Ridiculous Rights

The thing about Rights is that there is something not quite right about them.  That is about all the wordplay you're going to get from me today.  I'm in a bad mood, and my humour is suffering.  Anyway, on to the point.

When talking about an abstract noun, say "Redness" or "Organization"  it's very easy to begin speaking about things which don't really exist; a mistake common enough to result in several criticizing metaphysics very harshly for being nothing more than speculation.

The way to avoid such a grievous mistake is to understand that any abstract noun is the abstraction of certain properties.  For example, "Redness" is that property which allows us to identify red things as red.  "Organization" is the property shared by all things which are organized. Apart from physical things, properties might also manifest in other properties, such as the "oddness" of numbers, or the brightness of a hue.  Still however, the abstraction of "oddness" and "brightness" is only justifiable if they can be manifested in real properties, i.e. properties which may be manifested in physical things. Speaking about an abstract noun which does not have one or more corresponding properties which may manifest in physical things or other  real properties is to speak about fiction.

Now when we talk about a "Right" (as in the Right to Privacy, Free Speech etc.)  we are in fact speaking about an abstract concept and hence there must be some property which exists in the subject which allows such an abstraction.

Let us call this property simply "R" and assume that it exists.

Now property "R" is different from other properties because it makes an appeal to "should" or "ought" statements, while other properties appeal only to "is" statements.

For example, if a subject has the property of "Organization"  we can understand that it is organized. That's a simple "is" statement.  However if a subject has property "R" we understand it has a right, and that right dictates how the subject should be treated.  For example, if a subject has the property "A Right to life"  then it is understood that that subject should not be killed.  If we remove the "should" aspect from Rights, then they become unintelligible.

David Hume;  Not the inventor of humus.

It is here, that a problem arises.  As one David Hume famously put forward, it is impossible to derive a "should" statement from an "is" statement.  A "should" statement depends on both an "is" statement and a "want" statement.  For example, "I should wear a thicker jacket,"  is a true statement only if "I want to be warm," and "It is cold outside," are also true statements.

Therefore, saying that a subject has property "R" implies that there exists a "should" statement, which further implies a "want" statement.

But this is ridiculous.  How can a subject have a property such that it instills a desire in all other subjects?  If an agent is unique from the subject, then it cannot be that a property of the subject has to instill a desire in the agent.  It might just so happen that it does do so for one agent, but not for another.  But that does not mean that property "R" instills the same effect on all agents. There is no such property "R" which may manifest in anything physical such that it must instill the exact same desire in all agents.

If anyone has any lingering doubts about whether such an "R" can exist, the works of Soren Kierkegaard will quickly put the objections to rest.  Kierkegaard described a "leap of faith" (although he didn't coin the term himself) which everyone must make when s/he comes to accepting something as true; as such it's a "gap" between the external outside world and the world in our heads. Since this "gap" exists, any information we receive must be "subjectified" in our minds, and whether it falls under "desirable" or "undesirable" is a process which takes place privately and cannot be said to be the same for all people. (Granted this point is not completely proven, but it is a claim strongly supported by ample evidence and there exists, as of yet, no counter-example.)

                         

                            

                             There are ways around this problem.

Someone made a Kierkegaard finger puppet.
I suppose the internet is so big that everything
is bound to happen somewhere.

One way is to drop the "universal" aspect of Rights and consider them as relative to specific groups.  A Worker's Union, for example, might agree that all people have a Right to Employment, for as they are all workers, "employability" is a property which appeals to all of them.

A second solution is to form a social construct which "forces" (for want of a better word) the appropriate desire to be related to the property "R" by means of social sanctions.  So all people can have a "Right to life"  if the relevant sanctions against murder are put into place.  But of course this makes a Right a social construct, not a universal truth.

These approaches lead to a very different perspective on animal rights and abortion rights from the more mainstream views, but those are topics for another time.

Is over-secularization a possibility? Part Two

Well I can safely say I did not quite come across clearly in Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One - so much so that I have to follow it up and clarify myself.  I'm not going to lie - it's a bit embarrassing, a bit like having to explain a joke after telling it for five minutes, except having a whacky sense of humour is no excuse here.

First off, I am in no way saying that there is no point to reasoning when it comes to ethics.  I have said time and time again just how banal that is.  What I am saying is that some personal opinion must exist, otherwise the reasoning is all for nothing. Reasoning is a map showing the way, but without any personal belief there is nowhere to go.

Secondly, what did/do I mean exactly by over-secularization? We can all agree that secularization is the separation of Church and State.  Now previously I said that it is the shift of legislation from a religious foundation to a logical and scientific one, which perhaps is not strictly true although I believe it must follow from the separation of Church and State the only other option being public opinion which would inevitably lead to legislatures correcting and re-correcting laws due to good arguments led against them, eventually resulting in a logical foundation anyway.  Whatever, it's not that vital, I'll retract that definition and replace with the more popular one.

