Why Socialism is Bad for Global Charity Works

There is quite a disturbing trend that has risen among college-aged people as the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has ushered in a trend of accepting and favoring of socialism among young American citizens. Now, it has long been true that college students were more disposed toward socialistic ideals. Yet, historically, the zeal for socialism is at its peak. Here, I argue against this new-found zeal for socialism on grounds that socialism or any form of statist ideologies is not conducive toward global charity works.

(It should quickly be noted that, in my economic view, the sets of policies that counts as a "statist ideology" in practice differ by countries for there are matters of practicalities to be considered, e.g. density of the population by sectors, population size of the country, geographic size of the country, GDP per capita, etc. Although we may hold conceptually what a statist ideology may be, no economic system will fit tightly into the concept unless we take practicalities of a system.)

     In pursuing global charity, it is of necessity that we should eliminate, or at least mitigate, practices of grave evils. Now, many may disagree between the conservative-liberal divide on what counts as evil. For example, many would surely be against me opposing abortion and legal redefining of marriage. But only those few who have deviant consciences would be in support of grave evils of systemic oppression of ethnic or religious groups and human trafficking.

     It is of no debate that, in order to improve the conditions, wealthier developed countries need to contribute in aiding the impoverished parts of the world. Now, there are two ways of going about this topic. One would obviously be foreign aid by countries. Another would be works done by NGOs and individual charity works.

     A socialist might say that, if a country gets more money from its citizens, it would consequently have more money to aid other countries in need, thereby benefiting the global community. This claim would of course assume that the bureaucracies of socialist (or statist) countries would be willing to send money to other nations, foregoing the opportunity to use more money on domestic projects. This is not always true. Denmark, who earns less than, U.S. consistently gives more in foreign aid in proportion to their GNI. Generally, the coveted 0.7% GNI targeted by the UN is not achieved by that many countries... only 5 countries achieved over 0.7% in 2013.

     Another objection against the socialist's claim is the fact that foreign aids are not flexible. They are tailored by contract to be used in particular areas and oftentimes given to the government that needs the aid. Now, it may be the case that the determined purpose for the funds may outlast its practicalities, and there is also the problem of being able to trust a government that may or may not be corrupt with large sums of money. If the central bureaucracy judges that they cannot trust unstable governments of third world countries, they would likely not trust them with their foreign aid. NGOs, however, due to their non-governmental nature, can spend their money on the people of the country they are aiding by tailoring to their needs, instead of giving money to the foreign government.

     Much can be said about the socialist's claim, but I will not address them due to spacial concerns. But I can say that socialist and statist policies that hinder charity through NGOs and individual charities. Suppose that we burden the top 1% of our nation with 90% tax rate. Some would be compelled to leave the country. For those who stay, they will nonetheless be significantly hindered in giving large sums of money to charity organizations. Here, we have a scenario where neither the government and NGOs can fully benefit. A large part of our world's charity works are done by Christian churches, the Catholic Church being the dominant one. Now, if the wealthiest are heavily taxed up to 90%, then they will also lose their capacity to tithe - a 10% of their income - to their churches. We are all familiar of how the Catholic Church is active in third world countries in helping out the poor. Imposing a socialist or statist policies would hinder their projects and actions of good will.

     Further, it should be noted that the importance of NGOs, when counted as a whole, is their flexibility and their ability to give insights. Different NGOs focus on different narrow aspects of injustice. For example, there is an NGO that builds schools for girls to be educated in hopes of rescuing them from systemic oppression of women. But another NGO finds out that, on her way to the school, she is raped. It is further found that, due to the ineffective law enforcement of the country, the rapist would reign freely without a fear of conviction. This fact compels her and other girls to skip out on school out of fear, and their parents to stop sending the girls to school. So the NGO would focus on improving the law enforcement of the country in need. This problem with the law enforcement would not have been noticed by the NGO seeking to educate, and they would consequently have wasted their money. It was through the NGO that focuses on legal justice the former were able to educate girls. This symbiotic relationships of different NGOs cannot be matched by what central bureaucracies can do alone.

     Another reason why socialism and statist ideologies can hinder the efforts toward global care is that, if NGO activities are lessened from people having less money to spend toward charity organizations, the NGOs will consequently have less people they are able to hire. In effect, they will have less experts to aid particular issues. There is a wide array of experts NGOs are able to send. Among many more, they include: lawyers, criminal investigators, educators, engineers, geologists, doctors, and social workers.

(An obvious objection from a socialist would be that the state can replace the charitable manpower lost. But of course, as stated above, this is assuming that the state bureaucracy would be willing to spend more money toward foreign powers instead of domestic interests, a foolish assumption to be had. Further, there is the problem of the central bureaucracy detecting problems of other countries.)

     As can be seen, socialism and other statist ideologies are not conducive to global charity. In fact, it appears that some liberal progressives' support for socialism is incompatible with their narrative of global progress by potentially limiting the resources - capital, specialized manpower, and innovations - sent to less developed worlds.

Marvel's Daredevil and Jessica Jones: A Tale of Two Cities

WARNING: SPOILERS

Netflix recently released two shows based on Marvel comics: Daredevil and Jessica Jones. They are both set in New York City within the Marvel's cinematic universe. Though set in the same city, the two narratives tell of two distinct cities.

     New York City portrayed by both shows are within the Marvel's cinematic universe, meaning that it is a city once battered by the alien invasion that occurred in The Avengers. Its citizens are still trying to recuperate from the damages of the alien invasion while criminals are taking advantage of the harsh situations of the city. It is a dark city overrun by evils of men.

     In Daredevil, however, all is not lost among the darkness. The show's main character, Matthew Murdock, also known as the Daredevil, is a Catholic whose motives for becoming a hero is deeply rooted in his moral conscience. The show is not stingy when it comes to highlighting his Catholic identity; the show starts with Matthew in a confessional with a priest. Furthermore, at the end of episode 1, the show ends with the protagonists talking of virtue, a word that is quite rare in modern moral language apart from the religious. In recognizing that he is gifted with superhuman senses and advanced martial arts techniques, he finds himself suited to fight against the evils that corrupt the city. In becoming a hero, his alias "Daredevil" gives new meaning to the word. Daring to go against the tide of evil is indeed audacious in line of the traditional understanding of the word. Yet he is a person who dares to go against the devil, someone who dares the devil. In fighting evil, he does not become evil himself; in defeating the villains, he refuses to kill.

     Matthew is a lawyer, a morally conscious lawyer at that. The profession in the show, however, is not portrayed in such a way. Lawyers are portrayed as Machiavellian individuals who show no sympathy for the disadvantaged. In fact, they work their hardest to exploit the disadvantaged. Matthew stands out among other lawyers in the show in that he has a sense of purpose driven by his moral convictions. New York City in Daredevil is thus a ruined city with hope wherein a hero delivers divine justice through his deeds.

     Jessica Jones is quite different, however. The heroine Jessica Jones, although gifted with super strength, is a victim of a mind controlling villain Killgrave. Under his control, she lived in a hell.... She was forced to kill, forced to show affection toward him, and force to have sex with him (which is in effect rape). She wanted to do them while not wanting to do any of them; her sense of autonomy was totally depraved under his control, rendering her super power irrelevant. She is portrayed as a victim, to be sure. She suffers from PTSD and behavioral issues that impede her from having meaningful relationships with people.

