuses to pay taxes, but this would exclude him from public services like public schools, social security,...etc. A person who refuses to respect the property rights of others [ie. steals their property], would have no grantee that his property would not be stolen as well.
In contractism, all laws are abandoned in favor of contracts. Thats to say, contracts are the whole law. People are born with neither rights nor duties. No law applies to anyone unless they explicitly agreed to be binded by that law. This is the simplest concept contractism. Our current policies are not completely compatible with contractism. The first problem is that contracts are NOT fully enforced. Second, the current laws impose limitations on contracts.
Living in society is a form of a social contract. A community of people agree to certain rules that members of that community (alternatively called "citizens") are expected to follow in order to retain certain services back from their community. This would be the simplest form of what we might call a "government".
Think about it this way: You are born with neither rights nor duties. [This is the natural state everyone is living in.] The place you live in is a Jungle. People are killing each other, stealing from one another, everything is in a mayhem. Being concerned about your own security, you reach out to other people in your community as agree that: "I will not fight you, if you dont fight me. I will not take your food, if you don't take mine. I promise not to attack you, if you promise not to attach me.".... This is the simplest form of social order. This mutual agreement now becomes the new law. At this point, not all those who live with you have agreed to this "peace agreement", so you make more agreements with your fellows. Say, you agree that: "If a person or an animal attacked you, I will get your back, if you promise to get my back in a similar situation." In this example, we can see how people can agree to a law, and how they can protect one another and defend them from external threats. This collection of social contracts and conventions are called social order.
In this view we can realize a few things: In contractism, social contracts are optional. Social contracts are reached through mutual agreements. If someone refuses to be bound by the social contract, that would be their free choice, but they have no rights and no grantees about anything. To give a few examples of what this means, consider these scenarios: A person has the right to refuses to pay taxes, but this would exclude him from public services like public schools, social security,...etc. A person who refuses to respect the property rights of others [ie. steals their property], would have no grantee that his property would not be stolen as well.
Friday, February 02, 2007
I Think Therefore I Exist, Or Do I?
One of the famous quotes in history is the "I think therefore I am" statement by Descartes. But is this statement true?! I think not! At least not objectively. In subjective theories, that assumes cognition at some point, this statement might be justified within that context.
I think therefore I exist, is a complex statement that can be reduced to three simpler statements:
This statement is in the logical deductive reasoning form:
Here we have two premises (1) and (2), and one conclusion (3). In order to verify the claims of Descartes we have to inquire the validity of its premises. In this post, I will not discuss the first premise, but the second one.
Do Humans have the ability to think?! Some might argue positively... Descartes apparently supports this view. I disagree. Humans cannot think.
To think is to be creative. To think is to be free. Humans are neither creative nor free! We might think we are creative and free - This is the illusion that eluded even the most reputable philosophers. This view is influenced by my pessimistic incompatibilism views.
So how do we explain those illusions?! What most humans fail to see is that our consciousness is merely an advanced form of Artificial Intelligence. Actually, its more like Naturally-Implied Intelligence, but my point is, we are no better than an intelligent machine. If we consider things more deeply, we find that an intelligent machine is not much different from a non-intelligent one. So we're no better than any machine if we consider things at the low level. I already discussed this perspective before. Our survival depends on being self-protective. This recognition of self is the source of our illusion to think and existence. We would not protect what does not exist. If we acknowledge our inexistence, then our survival will be endangered. Nature has its own ways of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest... Its ironical that an illusion is what gives us our strength, but well.. Thats how things work!
So far, I have considered "thinking" in a very strict notion. A notion that requires creativity and freewill. To ease things up, one can consider a less strict concept of thinking. Such model would be even more tolerant, that it might even include machines as being able to think. Personally, I got no problem with this view. If a machine was so sophisticated in a way that is comparable to humans, I guess we have to acknowledge it as a being of worthy existence. If we adopt this view, maybe few years later, we will see "Machine Rights" activists!! Seriously!
Back to the fist premise... Does ability to think imply existence?! I will leave this question open for the time being...