But why exactly should a country secularize, and have its state separated from its religion?  The anti-theist outcry of "Religion is evil," is uneducated and quite frankly useless. The Nazis didn't think Hitler was evil, and the Church will never be evil to Catholic counties, so this accusation will inevitably fall on deaf ears.  The only reason - or at least the main reason- why a country would secularize is the acceptance that belief is a personal thing which anyone can choose for themselves.  Therefore, not everyone in the country will have the same religion and so the country must secularize to be accepting to all its citizens.

In doing so, the country takes a stance that what is universal to all people should be endorsed in a public space in favour of what is subjective to some - a stance I very much support, as I always have.  So far that is all secularization and it is fine and dandy.

Multiculturalism from a snail's point of view...
(as they slowly torture it with salt)

Here is where over-secularization might come into play - the placing of all universal value over all subjective value.  As I said in Part One, money has a value recognizable to all, so it is given more importance than personal values.  Same with fame and land and fashion and a hundred other things.  A country which takes secularization to this level effectively robs its citizens of individuality.
Now someone trying to show how I am full of bullshit might say that such a thing could never happen due to secularization unless people actually pushed for it.  But how true is that?  A necessary side-effect of secularization is that all beliefs and value-systems exist side by side in a country, forming a mass of sub-cultures.  In itself that is a brilliant thing, but how will value be communicated from one sub-culture to another?  Everyday we are bombarded by the media and new ways to stay connected with one another, not to mention advertisements which exist solely to display something's value.  In such an environment, value will be communicated by referring to something which holds a "universal" value, and that is where the over-secularization begins; just as we separated our laws from our beliefs we separate all aspects of our behaviour.

Is any of this grounds for halting secularization?  Of course not.  Does it mean that no objective ethics can/should exist?  Definitely not, the very thought abhors me!  What it means is that in a world where we are constantly told that science and logic must come before our personal beliefs, we mustn't completely abandon our personal beliefs in favour of things with a more widely accepted value.

So the question remains, where do we draw the line?  I deliberately left the question unanswered previously, and I learnt the hard way that where you don't give your own conclusions, people will make them on your behalf.

So here it is: The line should be drawn where secularization stops helping people get along with others and starts turning people into identical clones.  There is no reason why we can't have objective laws and ethics and not have subjective beliefs and values.  In fact, with no subjective beliefs and values the whole concept of objective laws and ethics becomes completely undermined, for they are there to enrich our lives, and in the absence of individuality we lose any claim of ownership to our own lives.

I hope I was clearer this time round.

Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One

Secularization. We're all familiar with this notion - the idea that society should move from having religious foundations to being purely based on a logical and scientific point of view.  While I am a staunch supporter of the separation of state from any form of religious institution, every point of view should be scrutinized, and secularization is no exception.

We are more commended for keeping this in our
pocket than placing it in someone else's

Of course the benefits of secularization are obvious and very, very important.  The forwarding of medicine and a fairer treatment of people from all walks of life are advantages which nobody should scoff at.  But can it be taken too far?

Hand-in-hand with secularization comes the notion that objective grounds common to all people are to be held on higher grounds than anyone's subjective individual beliefs and while science and legislation are much improved by this approach, too much of this good thing may be venomous.

When do we stop downplaying subjective beliefs?  Religion is of course the main target of secularization but it's not the only thing that's subjective.

The mentality of objective being more valuable than subjective can very easily - and not so accidentally - be extended to value monetary gain and normative behaviour over any value given to kindness, compassion, selflessness, dignity, valour, and really any virtue imaginable.

The natural sciences aren't the only objective things out their.  Finances, norms, laws, economics and business exist too.  Likewise, religion isn't the only subjective belief - so is any virtue.

Indeed, the world already has adopted secularization into these areas.  Immoral business deals are carried out everyday, personal styles are dictated by fashion magazines, success is measured by the size of one's house, car or income and not by how true he or she has stuck to his/her ideals.

It seems like all modern society is caught up in a global dick-measuring contest.  And the only worthwhile contributions to these contests are things with universally understood values.  We talk about successful people - but these successful people are successful by virtue of fame or wealth.

Who's the most commended?  The honest green grocer or underhanded supermarket chain?  The lying politician or sincere activist?  The popular celebrity or the heart-felt musician?

Whilst secularization is so beneficial to the sciences, might it be carried to the point that what we believe in has absolutely no value whatsoever?  That we only cherish what all people want?  How is that any different from the complete and utter death of individuality?

This post was far too serious, so here's a light bulb to make light of the situation.
.....Get it?.....Make light.....like a light bul- .... fuck it.

We must draw the line somewhere.  And to begin deciding where to draw the line we must recognize that secularization is not the be-all and end-all of all social improvement.  Just like any other belief, omitting secularization from our scrutiny will definitely do more harm than good.

A Funeral.

Dearly Beloved,

We are gathered here today to lay to rest the regularity of this blog.  Regularity was in bad health for much of his life, but the past six months burdened him ever further with harsh spells of writer's block and a severe shortage of time all due to heavy studying and binge coping-with-adminstrative-problems. The final blow came however when I moved to Dublin and started college, a development which led to Regularity's untimely demise.