     The show doesn't portray Jessica as the only person incapable of meaningful relationships. In fact, the show portrays romantic relationships in general in an extremely poor light. Jessica gets into a sexual relationship with Luke Cage, a person gifted with unbreakable skin. There is a hope for romance between the two, but the relationship does not progress far; they end up using each other for sexual pleasure in hopes of curing their loneliness. A lesbian lawyer (keeping up with the portrayal of lawyers in Daredevil) Jeri Hogarth seeks to divorce her wife to be with her secretary Pam. Even with Pam, Hogarth is incapable of establishing a meaningful relationship... Pam ends up killing Wendy, Hogarth's Wife, while Wendy is trying to kill Hogarth by giving her 1,000 cuts as ordered by Killgrave. Trish, Jessica's best friend Trish gets into a romantic relationship with Will Simpson who turned out to be a villain. What is the show trying to point at through these negative portrayals of sex and romance? I believe that it is the moral depravity of its characters and the city itself.

     The failures of romantic and sexual relationships are grounded in characters' moral failures. Jessica is intemperate, Luke is lustful, Hogarth is manipulative, and Simpson is a cold-blooded killer. Apart from the main characters, the city is run amok with sexual vices. In fact, Jessica is a private investigator often hired by Hogarth whose clients are in need of exposing their cheating spouses in order to get more money at the divorce court.

     Sexual immoralities are "insignificant" when compared to the consequences of violent crimes, to be sure. But the same vices of main characters lead them toward causing violence. Out of her intemperance, Jessica delivers her heroic justice in morally questionable ways. She used Killgrave's parents to have Killgrave turned in to the police, fully recognizing the danger of the parents being killed (which they do), and she also tortures Killgrave, killing him by violently twisting his neck at the end of the show. Jessica, unlike Matthew, becomes evil to fight evil. Hogarth, through her manipulations, causes Killgrave to escape and consequently cause her wife to attempt to kill her.

     These signs of moral depravities is not hidden in the show's choice of words. The cuss-word of choice in this show is "god damn it"; the word is said by characters too often to be left unnoticed.  The choice is not a mere attempt for Marvel to keep the level of verbal vulgarity to a PG-13 level. The motive is to portray the city in a contrary light from Daredevil. Daredevil portrays New York City through the narrative of a hero with religious and moral convictions; it perhaps portrays a city werein the will of God is being done. However, Jessica Jones portrays the city as a city damned by God. In fact, Daredevil portrays religion, Catholicism in particular, in a positive light through Matthew Murdock whereas Jessica Jones does not. In Jessica Jones, Hogarth proposes to Pam despite her legal status of being married to her wife. When she does, Pam says that she can't because she's a Catholic. Here, the show uses Pam to portray a world where religion is meaningless; Pam commits adultery and homosexual acts, both of which are condemned by Catholic teachings, all the while calling herself "Catholic."

     To me, both shows were excellent. Their narrative styles were engaging and also their efforts to build up characters were better than most shows out there. I was pleased how Jessica Jones, a show that came out later than Daredevil, is in a quiet philosophical dialogue with Daredevil. It almost seemed to me that the writer of Jessica Jones was saying: "No, this is the kind of world the characters live in." Perhaps this dialogue will continue throughout the years, season after season, one I am anxious to spectate.

Is There a Better Way to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Intellectually?

I was at a presentation listening to a Finnish philosopher present his argument against same-sex marriage. In sum, the basic outline of his argument followed thus:

1) Law affects human behavior and beliefs.
2) If the law permits same-sex marriage, people will understand marriage in a different way.
3) The different understanding of marriage is wrong and will ultimately result in negative societal "health."
4) Therefore, the states should ban same-sex marriage.

It appeared to me that he treated premises 1 and 2 as givens. I hold no objections against them. My problem, however lies in how he defended the 3rd premise.

To defend his 3rd premise, he presented a series of empirical findings and their implications. However, I found those arguments weak. Others in the audience thought so too, I believe; I saw rolling eyes and frustrated sighs. The presenter could not respond back on the spot, because he would first have to gather additional evidence before responding to them.

The argument was weak in that empirical findings leave room for subjective interpretations, and suppositions of possible interpretations. And indeed the arguments were followed by interpretive criticisms. For example, the presenter showed how homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous because of their views of sexual ethics. Someone in the audience objected by saying: It could very well be that homosexuals are propelled to be promiscuous due to societal pressures.

Another audience member said that, since a child never really is raised by just a man and a woman (relatives, siblings, etc), there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and raising a child in that environment. It is true that a child can be raised just fine between homosexual couples.

I would argue back that there are, both psychologically and biologically, undisputed facts that a child and its parents gravitate toward each other, and that it is highly beneficial for a child to share in both maternal and paternal bonds. This in effect gives reason to preserve the traditional form of marriage.

Yet, those who disagree with me will suppose other possibilities of the fact I presented, and I doubt not that they will come up with compelling interpretations by adding other sources. I can think of one myself. One may object to me saying that a second father acting maternally or a second mother acting paternally will solve the discrepancy (this field is yet to be extensively researched).

We tend to put much faith in sciences in guiding us, but sciences can seldom tell us about what is moral other than matters of bodily health.

Another point I'd like to add is that the negative societal effects of same-sex marriage, if any, is too minuscule to approach from a legal perspective (only 1.5 ~  3% of human beings are homosexuals). Further, to approach from a legal perspective will not rid the world of the negative effects of same-sex marriage (if any), because the premises that give support to the conclusion that is same-sex marriage is founded on a more fundamental belief.

So what is a better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually? As I sat there carefully trimming down my fellow students' arguments, it became clear to me that their understanding of sex and human relationships is different from mine.

Many of my fellow students did not see sex as something that should be had with both procreation and mutual pleasure in mind. They rather separated procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. This, it appeared, was where the fundamental differences lie. I believe that it is within this premise where social conservatives most often find common opponents with regard to same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, and as well as  sexual promiscuity.

This is the premise that gives support to same-sex marriage. Ideas have consequences. And this idea - an idea that took hold about two centuries ago, in combination with relativistic views (another opponent of social conservatism) - bore many fruits. One of the fruits is same-sex marriage. If sex can be had without procreation in mind, then is it not logical to conclude that fornication and homosexual relations are not immoral? The conclusion may not be sound, but it will at least be valid.

A person against same-sex marriage does not separate procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. We believe that we are to have sex by pleasing one another with mutual love while being open to new life, and further willing to nurture that new life. To us, sex is not something to be had as premature pubescent teenage boys would have. We believe that our sexual desires are to be controlled, mastered, and used only for the common good. If it cannot be used for the common good, one should also be a celibate.

These are some of the reasons why social conservatives believe that masturbation, sodomy, fornication, contraception, and, of course, homosexual activities are wrong. I believe that it is here where the intellectual battle should be fought, not wrestling over interpretations empirical statistics.

So the better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually, I believe, is to ground the argument on sexual ethics rather than consequences of same-sex marriage. I also believe that it is a more plausible way; if we can somehow promote sexual temperance, and thereby traditional sexual ethics, in this culture, a culture where pubescent sexual desires do not run amok, a culture where the life of a celibate is again praised, we would see a cultural reversal toward the traditional view of marriage (I cannot see how this can ever happen; I can only see decline in traditional view of marriage).

