|
| Youth group is over... for the school year. We had a BBQ tonight,
and because I was working on skits for Youth Sunday, all I got to eat
was a cold burger. Nonetheless, food is food. There are
likely some leftovers to scavenge after I write this.
For me, summer starts tomorrow. While this time of year still has
"busyness", it is a different type than the rest of the year, with much
more freedom. Namely, there is no longer a "Wednesday night"
deadline. Over the next couple weeks, the office will undergo
major sorting and organizing.
Bible Quizzing Nationals was good, but different. I went as a
quizmaster instead of a coach (read: umpire instead of a
manager), so things were certainly seen from a different
perspective. It was a lot less stressful and easy, but I also
missed working directly with students the whole time. However, I
still managed to catch my Nationals cold. I think I'm almost over
it (though a long night of sleep tonight will not hurt.)
Running. Ick. Need to get back to that again. We
finally had an 80 degree day today, so that's good. Hopefully it
will stay that way and I will feel good enough to run-- I have to make
up for the burger. :)
A quick newslink (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=453652&in_page_id=1811)
A one-year-old is forced to fight a neutered cobra during a shocking snake-charming rite of passage in India.
The baby tries to protect itslef while being repeatedly hit by the
animal, which has also had its mouth stitched up and its fangs removed.
This bizarre spectator sport - reportedly from Kasimkota in
Andhra Pradesh - has been condemned by animal rights protesters after
footage appeared on the internet.
They've warned that a cobra's fangs grow back quickly, putting the youngsters in mortal danger.
Several snake charmers die each year while handling the animals.
I was chuckling to myself that the ones speaking out on this were
animal rights activists. I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to
myself...
| | |
| Minnesota spring is here more or less, I guess. I still am not
100% convinced we won't still get more snow, but multiple days in the
sixties has me believing warmth is coming soon. For the first
time (in three years of running), I was actually excited to get
started. Last year, my first three runs of the spring-- roughly
the same time of year-- were 2 miles, 1 mile and 1 mile. As
mentioned earlier, I ran 4 miles a few weeks back. Then I
followed it up with 5 miles on Saturday and 8!!!
miles on Monday. Now of course none of this is to say I ran them
fast-- but I at least never stopped running. I have the new
Nike-IPold shoes, and the combo of music and a guy yelling at me every
mile has been quite encouraging. Assuming the weather is good,
I'll probably run somewhere between 3-6 miles tomorrow, depending on
how I feel.
Bible quizzing Nationals season is coming up, but I'm pretty much not
excited about it. Being a quizmaster is OK, but nothing like
coaching. The fact that neither Caleb nor Seth are coming along
is rather saddening, as well. That, and yeah, I'm just not
excited about.
Another school shooting, this time at Virginia Tech. I would say
that I'm surprised, but I'm not. What would surprise me is if
there is NOT another one over the coming weeks. Between copycats
and Columbine anniversary, sadly, in our world, I am almost expecting
something to happen somewhere.
Mets are 9-4. A great start, but not even in first place.
Stupid rainouts keeping us from what is rightfully ours. The
starting pitching has been surprisingly good this year.
3 weeks of youth group left-- then summer!
A-house-hunting I will go (with my dad) on Saturday. Well,
kinda. There is one house he is going to come up and look at with
me. It's about 25 minutes out of town, and probably in rough
shape, but on 4 acres. I may just be starstruck by the thought of
buying a home, but it's nice to think about, anyway.
Oh yeah, I turn 26 on Saturday. A rather uneventful number, don't
you think? There doesn't seem to be much significant like
18/20/21/25... that's OK. I think I'll be perfectly calm about
birthdays until I reach the 30 mark-- then I'll panic.
| | |
| It's times like this I really hate Minnesota (and become convinced that
global warming would not be ALL bad...). After having a beautiful
70+ degree day last week (which I took advantage of and took a 4-mile
run), we get hit by the 2nd biggest snowstorm of the season this
week. I didn't see the final official measurements, but I'm sure
we got close to a foot of snow. Why couldn't this have shown up
back around Christmastime?