Not many will mourn the lost of Regularity's humble life, but those few who will may be comforted by his final words; "Tell that bastard to get back to work."  In this context "that bastard" is of course me, but I believe we may all generalize Regularity's ultimate utterance as a wise instruction to lay our hands to work whenever life seems too irregular, and find peace and tranquility in our toiling just as Regularity did throughout his exemplary life.  When life seems tough, remember to be "that bastard."

On a less dramatized note:  posting on this blog regularly has proven to be impractical, impossible, imperceptibly implementable and all together much more "imp" than it's worth.  I will however be posting haphazardly, having a few half-essays jotted down on paper and recycling pieces of my incoming philosophy assignments which I'm sure I will have to trim several times due to their pocket-sized word limits. (Only 1500 words - that's hardly rational.)  I will of course have to spruce up the assignment-trimmings a tad.  I'm quite sure a mock funeral or random animal sounds (which were not so random by the way take a closer look; http://logical-not-unemotional.blogspot.ie/ ) might not sit well with my lecturers.

Back to the dramatization;

And so we lay Regularity to rest, may he find peace everlasting amongst his discarded brethren of abandoned endeavors.

May your respective deities smile kindly down upon us (or mockingly down at us) as indiscriminately and arbitrarily as we choose to adopt their doctrines,

Amen.

On Protests.

Red eggplants in august will sing for winter's hat.  That sentence makes no sense, and it does so deliberately, to attract your attention.  Now that I have your attention, my next task is to keep it, and I will complete said task by occasionally ending a paragraph with an animal sound.  One might say that this makes this text rather silly- and in fact it does - but being silly does not make it any less true; as being beautiful might make a girl any less intelligent or being stylish might make a gun any less deadly. Quack.

Sponsored by Random Animals

The buzzword for these coming weeks is "protest", and likewise a lot of criticism against activism is being thrown about rather carelessly.  Where to begin evaluating this criticism is rather tricky, but I'll take a stab in the dark.

The "voice" of a protest is not, as many people seem to think, the voice of a group; it's the voice of many different people who all have the same thing to say.  Every person in the crowd is unique and has his/her own past experiences.  They are not there because they are obliged by some over-looking authority who has instructed them to go. Baaa.

Which of course leads to the question, why should anyone attend a protest?  The criticism against attendance usually rests on the fact that it is pointless, and while just how pointless it is is up for debate it is also vastly unimportant.

Whenever anyone attempts anything in life - whether a protest or not - the chances of success are not definite. When we act we act hoping for consequences, but not knowing whether those consequences will definitely be realised or not.  One does not need to look far around oneself, or deep into his/her own past to see clear examples of how one's actions did not result in the consequence s/he was hoping for.  But this does not mean that we cannot act.  If anything, not acting simply because the consequences you hope for might not occur is a sign of cowardice.  If you cannot go stand up for what you believe in when there are people beside you, how will you ever stand up for what you believe in when you are alone?  There is no courage when the outcome is clear, only when things look unlikely will there be any need for bravery.

And by "what you believe in" I do not only exclusively mean social issues.  I mean for your own values, for the people you love, for the things you want, for anything and everything which is important to you.  You couldn't stand when there were others beside you, and you expect to stand alone?  Those who sit for so long doing nothing will find their knees weak when they are forced to act.  Meow.

And maybe you might look at a cause and say that it's not something you believe in, and you walk away and that's fine, but don't dare look at those who stood their ground and say they are fools or clowns, because the joke's on you friend; when your turn to fight comes round, and I assure you it will, you won't have a drop of courage in you.  You distanced yourself from those who knew how to fight, ended up with those who knew only how to hide, and from repetition and repetition of the same cowardly behaviour you yourself became a coward; a "man" or "woman" who shunned those who fought, you distanced yourself from thoughts of resistance and became complacent and scared.  Cluck cluck.

So that's one thing, do not shun those who fight for what they believe in, if anything commend and learn from their own strength.  And for those who have the desire to protest, but for some reason have not, I have kinder words.  Who you are is reflective of the choices you make.  The consequences of your actions may result in nothing but by taking a stand you are practicing the virtues of courage, determination and (for most causes) kindness.  If these are the virtues you wish to have, you should know that they do not come easy, and much less do they come instantly.  To be brave, strong or kind are not momentary choices, they are choices one must make again and again until bravery, strength and kindness become part of who you are.  Becoming virtuous means that making certain choices becomes easier, but for those choices to become easier you must be trained in making them.  If you live the life of a cruel creature, you will not be able to suddenly choose kindness when it becomes critical that you do.  These traits are things you must habituate into and they will not suddenly become part of your nature overnight.  Roar.

One might ask what authority I have to make such claims, but I do not make these claims on my own authority; I make them based on the very fundamental facts of human behaviour.  Go read, look, search, ask, and you will never find strong evidence that acquiring a virtue is instantaneous.  Rather you will find much the opposite.

So, the bottom line, yes there's a small chance of success, and yes it may seem pointless.  But you protest to stand by your own virtue, you protest because you want to be kind and strong and determined.  You protest because, come what may, you have your ideals and you will stand by them and be yourself in the face of everyone and anyone close enough to here you bark.  Woof.