What, then, is love? Do we understand the concept of love to have a right in saying this?

A Concern for Ethics in Future Warfare

     The current political climate is dangerous. The global community has enjoyed two decades of relative stability thanks to the unipolar international system dominated by the United States. However, two new great powers are on the horizon: Russia and China. Russia is pursuing its dream of being a superpower once more, and China is striving to live up to its namesake: "Center Nation". Historically, whenever there is a rising great power attempting to rival the strength of the most powerful, there has almost always been a war between them.

     We already see advances by the West to put a choke-hold on both Russia and China by empowering its allies. The reason why the West is risking the Iran deal even when there is a high possibility of Iran defecting from the deal in the future is to have a formidable military power become a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. As we can see, Russia escalated its struggle for the region by directly opposing Western interest in Syria. Further, Trans-Pacific Partnership - a partnership that covers 40% of world's economy - was drafted. China, however, is being excluded from it. A sharp comment by President Obama followed.  He said: "When more than 95% of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can't let countries like China write the rules of the global economy" (BBC). The potential for a massive war, therefore, is great, supposing that no country is dumb enough to detonate a nuclear bomb. And with this potential, the great powers are racing for better technology in order to have the necessary edge over their enemies.

     The current military world is a defense-dominant world; the military equipment favors defensive doctrines. One might observe the U.S. operations in the Middle East and say that our technology favors offense. But in all of the recent U.S. operations, the U.S. had superior weaponry and the terrorist factions did not have the tech to counter them. This is not true for wealthy powers.

     A single RPG can disable a tank, and a single stinger missile can demolish a jet. This means that, as long as there are soldiers who can operate them, defending against offensive armored charge and airstrikes can be stopped with greater cost-efficiency. Even if a stealth bomber goes past the radar, if it is seen by the naked eye, it can be shredded to pieces by a stationary AA gun or, possibly, a weaponized laser (which is in development). Further, a jammer can effectively put a stop to unmanned drone strikes... drones only appear to be an effective war machine for terrorists simply have no counter to it. With it, any future possibility of there being a large robotic (droid?) army disappears.

     What does this mean? It means that the future of warfare, despite our best efforts to have machines do all the work for us, will ultimately depend on infantrymen. Exoskeleton suits and invisibility suits for soldiers are already in development to give the infantry the edge required to defeat their enemies, and these will likely succeed in trials. With these developments, infantry and mechanized infantry will likely increase in number. With it, there is a temptation to make new technological innovations to kill numerous infantrymen fast. The U.N. protocol only bans certain chemical weapons... it does not say anything about vaporizing people in seconds with directed microwave beams. This, I think, is worthy of ethical examination. We can perhaps put a ban on certain weapons before they are invented.

   

On Christianity and Trees

The Eucharist is "the source and summit of Christian life" - CCC 1324

     I played a game lately in which a friend to the left of me was required to pretend that he was me. In pretending to be me, he said that he wrote a blog post concerning Christianity and trees. After celebrating the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and listening to Fr. Daniel's homily just two days after, I could not help myself but to write on the matter. My friend was right; I am exactly the person who would write about Christianity and trees and I am sure it was not an occasion of coincidental nature.

     Trees are depicted in the Judeo-Christian tradition as a nourishing element. In the book of Genesis we see two main trees, not just one. God planted in the garden the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which Adam and Eve had their fill of the fruit. But there is also the tree of life. The tree of life does not signify the empirically perceivable life but of true life. It signifies, among infinite perceivable life (immortality), a fulfilling life in complete communion with God and all His creations. But, as we all know, this communion was broken by the faults of Adam and Eve, rendering them unworthy of true life. So as to not taint the purity of Eden, it was necessary that they were banished from it.

     Although their offenses were great, God did not destroy them completely. Although they were forbidden from the present of life, they yet maintained life in mortality and in difficulty communicating with God. In this way God made mankind work toward their salvation, toward their true state of nature before the fall.

     It should be of no surprise to Christians (especially Catholics who connect the Old Testament and the New Testament during mass) that some books of the Old Testament are at times prophetic, priming the minds of the faithful for the (first) coming of Christ.

     Further into the Christian narrative, God, in His grace, presented to us the tree of life. But it was presented to us albeit in an unsuspecting way. It was presented not in a literal form of a living tree but in the form of Christ crucified. The body and blood of Christ, the fruits of his salvific work and passion, flowed from the tree that is the wood of the Holy Cross.  In this act of grace by God the symbol of wrongdoing used by the Romans, the cross, the tainted tree of knowledge of good and evil, is made null. Through this act the cross is made into a sign of life.

     And what does this new tree of life, the cross on which Christ is crucified, offers us? The same as the one in Eden: immortality and full communion with God. But Christ offers more than the original tree of life in that He is willing to forgive our sins.

     However, it is still necessary that we be worthy to be in the presence of the tree of life. Further, we Catholics believe that the Eucharist is, literally, Christ Himself; it is literally the fruits of the new tree of life (for Protestants and atheists this may be very strange... Just be kind and take my word that this isn't that strange once you adequately understand it). For these reasons we Catholics make a firm and unmistakable act of confession to God through the sacrament of reconciliation, placing ourselves in a state of grace. Only in this state of grace can we partake in the Eucharist. Through the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist, we are to meditate regularly how we are of fallen nature and practice thanksgiving toward Christ our Lord for allowing us to be saved.

     In doing these things we improve our faith and grow further into virtue both moral and theological. In this sense it is correct that trees be depicted in the Christian tradition as a nourishing element. Through the fruits of the new tree of life we are nourished and find true life. The Eucharist indeed is the source and summit of Christian life.

   

   

I Don't Know About You But I'm Feeling 22

I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the ring, and not by its maker. In which case, you were also meant to have it. - Gandalf

I personally never liked having birthdays. Too much attention is on me. A few words from those I care about is all I want. I've always enjoyed others'  birthdays, however, for I have an excuse to spend money on them and show my appreciation toward them without making them feeling owed. I do, however, like the fact that I can express myself with a different number.

     Now I'm 22. As I aged a year more, it is about time I reflect on myself. It is an awry feeling, being 22. The fact that I am twice older than 11 years and 11 lesser than 33 years is indeed a strange thing. It is also a strange thing that I am thinking in such a way, and it is even stranger that I decided to write like this for this post. Perhaps the feeling of strangeness I want to convey is sufficiently expressed by this paragraph. And perhaps the fact that this post is not argumentative in nature also convey the level of strangeness; it's more of a fluid train of thought.

     Perhaps the feeling of strangeness I want to convey is conveyed stronger in the title; for those of you who know me personally, me quoting Taylor Swift should be very, very strange to you.

     So what is this strangeness? It is a feeling that I am out of place, a feeling that I am not quite where I'm supposed to be, a feeling that my life is not completely mine own. This may make myself come off as a person who is suffering from depression and serious identity issues. But I am not. I have never been more sure of my identity. I further guarantee you that I am one of the most mentally stable person you will ever meet; very few things are capable of cracking me. My mother once told me that if I keep being too unemotional (which translates to mental stability within the context of conversation), I will die a celibate. Considering my 100% rate of failure in getting into a relationship, I think she may be right. So much for proving that I am mentally stable. Let me then elaborate on the feelings mentioned.