This weekend, I get a mini-vacation. Tomorrow night, I am heading
w/ C & S (& D, I guess) to a Wild hockey game.
Fri-Sat-Sun, I'll be in New Richmond for Easter and Beth's
birthday. Monday, I'll be heading back to C&S and we're
planning on going to a Twins game. A weekend at home sandwiched
between 2 sporting events-- not too shabby.
The Mets are 3-0. Too bad they couldn't have done this in the
playoffs last year, or we would have the Series ring the Cardinals got.
| | |
| No entry here. However, (and maybe regretibly, as it will take up more time), I did get myself into a conversation here:
http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/579896736/item.html?nextdate=last#viewcomments
(Take note: This is the page w/ my comments on it, not the start of the discussion.)
It is long and drawn out (48 comments) with a very secular-humanist
slant. A few come in solely to bash God. You do not need to
comment there (and I do not advise it unless you have ample time to
write a reply and take time to follow-up). However, are there any
comments you have on the discussion (beyond the obvious: rape is
wrong, I believe the Bible shows morality, etc.)
Even if you do not have time to read the whole thing, perhaps just read
my comments (I clearly allude and quote passages from those whom I
disagree with, so you can get up to speed rather quickly). Do you
have any other thoughts to the argument (specific topic at hand:
can someone who is atheistic truly say that rape is wrong?).
Anyway, your feedback would be great...
(OK, for your time's sake, I decided to re-post my 2 posts here... first in red, 2nd in blue):
It logically looks good, until you put in another behavior, that I
think we would all agree is neccesary: Putting people in prison. Other
things you could put in the behavior category that would prove the line
of logic wrong: Getting a speeding ticket, disciplining a child, and I
am sure there are more if you were to honestly evaluate it (jury duty?
going to the dentist? paying taxes?)
Here's how the line of logic reads:
(i) Empathy is the ability to concern one's self with the feelings of another.
(ii) Punishment by definition (and what AFTL is aiming at) is a negative feeling which it follows is detrimental to an organism.
(iii) Organisms learn to understand what causes negative feelings and to avoid them e.g., sticking hand in fire is bad.
(iv) From (ii) and (iii) it follows an organism learns what the causes of bad things are to them, personally.
(v)
from (i) and (iv) it follows that one person can extend their personal
understanding of not doing bad (to themselves from v) to that of other
people e.g., fire hurt me, it will hurt other people like it hurt me
i.e., don't do unto others as I wouldn't do unto thyself
(vi) prison harms (is a punishment to) another
(vii) from all above it follows that one should not do (vi) and therefore one should not put another person in prison.
Prison
could be seen as a higher level of punishment by some, for sure.
However, I do not think that anyone proposes that we realease all
criminals into the streets because we do not want to be in prison.
Also,
it makes the assumption that what is "bad" for me is "bad" for
everyone. First off, define "bad". Something we do not want? When a
child is disciplined, they do not want it, but it is often done for
their good. Just because we do not want to do something does not mean
it should not be done. Needless to say, I am not arguing for rape.
However, I am arguing that this line of logic is not true 100% of the
time, and thus, is not a defense as to why something is "bad".
Additionally,
there is no definition to "harm". Everything you do someone could find
fault with, and yet you do it anyway. Is harm defined as "a net
negative to a society"? That cannot be so. There are many things that
cause harm, that can end up strengthening us: Discipline. I am sure
many here have lost a loved one. While we certainly would not have
chosen that (or that they be sick or suffering in the first place), we
were still able to benefit from something that "caused harm". That
argument could be made that anything that does not kill us makes us
stronger, but by that definition, nothing is harmful. Harm has to be
objective in the sense that harm is harm, regardless of how harmful it
is. However, not everything that causes harm is bad. The good a harm
produces can make it worthwhile. However, it was still harmful.