I think therefore I exist, is a complex statement that can be reduced to three simpler statements:
- If it thinks then it exists
- I think
- I exist
This statement is in the logical deductive reasoning form:
- p => q
- p
- q
Here we have two premises (1) and (2), and one conclusion (3). In order to verify the claims of Descartes we have to inquire the validity of its premises. In this post, I will not discuss the first premise, but the second one.
Do Humans have the ability to think?! Some might argue positively... Descartes apparently supports this view. I disagree. Humans cannot think.
To think is to be creative. To think is to be free. Humans are neither creative nor free! We might think we are creative and free - This is the illusion that eluded even the most reputable philosophers. This view is influenced by my pessimistic incompatibilism views.
So how do we explain those illusions?! What most humans fail to see is that our consciousness is merely an advanced form of Artificial Intelligence. Actually, its more like Naturally-Implied Intelligence, but my point is, we are no better than an intelligent machine. If we consider things more deeply, we find that an intelligent machine is not much different from a non-intelligent one. So we're no better than any machine if we consider things at the low level. I already discussed this perspective before. Our survival depends on being self-protective. This recognition of self is the source of our illusion to think and existence. We would not protect what does not exist. If we acknowledge our inexistence, then our survival will be endangered. Nature has its own ways of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest... Its ironical that an illusion is what gives us our strength, but well.. Thats how things work!
So far, I have considered "thinking" in a very strict notion. A notion that requires creativity and freewill. To ease things up, one can consider a less strict concept of thinking. Such model would be even more tolerant, that it might even include machines as being able to think. Personally, I got no problem with this view. If a machine was so sophisticated in a way that is comparable to humans, I guess we have to acknowledge it as a being of worthy existence. If we adopt this view, maybe few years later, we will see "Machine Rights" activists!! Seriously!
Back to the fist premise... Does ability to think imply existence?! I will leave this question open for the time being...
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Individualism In Its True Light
Individualism is the position that holds that individuals (rather than society) responsible for their own good. The basic claim is that Reason is an individualistic property. No person can think for another; thought is an attribute of the individual. Since cognitive rationality implies that every cognitive unit seeks its own good, and since the individual is a cognitive unit, then the individuals seek their own good.
The opposite view of individualism is collectivism. Collectivism views the society as a responsible unit for its own good. Collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking --- These actions are called "social problems" that "society" has to deal with. On the other hand, individualism holds the individual responsible for their actions, and hence entitled for the consequences of those choices; The individual has the right to enjoy good outcomes, and the responsibility to suffer bad outcomes.
In this view, it is evident why individualists are not so keen to implement compulsory "safety-net", where individuals are required to provide help to those who made bad choices in their lives. Nonetheless, opt-in safety-nets might still be viable.
One of the common misconceptions about individualism is the concept of a loner. Social isolation is by no means synonymous with individualism. Individualism is a philosophy of how one person perceives their relations with other peers, and their role in their social group. An individual perceives each person based on their own merit rather than the collective value of the social group, and sees their relationship with their society as give-and-take compromise, rather than an altruistic duty.
Finally, it is important to note the high resemblance between Capitalism as an economic philosophy and Individualism, as Capitalism views the person responsible for their financial and social status.
PS: Based on this article [recommended-read]
The opposite view of individualism is collectivism. Collectivism views the society as a responsible unit for its own good. Collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking --- These actions are called "social problems" that "society" has to deal with. On the other hand, individualism holds the individual responsible for their actions, and hence entitled for the consequences of those choices; The individual has the right to enjoy good outcomes, and the responsibility to suffer bad outcomes.
In this view, it is evident why individualists are not so keen to implement compulsory "safety-net", where individuals are required to provide help to those who made bad choices in their lives. Nonetheless, opt-in safety-nets might still be viable.
One of the common misconceptions about individualism is the concept of a loner. Social isolation is by no means synonymous with individualism. Individualism is a philosophy of how one person perceives their relations with other peers, and their role in their social group. An individual perceives each person based on their own merit rather than the collective value of the social group, and sees their relationship with their society as give-and-take compromise, rather than an altruistic duty.