     If I were to write an autobiography of my life up to this point, and I do believe that enough has happened in my life to write a book about it, it would seem more like a work of magical realism as opposed to an autobiography by today's standards; it would portray a story wherein the reality is indistinguishable from the fantastical. If a modern person were to read it, he would say: "This is a load of bullsh*t". I think that the element that would appear to a modern person as bullscheize is coincidence. There are many coincidences in my life. Too many for me to even bother specifying here. There were multiple near-death experiences (even my parents don't know about), unprecedented sufferings, strange relations with people, etc. If a reader were to read it and see all the events of my life unfold and interacting with these coincidences, he will think that he's reading a hero's tale guided by a divine power.

     But when I think on my life, these coincidences are not coincidences at all. The longer I meditate upon them, the conclusion I get is that most of them happened with purpose. Most of these coincidences allowed me to progress my life in such a way to have my self here on a journey to there. It goes without saying that these supposed coincidences are not coincidences but events with meaning. And the more I reflect on these events with meaning, the more I see that my life is not exactly mine own.

     When I hear others' life stories, I see these meaningful events within their lives. I see in their stories another example of magical realism. I see in their stories another hero's tale guided by divine hands. But they consider them merely as events of chance. It dawned on me that the difference between them and myself (and others who share my sentiment) is that I began a habit of stopping and reflecting on every event that happens to me. They perhaps the lack of courage to look into the events; they refuse to examine them out of fear that some events might entail the divine will contrary to one's will, a sentiment of fear I too often have. But when I examine these events I cannot help but to feel and see divine guidance; sometime God sends me, insofar as I am willing to be perceptive, a definitive sign that certain things were meant to happen and that there were no ways of evasion. Each time such signs are given to me, I feel stranger as if I am being more apart from where I am now. Paradoxically, however, I feel more ordinary as such things happen.

     All in all, I think it can be expressed that feeling 22 is a different feeling than when I was 21. The problem, of course, is that I might be feeling 21 when I'm 23 or feeling 20 when I'm about to die; situations I want to avoid as I live out my life. I think it is good that I should feel stranger as I grow older. But never mind that... they are talks of distant future. If you are a practicing Christian like myself, you may be able to empathize with me saying these things. If you think that all this is bull's waste, then I challenge you to be more perceptive. Reflect on the events of your life closely. It is said that an unexamined life is not worth living... For the sake of your life's worth, then, I challenge you.

   

   

   
   

Immorality of Abortion and Forced Cryosleep: A Thought Experiment

People who supposedly support women's rights think that abortion is not equivalent to murder in principle. But they are disturbingly mistaken; they overlook the wisdom of old, thinking that they are better than they out of hubris. Murder is wrong in that it willfully takes actual life and/or the potentiality of future life. If one of the two criteria are met, then it is counted as murder. Let's use a thought experiment that presents how this principle of murder applies. Perhaps this thought experiment will give the advocates of abortion something to think about.

Forced Cryosleep
Imagine yourself a future where cryosleep machines are being used as a means to keep astronauts from aging through a long journey through space. For safeguarding the life within, its power supply is 100% self-sufficient and its computer is completely disconnected from outside sources, meaning it cannot be deactivated through wireless means. To deactivate the cryosleep, one must manually enter the date the machine will release the body within.

In this future, there is a giant space station orbiting a planet in a faraway system. It is a research facility that examines the system. In it, there are escape pods equipped with cryosleep machines and a distress beacon. The escape pod is designed to withstand impacting into planets with extremely high gravitational pull; it can easily withstand a force equivalent to a nuclear blast. Once inside, the chances of survival is extremely high.

A mechanic who lives in the station holds a grudge against one of the scientists for looking down at him, calling him uneducated. Overcome with fury, the engineer forced the scientist into an escape pod, pushed him into a cryosleep machine, turned it on, set the deactivation date to 09/09/99999999, destroyed the distress beacon, and launched the escape pod into deep space, away from the gravitational pulls of celestial bodies.

A week passed by without the scientist being seen. So an official investigation begins. After two weeks, the engineer is arrested and brought back to earth for trial. By this time, the escape pod being found in deep space is slim to none; the area to be covered for search is too vast for human beings.

When he was charged with murder, the engineer argued that it was not murder for the scientist is technically still alive; his life is still in stasis.

If you were a judge in this case, how would you decide the case? Is this murder or no? While there is no actual life taken away, there is a potentiality of life taken away. Would you not judge that this is murder? Would you not say that, while the scientist's life itself is not taken away, this is indeed murder for the very fact that the possibility of life is taken away? All the things he could have done, all the happiness he could have had... they are taken away.

Abortion
In a voluntary abortion, there are elements at hand that are similar to the cryosleep case:

1) No actual perceivable life is taken away, that is to say no life of a biological form capable of self-sufficiency is taken away ( a religious argument would say that a life imperceptible was taken away, but I will stick to secular arguments).
2) A potentiality of life is taken away.

All the things the child could have done, all the happiness the child could have had... they are taken away.




Possible Objection
A pro-abortion advocate would say that a murder can only account for the taking away the potentiality of life of an actual life.

Reply

I answer that we are beings that are intertwined with past and future; we cannot be looked at as beings that have their actualities separate from their potentialities. To assume that the potentialities and the actualities of our lives are separate and distinguishable is an ontological fallacy in both religious metaphysics and in physics as discovered by quantum mechanics. I will explain in physical terms only since the religious will understand without me explaining and the irreligious will not be interested to know. The scientific findings suggest that the material things are in a superposition of states; the past, present, future, possible pasts, possible presents and possible futures are all interwoven. Assuming that the essence of life is in the will itself, in terms of talking about materials that compose our bodies, it is fair to consider ourselves as beings interwoven with our actualities and potentialities of the future for the will has no effect in the past. And since the potentiality to will is created at conception, it can then be said that life begins at conception. In this sense, to willfully abort a baby is tantamount to murder for the actual accidental properties of the fetus is interwoven to its potential accidental properties of the future. The future of a fetus, of course, holds a human being .

To readers: Sorry for using field-specific language. It is the only way I can explain it. If what I said is unclear, look it up on Google.

Being an Atheist... Does it Make Rational Sense?

Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior. - Isaiah 45:15

I've been puzzled about the nature of faith and the lack thereof. Even though I consider myself a devout Catholic, there are yet times my faith shakes. Whenever moments of uncertainty happens I pray like any sensible devout Christian would do in times of uncertainty. When I have calmed myself, I further pose this question to really hit he nail and affirm my faith once more: Does it make sense to be an atheist? It is the aim of this post to share the thought process I go through in asking myself the question.

     When an atheist says that he doesn't believe in God, he, whether he is a common man or a distinguished philosopher, he believes so essentially because he does not see God and His works. But this assumption is an error. Just because one does not observe certain things to be so does not mean that it is so. Imagine yourself sitting across a man you've never met. You do not see his cellphone so you assume that there is no cellphone. But, of course, this would be erroneous for there are other factors. One of them being his cellphone hidden in his pocket.

     In order to cure the empirical uncertainty, he may start from a cosmological argument to show how God may not exist, or he can even launch a counter argument for theists' other metaphysical arguments. But such arguments will end in mere speculation. The word "may" being the key word, the arguments will only show the possibility of nonexistence of God; they do not show certainty.