Additionally,
many musicians cause harm by what they write in their lyrics or by the
fact that they create division-- certainly seen as a net negative to
some, and yet many support this as OK under something like "free
speech". If something can be seen as harmful to some, and not to
others, it would seem true that it could be the same way, even to a
small minority, about something as serious as rape. So if someone does
see rape as OK, is it then OK for them to do that? I say no. If you say
no, you have to tell me why you are infringing on that person's
decision that it is still worthwhile to them. I am sure no one here has
ever justified a white lie, stealing a paperclip from the office, or
**fill in the blank** that most of the rest of us would see as harmful.
I still see no objective standard of why anything is bad being shown in
this discussion, because there is always the chance that someone "more
evolved" (read: more enlightened) has proved this wrong. Your views may
be the most evolved we have now, but certainly not the absolute best
ideas. And thus, your standards, by definition, will be evolving with
humanity. And what say you if more evolved humanity decides that rape
is OK, on the basis that their philosophy is more evolved than yours?
As
one final example, I can say that I would not want to be murdered, so
no one should murder-- but that clearly is not the case, as thousands
of babies are murdered in the US every year. With no set standard, free
justification of any behavior is accessible. And this is seen in the
euthanization of children in other countries:
"In the
Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth
of these killings were done without the "consent" of parents."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp
I
would guess that none of us would want to be killed, and yet we are all
dying. We have an incurable disease-- humanity, and thus death. We are
all disabled in some way: a feature we do not like, we are not as smart
as someone else, we have bad eyesight.
However, as we are
evolving, and our respect for life is ideally increasing, euthanasia
and abortion are on the increase. This, in most cases, is not truly
concern for the life of the other person, but the life of self. So even
if this whole philosophy were true, it is certainly not working in
reality. For if that were the case, all crime would be lowered
worldwide every single year, as our collective body of humanity was
evolving.
"We live in a very insecure world, dominated by robbery and crime. Due to the pronounced differences between the
classes of society, cultural conflicts and various other factors, worldwide crime rates have known an exacerbated
increase in the last dec"
http://www.caymanislandsrealestate.ky/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=12723
"The
Company sells its products in over 70 countries including the UK, North
America, mainland Europe, Asia Pacific (including Japan and China) and
Israel. The market for electronic security systems is growing rapidly,
partly as a consequence of increasing worldwide crime rates."
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/about/Newsroom/Media+Resources/Welcome+Stories/2004/15042004visonic.htm
Violence
has long been recognised as a major social concern. War in particular,
whether between states or within states, is widely considered “one of
the main causes of human suffering and economic underdevelopment”. 2
But while war is perhaps the most paradigmatic manifestation of
violence, it is by no means the only one, and certainly not the only
one to have critical social implications. Criminal violence, for
example, has been increasingly recognised as a major social problem. 3
Worldwide, crime rates have risen by an average of 50 percent over the
past 25 years, with a notable surge during the past decade.
http://www.crisisstates.com/download/wp/wp35.pdf
IOW,
if all this were true, it would make sense that crime rates would be
going down, but they clearly are not. To me, that is evidence against
human-made morality.
"P.1 An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances."
virtuous: morally excellent
You
cannot assume morality to prove morality. We may both agree that not
raping someone is morally excellent. However, there are many other
areas of morality that we may disagree upon. So if you say a morally
excellent person would do one thing, and I say they would do another,
you still have no standard as to whose morality is right. Additionally,
there are often times when there are multiple things a "virtuous agent"
might do in a circumstance-- and they may not be a "right" answer--
just a tough decision to make. Also, it assumes perfection. IOW, it
assumes a morally virtuous person will never make a mistake. I
wholeheartedly disagree with that. Even the most righteous people I
know still have messed up. By this definition, a morally excellent
person who makes a mistake is actually still making the correct
decision. This defines morality by the individual, not by the action. I
cannot trust that any individual's standart of "virtuosity" is correct
100% of the time. And no virtuos person would claim they were perfect.
"P.1a A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues."