Finally, it is important to note the high resemblance between Capitalism as an economic philosophy and Individualism, as Capitalism views the person responsible for their financial and social status.
PS: Based on this article [recommended-read]
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Right To Discriminate
With all these anti-discrimination movements it becomes necessary to assert the importance of discrimination and our basic right to discriminate! I am not saying that anti-discrimination is inherently violating our rights, but these anti-discrimination measures have introduced what is called reverse discrimination!!
In short, we have to understand when discrimination is acceptable and when it is not. Our basic premise is that people are equal in the eyes of the law. Which is a good practice that reserves the rights of people. BUT people are NOT necessarily equal in the eyes of other people. People have the basic freedom of thought and freedom of opinion. Dictating what other people think of each-other is violating these basic freedoms! If someone hates another simply because he has black skin, its within his basic freedom of opinion. Maybe judging someone by the color of their skin is an illogical thought, yet he still has the right of having illogical thoughts and opinions. One cannot be an elitist and deny others their freedom of opinion simply because it is (according to them) an illogical one.
The idea is similar to that of secularism. Secularism says that the government and the law have to be impartial to religion. That the law shouldn't include laws that are religiously charged. Yet, it is acceptable that people within a secularist country to follow religions. Its within the freedom of religion (where the freedom of religion itself is part of the freedom of opinion), right? Same goes for any-other kind of discrimination. It is unacceptable for the law to discriminate between people, yet it is perfectly acceptable for the people themselves to discriminate. Its their right to discriminate!
Consider that the law imposes on you who your friends are?! Is that acceptable? So what if all your friends happen to be white-skinned? Does this give the law the right to force you to have a black-skinned friend so that the collection of your friends is "politically correct"?! - The law has not gone this far concerning imposing your friends, but in some other fields it has, this phenomenon is called reverse discrimination.
Reverse discrimination is when the law includes policies that gives extra rights to historically discriminated against groups. For example, women in history have been known to be victims of discrimination. Now in many countries there are quotas for the minimum number of women participating in the parliament! Now, isn't that just another form of discrimination?! Why do we solve discrimination, by similar discriminatory acts?! [I am not against women quotas in parliaments but I think better solutions have to be formulated]
In a similar fashion, laws have been there to regulate employment issues in the private sector... Just like the law shouldn't impose on us who our friends are (even if we were not politically correct), the law shouldn't impose on the private sector who their employees are or what salaries do the private sector give their employees.
In short, we have to understand when discrimination is acceptable and when it is not. Our basic premise is that people are equal in the eyes of the law. Which is a good practice that reserves the rights of people. BUT people are NOT necessarily equal in the eyes of other people. People have the basic freedom of thought and freedom of opinion. Dictating what other people think of each-other is violating these basic freedoms! If someone hates another simply because he has black skin, its within his basic freedom of opinion. Maybe judging someone by the color of their skin is an illogical thought, yet he still has the right of having illogical thoughts and opinions. One cannot be an elitist and deny others their freedom of opinion simply because it is (according to them) an illogical one.
The idea is similar to that of secularism. Secularism says that the government and the law have to be impartial to religion. That the law shouldn't include laws that are religiously charged. Yet, it is acceptable that people within a secularist country to follow religions. Its within the freedom of religion (where the freedom of religion itself is part of the freedom of opinion), right? Same goes for any-other kind of discrimination. It is unacceptable for the law to discriminate between people, yet it is perfectly acceptable for the people themselves to discriminate. Its their right to discriminate!
Consider that the law imposes on you who your friends are?! Is that acceptable? So what if all your friends happen to be white-skinned? Does this give the law the right to force you to have a black-skinned friend so that the collection of your friends is "politically correct"?! - The law has not gone this far concerning imposing your friends, but in some other fields it has, this phenomenon is called reverse discrimination.