     So, however sure the atheists may believe themselves to be, all they are left to support their claim is the possibility/impossibility of God's existence. They cannot even be moderately sure. Since the arguments will always go outside the physical universe there will never be a moment in human history, however advanced our sciences may become, where we can clearly say with empirical certainty that God exists or does not exist for the sciences developed in the perceivable world will cease to exist outside the perceivable world. Further, the probabilities dealing with the existence of God cannot be put into a numerical form; we cannot say that there is a 60% chance that God does not exist. Such factors are unknown. So one cannot even say: "There is 50% chance of there being no God. I am therefore reasonably justified in taking the risk in this empirically unproven field". There simply is no room for reasonable disbelief.

     When one is left with such uncertainty, there is only one thing a person can retreat to: his own feelings. The gist of disbelief in God is based on feelings not a rational risk. Within the core of atheist's judgment, however convincingly he may try to rationally expound on his beliefs, it is his feelings that passed the ultimate judgment. It is therefore shown that atheism makes no rational sense.

     An atheist reading this may ask: But what about those religious people? What basis do they have for being reasonable in their faith? They are in a same epistemic darkness as we are. Are they not simply basing their belief based on mere feelings?  Are they not simply doing what they do out of fear of imaginary hell?

     First, I want to challenge the psychological reductionism. The act of reducing religious acts as "fear of imaginary hell" is erroneous in that you can't just simplify the complex thing that is the human mind into simple principles. This practice of psychology is a dying breed in modern world for the simple fact such practices are erroneous. Think to how Freud made wrong reductions. If you interview the faithful (like an actual psychologists would do), many will say in all honesty that the driving force of their religion is not the fear of hell but the love of God.

     Second, I want to challenge the thought that the religious are in a same epistemic darkness. It is true that many start their faiths based on their feelings. Perhaps they were raised to be religious and their feelings simply conformed to the things they were taught. And perhaps so many abandon their faiths when their feelings are corrupted by external sources, most likely by hedonistic temptations. But the fact that many religious base their faith on feelings does not mean that it stops at mere feelings.

     What drives people to have such adamant faiths, even more so for things that are not visible? One might say that brainwashing does the trick. By brainwashing its faithful the religion maintains the number of believers. This is a lie. Brainwashing does not do the trick; it fails when the visibility fails. There are countless Nazi and Communist agents who were thoroughly indoctrinated by the regime's propaganda. But majority of them lost the faith in their regimes when the visibility of them failed; they abandoned their faith in their governments when they were wiped from the map. Not to mention many North Koreans, who were indoctrinated from their childhood, now living a well-fed capitalist life in the South; in this case the visible construction of the North's regime failed when they saw the truth of it all.

     So, if not brainwashing, then what? What drives the faithful? Perhaps the reason why they are so adamant in their faiths is because they have encountered something real and perceivable.

     There is a phrase called "spiritual experience". And no, I do not mean those that are induced artificially through drugs endorsed by new-age Buddhists or hyper emotional states endorsed by Pentecostals (though I recognize that many can have authentic experiences through artificial emotional states, but I must detest the fact that many do not; they are simply swept by the mood). It is stated:“Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. - 1 Kings 19

     Genuine spiritual experiences are found in silence. Some Christians claim that God has spoken to them, that Virgin Mary has appeared to them, and that they have witnessed miracles. Further, many Catholics report indescribable sense of peace following after praying the rosary, one thing I myself can testify. In defense of Christianity there are spiritual experiences reported by multiple people (who were sober and in a silent meditative state of course) who report similar experiences, many of which are unique to Christianity (experiences gained after each rosary, for example).

     Being a skeptic during one point in my life, I was quick to dismiss them as some sort of psychological phenomena. But, being a committed Catholic now, I can say that it is not a mere psychological phenomena. There's something definitely perceivable but cannot be described using human language, a language that is severely limited in describing certain transcendental experiences.

     Summing up, there are just too many unified and similar experiences reported by the faithful. They will all say that they have felt, and by that word (see how the language is already limited, requiring me to clarify?) I mean more than mere an emotional account. Sure, the experience can include emotion. But they will all agree with me in saying that there was something definitely perceivable yet invisible. The encounter is not empirical yet its is empirical in a sense. However contradictory the previous statement may sound, that is the only way I can think of to explain the transcendental experience (again, limited human language).

     Considering how unified the experiences are, one cannot merely dismiss them as superstitious or subjective. Even atheists must realize (as I have many years ago) that the unified nature of the experiences makes it clear that there's something objective and beyond emotional impulses. In observing this, they would think: Perhaps the reason why I'm not religious is because I have yet to experience the things that they have. Therefore, for those who have had genuine spiritual experience, the ones the professed atheists have yet to experience, are rationally justified in being religious.

   

A Meditation Upon Scotch Whiskey

     I love whiskey. There's nothing better to do 9 P.M. in the evening than reading a complicated philosophy book while pretentiously sipping on a neat glass of Scotch Whiskey aged at least 12 years. But one does not simply read philosophy books while drinking a glass of Scotch; the least one can do is to meditate and get lost in deep thought.

     Once I pitted myself into a whirlwind of thought. I was reading a Confucian text and I came upon a phrase that almost enlightened me. In English it stated something along the lines of: "If one cares to contemplate upon the natural order of things around us, one can easily find how one can order himself to truly become a human being. A man sees bits and pieces of how he is supposed conduct himself as a person." What a remarkable saying! This concept of seeing parts of ourselves in nature is shared by many religions around the world, including Natural Law, a theological component of Christianity. 

     As I was meditating upon the concept, I took a sip of the Scotch. And, as my eyes fell on its golden tint, I thought to myself: Can I find how I should conduct myself in scotch whiskey? An absurd thought, to be sure! But more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that I can indeed find how a person should conduct himself in Scotch Whiskey. I wish to share how I found to be so in this post. 

Good Start

     One thing all alcoholic beverages require is a good start. Scotch Whiskey in particular must come from a fine quality malt (or other ingredients). It must then be distilled with unmatched skill and care to produce the finest of them all. 

     Much like so, a child growing up must be met with great care. Like a distiller carefully distilling whiskey, a child must also be grown with unmatched skill and care. To do so is to give the child proper moral education and ability to be virtuous. At young age they must first of all learn to be temperate so that they can control their emotions and arrive at proper judgment while their reason is not clouded. 

Fine Cask

     Casks are what for the most part gives the distinctness of each Scotch brand. In order to be considered top-of-the-line, it is necessary for whiskey to be surrounded by a good oak cask. A good cask will of course produce a masterpiece. A bad cask will produce a pitiful product, worthy only of drunken frat parties. 

     Much like so, a person must surround oneself with a fine cask. By cask I mean a good group of friends. Those who surround themselves with friends that have corrupt moral standards, they will more than likely to soak in the corrupt moral standards. In doing so, they will have pitiful character full of vices. Those who surround themselves with friends that have truthful moral standards, they will more than likely to soak in the truthful moral standards. In doing so, they will have the excellence of character; they will have virtue. 

Older the Better

     The magic of Scotch Whiskey is the age. The older the better. It takes a minimum of three years of aging for a whiskey to be considered legally Scotch Whiskey. Any younger is not considered as one. However, not all Scotch will be considered worthy of being aged. Only those that had the finest distillation process and the finest casks are considered for aging process by the distillers. Others are sold right after the legal limit of 3 years has been reached for they will not taste that much better by aging them. 