Kinda
like a funny person is someone who is funny. :) That initial definition
never would have made it past my 4th grade teacher. :D
But seriously... how often does said viruous person need to be virtuous to qualify?
100%? 95% of the time? 75% of the time? 51% of the time? 1% of the time?
Or
are we talking about a "theoretical person"? If so, once again, this
theory breaks down in reality. If it is not practical to reality,
though, why spend time discussing something that cannot happen. So if
we are talking about a real person, what percentage of the time does
someone need to act virtuous in order to be considered virtuous?
"P.2 A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well."
"This premise forges the conceptual link between virtue and flourishing".
Flourishing: booming: very lively and profitable
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So
the author is saying that the more profitable and lively a person is,
the more moral they are? Really? If there is a defintion being used
here other than that, you need to provide that.
Once again,
though, this leaves things very open-- whatever I need to do to meet my
personal standard of living well is by this definition virtuous.
Putting rape off to the side, what about stealing? If I decided I need
$1 million in my bank account by tomorrow in order to live well, by
this definition, it would be virtuous. There are many virtuous people,
I believe, who live (and have lived) in less than flourishing
conditions. However, I think they were virtuous by how they lived, not
by what it produced (at least in the near term). Attributing worldly
possessions as a measure of virtuosness seems very dangerous to me.
Answering the following based on the definition given above.
"First, would a virtuous person rape someone?"
If they were offered $1 million and knew they would not get caught. Possibly.
If they were to choose to rape 1 given person instead of becoming a seriel rapist. Possibly.
"Anyone want to claim they would?"
Survey
the whole world, and I am sure you could find one person. Me
personally, no. However, if there is just one person who would rape
someone for their benefit and live better, by definition, they would
become virtuous (as stated by the author).
"When does rape become a virtuous act?"
From
the author's definition: "A virtue is a character trait a human being
needs to flourish or live well." So if someone's life would improve by
raping someone, it would become virtuous. Perhaps that is the mindset
of those who rape others in prison?
"When is it a character trait worth striving for as aiming to be virtuous creatures?"
Are
you asking individually or as a group? Individually, it has been
answered. As a group, it would be a bunch of individuals who would
benefit and live better because of it would come together.
"Secondly, what virtue is it to consider rape the virtuous choice?"
Please
define the specific virtues you are speaking of. However, as the author
pointed out, it's to help one live better. So if someone believed it
could improve their life in some way, they would do it. Then again, why
do people rape people in the first place? Perhaps, because they are
thinking this very way: It is what is best for me right now.
"Rhetorical questions because it would never apply."
I disagree, and thus I gave you genuine answers.
"I
mean, virtue ethics I think comes around that simple, especially in
this case. It is not necessarily saying rape is wrong, but that when
would it be done?"
So the whole point of this thread originally
was could one come out and say that rape is wrong. Your conclusion: "It
is not necessarily saying rape is wrong". IOW, at this point, AFTR's
point is still valid. In just a few minutes I came up with a possible
solution. If there is one person in the world who thinks their life is
better b/c of a rape, then your whole theory is wrong. And I guarantee
you that there is at least 1 rapist out there who believes his/her life
is better for it (and likely feels no regret).
"it's contradictory to virtue to think any virtuous person would ever rape someone."
If your definition is virtue = prosperity for self, you need to rethink that. Again, see above.
"One can make the argument "who are we comparing it to" but that is irrelevant."
Not
in the sense of who is this virtuous person you speak of. If they are
real, name them. If not, then we are only talking theory. I find it
hard to believe that anyone who has made a mistake in their life is
virtuous.
"The virtuous person is one who exercises the virtue
which means to follow under that we must exhibit the character trait
that allows us to flourish or live well. When does rape do that?"
Again, see above.
"Never."
You
have identified and interviewed every rapist in the world? (I assume
this is not hyperbole you are using here). If you have not, all one
would have to produce is 1 person who thinks their life is better
because of a rape (or any after-effects of a rape such as getting
caught, being imprisoned, etc.)
| | |
|
|