Reverse discrimination is when the law includes policies that gives extra rights to historically discriminated against groups. For example, women in history have been known to be victims of discrimination. Now in many countries there are quotas for the minimum number of women participating in the parliament! Now, isn't that just another form of discrimination?! Why do we solve discrimination, by similar discriminatory acts?! [I am not against women quotas in parliaments but I think better solutions have to be formulated]
In a similar fashion, laws have been there to regulate employment issues in the private sector... Just like the law shouldn't impose on us who our friends are (even if we were not politically correct), the law shouldn't impose on the private sector who their employees are or what salaries do the private sector give their employees.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
All of this discussion leads to why i think liberal thought is important to our world; Lets first define what i mean by liberal thought:
Liberal thought emphasizes the importance of freedom of thought; Ideas are allowed to compete with its own fair share... No ideas remain hidden, all is laid out on the table!
This is my definition of liberal thought... This definition shows why liberal though is important.... It boosts the process of natural evolution of though!
Natural evolution has three basic requirements to take place: 1-Variation, 2-Mutation, and 3-Selection; The big rule of evolution is: "Variation proposes and selection disposes." (source) So it is perfectly natural that people would propose very different and varying ideologies... But objective perception will put all those variations to trial, and "better" ones will stand out of the crowd!!
Liberal thought allows 1-Greater variation, 2-Less biased natural selection, and 3-More vigorous conflict of ideas; All of that leading that evolution of ideas and hence evolution of truth will work more smoothly and the whole human race will experience the greater benefit of variation of thoughts.
On the other hand, totalitarian thought on the contrary slows down (but never hinders\stops) the evolution of ideas.... Totalitarian thought favors the process of artificial selection which is a very biased approach to favor the growth of one variation over another regardless of how well it does in reality.
Totalitarian thought exhibits 1-Limited set of predefined variations, 2-Biased artificial selection, and 3-Artificially controlled environment for evolution; All of which leads that evolution of truth being crumbled, and is slowly advancing, thus humanity will require much exaggerated time to prosper or get the benefits of variation of thoughts.
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
Liberal thought emphasizes the importance of freedom of thought; Ideas are allowed to compete with its own fair share... No ideas remain hidden, all is laid out on the table!
This is my definition of liberal thought... This definition shows why liberal though is important.... It boosts the process of natural evolution of though!
Natural evolution has three basic requirements to take place: 1-Variation, 2-Mutation, and 3-Selection; The big rule of evolution is: "Variation proposes and selection disposes." (source) So it is perfectly natural that people would propose very different and varying ideologies... But objective perception will put all those variations to trial, and "better" ones will stand out of the crowd!!
Liberal thought allows 1-Greater variation, 2-Less biased natural selection, and 3-More vigorous conflict of ideas; All of that leading that evolution of ideas and hence evolution of truth will work more smoothly and the whole human race will experience the greater benefit of variation of thoughts.
On the other hand, totalitarian thought on the contrary slows down (but never hinders\stops) the evolution of ideas.... Totalitarian thought favors the process of artificial selection which is a very biased approach to favor the growth of one variation over another regardless of how well it does in reality.
Totalitarian thought exhibits 1-Limited set of predefined variations, 2-Biased artificial selection, and 3-Artificially controlled environment for evolution; All of which leads that evolution of truth being crumbled, and is slowly advancing, thus humanity will require much exaggerated time to prosper or get the benefits of variation of thoughts.
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
Monday, April 24, 2006
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
But how does all of this "Ideological Evolution" pertain to our time? What am I trying to say?:
As I said, lies are wiped out in a general sense of priority; I think, these days are the peak of religious wars! I mean, in previous days, religions were not the most serious falsehoods affecting us; But the time has come to get a release of that cancer!! Intense "moral evolution" is taking place;
Atheism\Satanism has existed in our world since the beginning of time, but it was silent and inactive: It was traces of mutations scattered on the surface of earth, but just as any other ideology it sustained its miniscule yet solid existence through long ages of repression... But the time has come, atheism\satanism is no more a marginal alternative religion; It is being crudely attacked, yet it holds its position! It is growing and replacing what needs to be an obsolete thesis... Biblical religions are failing miserably at giving an upstanding perception of the world.