     Much like so, before the aging process, it is imperative that human beings find the right education and the right cask. If aged without the necessary components, they will not turn that much better. They will maintain the youthful intemperance and pride as they age and thus blind themselves to the wisdom that should be gained with experience. Those who had the proper upbringing, of course, will become better people as they grow up. When their youthful intemperance has subsided, they will multiply in virtue and gain wisdom easier than their youthful counterparts for they will have many experiences to draw knowledge from. In this they become better people. 

Many Will Not Get It

     Many people will not get the taste of scotch. Some will say that the scotch is too strong, too smokey, or too bitter; they will spit out Glen Moray aged 36 years without knowing how good it is. The connoisseurs will then tell them: "You simply do not know." Those who do not know will nonetheless look upon the connoisseurs and have one of two thoughts. Some will call them mad for enjoying scotch. The sane ones will admire them and will attempt to learn how to taste Scotch Whiskey from them. 

     Much like so, those that are excellent in virtue  will be seen as strange by many. Even when virtue is something a proper human being should strive toward, many will remain intemperate and ignorant. They will reject themselves from being virtuous for to do so they must conquer their own pride and carnal desires, things that they cannot part ways from. Those who do not understand virtue will, like those who do not get Scotch Whiskey, will have two reactions toward the virtuous. Some will call them mad for learning to suppress their pride and carnal desires. The sane ones will admire them and will attempt to learn how to be virtuous from them. 

Angels' Share 

     As Scotch ages in its cask, a small portion of it is lost each year through the permeable oak. The portion lost is oftentimes called Angels' Share. This process is essential in becoming a better quality Scotch Whiskey. 

     Much like so, a human being must know to give himself up, learn to annihilate pieces of ourselves that hold us back from becoming better: our vices. In doing so we hope to maintain only the virtues.

30 Things That Show the Unintelligibility of Modern Politics

Through our pride, we tend to believe ourselves to be high and mighty, standing above the dulled masses. We critique the political system of being ineffective but we oftentimes play the part in it. I will fully admit that I am a hypocrite in listing these things. Hypocritical or not, valid critiques are valid. And it is through the critiques we improve.

1) An extreme few can define key terms like justice, equality, and rights without contradictions (those who study philosophy, please pat yourself on the shoulder). Yet many hold the illusion that they understand the concepts to make proper judgments.

2) The people of this age think of themselves as the masters of reason. Yet the only thing that moves the minds of the masses is emotional appeals. Such a claim is a sign of their hubris; blasphemy.

3) People cheer or jeer against a new law not for its jurisprudence or lack thereof but for their own favor toward it.

4) Many think: I want this policy because I think it is right. In truth, they think: I want this policy because I want it to be right.

5) Liberals supposedly fight for human dignity. Yet, at the same time, they fight for sexual promiscuity, an attitude that ultimately leads to sexual objectification.

6) Conservatives supposedly fight against sexual promiscuity. Yet, at the same time, they fight for even more unrestricted consumerism, a machine that feeds sexual promiscuity to the masses.

7) Liberals supported the cartoon of Mohammad in the name of free speech despite its offensive nature. Yet, at the same time, they want to censor the Confederate flag for its offensive nature.

8) Many believe to be spirits of justice for believing in the cause they believe in. Do they not know that we humans are too wretched to even delight in the illusion of being one?

9) Many, especially the youth, claim that they have learned to "think for themselves apart from the people" that raised them. Did you really? Are you sure you weren't swept away by the massive load of information your minds were flooded in college without questioning them fully?

10) People crave rational discourse. Yet, at the same time, they actively avoid advanced dialogues that tear apart their thought process to see what's really there; they cower from those that challenge their conscience.

11) Many actively dismiss religions as "irrational" or "superstitious." But this is but a mask to avoid those that challenge their conscience. They know that they cannot crack the philosophy/theology built  and reinforced by intellectuals over the course of thousands of years.

12) Too many are convinced by political internet memes without questioning them. Is this not stupidity?

13) People show their true arrogant selves on the internet (like me). But they cower away from exhibiting the arrogance by not actively taking in verbal discourse. Writing falls on blind eyes, but speaking falls on deaf ears to a lesser degree. Speak your mind! It is better to exercise one vice (pride) rather than two (pride and cowardice).

14) Many claim that they are being intellectual in political and moral matters. But all I see are emotional impulses; many forget that emotions are supposed  to follow truthful principles rather than have created principles follow emotional impulses.

15) Pride is celebrated. It symbolizes freedom from prejudice and oppression. Funny thing, pride is the reason why prejudice and oppression occurs; evil men, out of pride, think of themselves to be higher than others, when in fact all human beings are equal in substance. As the Christians teach, pride was the first sin.

16) A sociological or legal paper on human trafficking does not move people. Not even a graph on a news article moves people. A fancy advertisement does.  

17) Many claim that they fight for equality. But they sacrifice liberty at the expense of it.

18) Many claim that they fight for liberty. But they sacrifice equality at the expense of it.

19) Many pursue equality. But they seek equality in a wrong place. Their pursuit of legal equality is but an illusion of equality; human laws are mere mental constructs when compared to the Natural Law.

20)  Many pursue liberty. But they seek liberty in a wrong place. Their perception of liberty inevitably leads to the vices they fight against; liberty properly sought after results solely in the virtues.

21) People want to be "free thinkers." Yet they actively seek after news outlets that agree with their biases. Conservatives stick to conservatively biased news and Liberals stick to liberally biased news. How are they supposed to think freely when they are clouded by biases?

22) All things now appear black and white for the government; they do not see multiple colors like a person with proper sight. Do they not know that all things depend on their practicality in particular situations? The practical governance of Aristotle, and Confucius is nowhere to be seen.

23) On scientific matters, we are quick to ask scientists to rid ourselves of ignorance. On moral matters, however, we do not go to philosophers or priests. Out of hubris, we believe what we want to believe on moral matters. We like to pretend that we know everything there is to know about morals. We then make political decisions based on our pretense.

24) Both the extreme right and the extreme left fight for things that are contrary to the principles of science even when they are knowledgeable of those principles; young-earth creationists and far-left feminists.

24) Good socialists supposedly fight for justice. But where is justice in not receiving a proportional due to the work one has done?

25) Good capitalists supposedly fight for liberty. But where is liberty in being alienated by corporations?

26) The prideful youth! They exert an argument but they run away immediately after, before a counterargument is exerted.

27) Very few news outlets have honor. The rest merely seek to confirm your bias, to feed into the desire to be correct that springs from pride.

28) If a republic is to fail, pride will be the source of its downfall. In an excessive desire to be correct, the majority will press on their beliefs to suppress the opposing side that challenges their conscience. One day they will wake up and realize that they have created a tyrannical regime. They will wake up and realize that they have sacrificed liberty at the expense of a false sense of security.

29) In the political arena, the problem of education revolves around money. They do not address the defective moral states and the nihilistic tendencies of a modern person. Perhaps this in itself is a sign of nihilism.

30) Pride is what stops public discourse and the democratic process from reaching their full potential. No matter how many trillions we pour into the education system, no matter how knowledgeable the masses are, if this moral vice that is pride is not addressed, the unintelligible nature of our political arena will not change.

Who will lose? Both.

Signs of Meaningless Culture: 11 Things That Would Make Nietzsche Proud

"'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink." - Friedrich Nietzsche

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the one who is famous for saying "God is dead," predicted the advent of rampant nihilism, an age where human beings live as if their lives are ultimately meaningless. In my view, the philosophy he left behind is shaping up to be one of the greatest modernist prophecies in that his predictions are actually bearing fruit unlike Marx's prophecy. His assessment of religion is complete nonsense, but I must give credit to him for predicting such a massive cultural phenomena. These are some of the things common in our culture that would make him rise from the grave and cheer in arrogant delight.

     But first, we should clear up what exactly constitutes meaninglessness and what constitutes meaningfulness to understand why the listed things are signs of nihilism. 

     In order to live a meaningful life, one must live a teleological life, that is to say live a life with an ultimate and lasting end in sight. The only viable end that can be counted as lasting is the common good. Those who dedicate their lives to the common good dedicate everything one does to contribute positively toward the human society and beyond. If one were to live a teleological life, all the pains and all the pleasures would contribute to the common good even in death. If one were to live a perfect teleological life, even the most mundane things like breathing is for the purpose of serving the common good; to do so is to live a life of a saint. This is a kind of life that a human being should aim toward. 

     To lack such dedication to the common good is to have a meaningless life. The self-pleasing desires have an end of pleasing the self. When the self dies, those pleasures would have been for naught. If one has lived a life of self-pleasure, one has lived a life without meaning. 

1) Excessive Monetary Pursuit

When asked: Why do you want to be what you want to be? one would answer: Because there's money in it. Capital is the prime motivator of the majority. Very few say: Because I like it. Even fewer say: Because I believe that I can contribute to the society with this profession for I have talents geared toward this profession. Capital is conducive to human society and the self only to a point where it is conducive to the common good. To pursue capital without a perceivable end is a mere pursuit of self-pleasure. 

2) Intellectual Negligence

When a desired law is passed, people celebrate even when they are ignorant of legal reasoning behind it. They rally behind philosophically challenging concepts like justice, equality, and love to justify what they want without fully understanding the said concepts. When it is obvious that they have been intellectually negligent of the necessary knowledge to make proper decisions, they celebrate nonetheless. This is a sign of selfish desire to be correct, not a deep desire for the common good.

3) Unrestrained Consumerism

Consumerism in moderation can be conducive to the common good. However, the unrestrained consumerism in our culture is not. Modern consumerism feeds urgency into the impulsive pleasures of the masses. With this manipulation of impulses, it urges people to pursue a life of self-pleasure. 

4) Widespread Intemperance

Unrestrained consumerism cannot totally be held responsible for the nihilistic tendencies exhibited by the people. The people themselves should be responsible for succumbing to it and failing to be temperate with pleasures. People buy new phones every year, party with a river of alcohol, and flood their wardrobe until full. Do they not know that pleasure is good only to a point where it benefits the common good?

5) Decline in Marriage

This is where the list gets a bit offensive to many. To marry and start a family is to contribute to the human society by way of providing a new member. Better yet, a proper marriage is to use the natural biological bond between parents and a child and the psychological bond between the parents to grow an exemplary citizen of the world. The desire of intemperate self-pleasing pursuits in professional gain or in number of sexual partners blind many from discovering the necessity of marriage in our society. 

6) Abortion

By aborting a fetus, one shows no interest in the common good. A child to be aborted can possibly be the one to donate millions to charity, cure cancer, or spread peace throughout the world(an exaggeration, of course). The child may not do such great things, but at least there's a good chance that the child will grow up to be a citizen that can further benefit the common good. Disregarding such possible futures is a clear sign that the one making a choice does not have the common good in her sights but her own pleasure.

7) Rampant Sexual Promiscuity

Speaking of self-pleasing pursuits in number of sexual partners, sexual promiscuity is a sure sign of meaninglessness. Sex is a biological function of ourselves that is designed to bring about a new life and induce deeper union between partners. And the union between the two partners is meant to have a more harmonious environment for the child by inducing a lasting and fulfilling relationship between the two. The modern hook-up culture defies the two-pronged nature of sexual intercourse for the sake of self-pleasure. Further, such practice is contrary to our health, meaning it is contrary to the common good.

8) Unproductive Sexual Practices

Masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, or any sexual activities that are not open to the creation of a new life are deemed without meaning for they are but acts geared toward pleasure and pleasure alone. Even if such sexual activities are aimed toward benefiting the partner out of love, the scope of the common good in a teleological life must aim beyond one's death. To fail to meet this criterion is to have an activity's meaning disappear at the end of the actor's life. In effect, it becomes meaningless.

9) Disregard for Human Dignity
People these days are quick to cry out for the dignity of a human being. But I fear that this tendency is but another symptom of intellectual negligence; they want it but they do not know it. The practice of BDSM and pornography are increasingly being accepted. But they neglect once more that such acts are damaging to one's dignity. An actress working in a porn industry is willfully subjecting herself to be used for the sake of another's fruitless sexual satisfaction, and a watcher of pornographic material is using the actress via screen for the sake of his fruitless sexual satisfaction. In the same way, the practice of BDSM requires a submitter to willfully submit one's body for the sake of another's desire, and a dominator  to use the other for the sake of one's own deviant desires. None of these are conducive to the common good in the slightest; they are rather quite damaging. If anything, the abandonment of our own dignity is perhaps the most fearful sign of nihilism.

10) Increasing Secularism
Secularism is an increasing phenomena across most cultures in this world. In the West, Christianity and Judaism are on a sharp decline. In the East, Buddhism and Confucianism also face the same problem. Even in the heart of India people are choosing secularism over religion. Why is this? This is because these religions teach against self-motivated pursuit of pleasures, the same pleasures the people refuse to abandon. As the people live in increasingly industrialized environments where excessive consumerism quickly follows, their moral judgments become clouded. Their condition succumbs closer to the condition these religions fight to stop: clouded judgment due to being intoxicated by pleasures. As he becomes intoxicated by excessive pleasures, the modern man say, "God is dead and I have created happiness" and drifts away toward meaninglessness like an overdosed heroine addict.

11) What I Feel Matters
Lastly, the sentiment that entraps many of the society's youths is a sure sign toward nihilism. It is called emotivism, a moral view that makes moral judgments based on emotions. To see the truth of this, one must look to how college students react to the prevalent moral matters; their brains are absent of moral principles but full of (rather hostile) emotional impulses; they cannot even define justice yet they cry out for it with religious zeal. To see more of this, one just has to remember the slogan: #LoveWins. It was a propaganda measure to rally the people toward the cause using an abstract yet emotionally attached word that even philosophers have difficult time cracking... The majority hopped on the wagon without questioning it. This prevalence of emotivism in  effect leads to moral relativism whether or not the person making a judgment is aware for feelings vary by individuals; the moral truth has no solid and unchanging rock it can stand on. And, of course, moral relativism leads to the logical conclusion that there is no ultimate morality... that morality does not exist, that God is dead, etc. The underlying cultural assumption that there is no morality, that there is no right way a human being ought to live, is the most obvious sign of nihilism.