Not only religions are now facing serious decline, liberal thought is equally gaining momentum; In the politics of our world, religious\conservative ideologies have an obvious advantage.
My guess is: within 300 years (rough estimated based on purely nothing) untruthful religions will be wiped out, and humanity will be ready to question more serious issues about the reality of our world; Till then we can just wait and see what ideologies are surviving better in the continuous 'ideological competition'.
Please don't misunderstand my previous thesis to suggest that I am giving definite answers to which religions I think is more truthful; Yes, I do think atheism\satanism are going to be the "survivors" of this evolution, yet i do understand, that I might actually be in the 'weak link' that will be screened out! ONLY time will tell.....
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
As I said, lies are wiped out in a general sense of priority; I think, these days are the peak of religious wars! I mean, in previous days, religions were not the most serious falsehoods affecting us; But the time has come to get a release of that cancer!! Intense "moral evolution" is taking place;
Atheism\Satanism has existed in our world since the beginning of time, but it was silent and inactive: It was traces of mutations scattered on the surface of earth, but just as any other ideology it sustained its miniscule yet solid existence through long ages of repression... But the time has come, atheism\satanism is no more a marginal alternative religion; It is being crudely attacked, yet it holds its position! It is growing and replacing what needs to be an obsolete thesis... Biblical religions are failing miserably at giving an upstanding perception of the world.
Not only religions are now facing serious decline, liberal thought is equally gaining momentum; In the politics of our world, religious\conservative ideologies have an obvious advantage.
My guess is: within 300 years (rough estimated based on purely nothing) untruthful religions will be wiped out, and humanity will be ready to question more serious issues about the reality of our world; Till then we can just wait and see what ideologies are surviving better in the continuous 'ideological competition'.
Please don't misunderstand my previous thesis to suggest that I am giving definite answers to which religions I think is more truthful; Yes, I do think atheism\satanism are going to be the "survivors" of this evolution, yet i do understand, that I might actually be in the 'weak link' that will be screened out! ONLY time will tell.....
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Survival of the fittest is one of the most respected and simply sophisticated theories of our time... In many occasions i have showed my admiration for this theory... The most important consequence of this theory is my personal view that i call: "Evolution of truth";
To be specific, it doesn't mean that truth morphs through time, but rather our understanding of truth morphs through time.
Lets face it, our understanding of physics and almost all other sciences is derived from our limited perception of the world around us.... Lack of understanding, and misconception will stay there forever; yet, truth always stands out from the crowd! Not necessarily quickly, but it eventually will.... Our perception of the world around us will be put to trial on every occasion we try to apply our theories about the world around us; The misconceptions will fail to explain the phenomenons that we observe!
We all know the old "spontaneous generation" theory that suggested that:
In accordance to the perception of those people, it was obvious that 'spontaneous generation' does happen... But as we always know, "mutations" will come in the way!
New mutant ideologies did evolve and competed for survival against the prevailing 'spontaneous generation' ideology... At that time, truth (maybe not complete truth, but merely a better perception) was nothing more than very few mutants; A similar example is how the spherical earth thesis, has been long time ago challenged by the flat earth thesis!! But truth is always way much solid than falsehood; Perception of Truth evolved! We now know better....
Not all lies are equally "bad"; the really bad ones are eliminated first; the more serious and obvious a falsehood is, the sooner it will go away; that's natural!! You cant jump up ladders, you go one step at a time. In other words, 'spontaneous generation' was a weakly supported perception of the world, so it got way before than the theory of "atomism" (Greek word atomos which means "that which cannot be cut into smaller pieces"), as atoms were not as easily observable as living organisms are.
Much like in the animal kingdom, no animal is invincible (ie. we don't have perfect perception of our world), but there are always the strong, the stronger, and the weak!! Once the weak ones are out, a new series of competition will take place between the remaining strong ones, and so forth forever!
In this context, i bet you that a D-student in our time, can easily out-smart an A+-student in 1000 BC; and an A+-student of our time, is such a big failure against a D-student in 3000 AC!
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
To be specific, it doesn't mean that truth morphs through time, but rather our understanding of truth morphs through time.
Lets face it, our understanding of physics and almost all other sciences is derived from our limited perception of the world around us.... Lack of understanding, and misconception will stay there forever; yet, truth always stands out from the crowd! Not necessarily quickly, but it eventually will.... Our perception of the world around us will be put to trial on every occasion we try to apply our theories about the world around us; The misconceptions will fail to explain the phenomenons that we observe!
We all know the old "spontaneous generation" theory that suggested that:
According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. (source)
In accordance to the perception of those people, it was obvious that 'spontaneous generation' does happen... But as we always know, "mutations" will come in the way!
New mutant ideologies did evolve and competed for survival against the prevailing 'spontaneous generation' ideology... At that time, truth (maybe not complete truth, but merely a better perception) was nothing more than very few mutants; A similar example is how the spherical earth thesis, has been long time ago challenged by the flat earth thesis!! But truth is always way much solid than falsehood; Perception of Truth evolved! We now know better....
Not all lies are equally "bad"; the really bad ones are eliminated first; the more serious and obvious a falsehood is, the sooner it will go away; that's natural!! You cant jump up ladders, you go one step at a time. In other words, 'spontaneous generation' was a weakly supported perception of the world, so it got way before than the theory of "atomism" (Greek word atomos which means "that which cannot be cut into smaller pieces"), as atoms were not as easily observable as living organisms are.
Much like in the animal kingdom, no animal is invincible (ie. we don't have perfect perception of our world), but there are always the strong, the stronger, and the weak!! Once the weak ones are out, a new series of competition will take place between the remaining strong ones, and so forth forever!
In this context, i bet you that a D-student in our time, can easily out-smart an A+-student in 1000 BC; and an A+-student of our time, is such a big failure against a D-student in 3000 AC!
In this series:
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 1 - Introduction
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 2 - Religious Wars
Darwinistic Evolution Of Truth: Part 3 - The Importance Of Liberal Thought
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Lets first agree on one concept; The concept is dubbed as questionable, so it might be viewed as an assumption rather than necessarily factual; Refraining from committing one's initial choice is not seen as lack of Freedom, but rather as a Freedom in itself. What matters is that one had the choice of course of action, and acting out what seems reasonable is a matter of choice.
This means that Freedom in itself can backfire and lead to unfavorable consequences;
Freedom is Darwinistic feature: The fitter (stronger?) lays out the rules and others can either submit or fight. The fitter doesn't have to be a single person: it could be an authority, a community, or even just a simple idea.
In this sense, we can see law makers as being fit to their positions: They lay out the rules; The law enforcement force is the 'muscle' of that position... In short, the laws are not viewed as lack of Freedom, but rather as a practiced Freedom of people in position to influence the Freedom of others.
Thus, somehow I find it absurd to 'support' true anarchism! The thing is our world is actually already lawless; Anarchic system is intuitively ruled by the fitter (rule of the jungle), and in the case of human societies, the fitter happens to be an authority they don't like: The government!
Human communities are nothing more than a civilized jungle!
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
This means that Freedom in itself can backfire and lead to unfavorable consequences;
Freedom is Darwinistic feature: The fitter (stronger?) lays out the rules and others can either submit or fight. The fitter doesn't have to be a single person: it could be an authority, a community, or even just a simple idea.
In this sense, we can see law makers as being fit to their positions: They lay out the rules; The law enforcement force is the 'muscle' of that position... In short, the laws are not viewed as lack of Freedom, but rather as a practiced Freedom of people in position to influence the Freedom of others.
Thus, somehow I find it absurd to 'support' true anarchism! The thing is our world is actually already lawless; Anarchic system is intuitively ruled by the fitter (rule of the jungle), and in the case of human societies, the fitter happens to be an authority they don't like: The government!
Human communities are nothing more than a civilized jungle!
In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