Equality Does Not Make Sense Without Christianity

In the contemporary political arena, the general public most often use the language of human equality. This is evidenced by political advances like pro same-sex marriage advocates' appeal to equality in arguing for their cause. It appears that many speak of equality largely in a materialistic sense (philosophical worldview that believes human beings as mere matter), not in terms of metaphysics. The modern concept of equality historically rose from the Christian philosophy. Without it the concept of equality fails to make sense. To attempt to make sense of it once more, to examine what human equality truly is and to achieve a better understanding of it, is the aim of this piece.

Let us examine how a contemporary person would see human beings as equal by extracting from various modern political platforms:

1.                  People have equal physical and/or intellectual capacities.

2.                 People have equal physical and/or intellectual abilities. 

3.                 People have equal political and/or economic power. 

4.                 People have equal legal rights. 

5.                 People are composed of equal metaphysical substance (soul). 

Now, it is apparent, ranging from same-sex marriage to the institution of socialism, more people appeal to numbers 1 to 4 when dealing with political matters; many do not use the fifth sense of equality for religious arguments are jeered upon in modern politics. Regardless, to have an understanding of equality, one must see to it whether the mentioned criteria make sense.

1) The first sense the notion of equality is used, as it should be self-evident, does not make sense. People do not possess equal physical or intellectual capacities; a healthy man of 30 and a challenged man of 30 have vast physical and intellectual capacities.

2) The second sense the notion of equality is used, like the first, also fails to make sense. One just has to meet with a handful of individuals of one's own gender and age to see that some will be able to solve math problems that some cannot.

3) The third is the primary criterion that people use to argue for their cause. However plausible it may appear, its appearance is but an illusion. Though it is true that all can have defined political and economic potential created by the legal system, it is impossible them to have equal power because of the same reason mentioned in criterion 2.

4) The fourth also fails to make sense in that legal rights are human creations; modern liberal governments create rights as they see fit. A clear example would be this: In an absolute monarchy, there is no such thing as voting right whereas a democracy does. The concept of rights is a mere extension of human desires. It follows that, since legal rights do not exist apart from human beings, it has no authority of establishing true equality. The best legal equality does for us is create an illusion that gives a false sense of equality.

5) The fifth, by presupposing a metaphysical substance, or soul, that exists apart from physical substances that compose our body and our organs, it can be argued that all human beings are equal. Christianity is a perfect example of this view. In Christian theology, all human souls are created in God's likeness, that is to say human beings are to a certain degree capable of what God is capable of. It further teaches that all human souls are created equally in all respects. Only the accidental properties reflected by the perceivable world (place and time of birth, genes, circumstances of growth, etc.) differentiate a soul from another. It follows that, though accidental properties can be vastly dissimilar between different persons, all are equal in a sense that their souls are equal before God. Christianity further teaches that all human souls share the exact same potential: entering godhood by way of purifying their souls so that they reach their full potential in heaven.

Let us gather what has been said and use it to envision a practical case by touching on each criterion. The case to be used is gender equality.

1) It is apparent that two genders are dissimilar in physical capacities. It can, however, make a strong case that genders are equal in a sense that they have equal intellectual capacities. But, however strong the case may be, it cannot account for particularities of a single human being. It cannot be used on other cases that deal with individuals with impartiality, failing to embody true equality.

2) Gender as a whole may be compared to the other. Yet it fails to account for each human being much like the first criterion.

3) A similar argument goes for the third. Power is dependent on one's own particular situation such as legal rights or capital that one possesses, not gender. The third criterion case cannot be used for the cause of gender equality.

4) If legal rights are created by society and are dependent on human existence, then it offers no true equality; genders may be said to be equal in a sovereign state, but it does not have the authority to decide and establish gender equality as an objective mandate. The best laws can do without a divine ordinance is to merely offer an illusion of gender equality.

5) Christianity teaches that all souls - male or female - are created in God's image and in His likeness; both men and women can enter the Kingdom of Heaven through grace. A Christian metaphysical argument, it appears, can provide a way by which we can solidify the argument for gender equality.

     It appears, from what can be seen, the notion of human equality makes sense only when approached from the metaphysical angle, Christianity in particular. When approached materially the case for human equality falls apart.  From what has been said above, it can therefore be concluded that Christianity is a necessary component when attempting to make sense of the concept of human equality.

Emotional Impulse and the Failure of Democracy

"It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty." - Alexis de Tocqueville  

When people nowadays where the modernist Western culture now dominates are posed a question as to what type of government is the best form of government, they will cry out: democracy! Democracy is the form of government most of us are raised up in. It is almost in our blood to love democracy; we oftentimes cringe at anything that resembles an elitist form of government like aristocracy or monarchy. It is easily observable how this is so: we readily veer at men like Kim, Putin, and al-Assad. Yet, upon closer examination, democracy we have is not working so well. However we may love democracy, it is inching closer to its failure.

     

     Of the numerous ways by which a regime can fail, a democratic regime that allows the vote of the public always faces the threat of impulsive emotions. To our lament, impulsive emotions are displayed too often within our political environment. One just has to log into Facebook or go to a comment section of any news network. It is a well-known fact that, when one is too emotional, one tends to be less logical.

     When looking at Facebook status updates, comments on CNN, or comments on political memes, it is easy to find that people make judgments. Be it a matter of economy, morals, or religion, people make judgments for we love to make judgments. We love making judgments so much that we tend to make judgments for things that are obviously beyond an individual's judgment without having been experienced the situation personally. It should be a logical fact that, if one is not in a position whereby one can make an intelligible judgment, one should refrain from making a judgment. For to not refrain is to be prejudicial; it is to be unjust. And if one wishes to make a judgment, one should research more to arrive at an intelligible judgment.

     Intelligible judgment is an element severely lacking within political arenas of the democracies around the world. What fills the gap is the illusion of intelligible judgment, and it is an illusion fooling politicians and the general public alike. And this illusion is created by anyone making judgments without sufficient information and cool heads. Such judgments are made out of our arrogant notion that we are qualified to make whatever judgments we wish. In other words, the judgments are made out of emotional impulse.

     Philosopher Plato said that a person should have his reason dictate his spirited (emotional) and appetitive parts of our selves. He observed that the vast majority of people are incapable of doing so; the vast majority have either their appetites or their emotions govern how they think. Plato also ranked democracy next to the worst: tyranny. One reason, I think, is because he saw first hand how a democracy - a form of government that gives the public the power to judge - can fail. Democracy, he observed, is not a form of government that can easily be governed by reason for those who hold political power are incapable of higher level of thinking.

     When one has his appetites or his emotions rule over his reason, he becomes susceptible to getting his mind enslaved, both by his own passions and the passions of others. This is precisely how democracy fails: lack of rational and informed judgments, and too much of impulsive and uninformed judgments. For without them, democracy dies and ushers in tyranny of propagandists.

     History tells us, in examining the modern modes of propaganda, that  men are easily attacked and assimilated to ideologies. American patriotism, communist comradery, Chinese nationalism, as more innocent examples. And as for more evil ones, jihadism, Nazism, and racism. All you really have to do to convince a mass of people to your cause is make an emotional appeal to the (misconstrued) ideal of justice.

     Emotional appeals based on justice is particularly effective because almost every sane person capable of at least a bit of reasoning wants to value justice. But, at the same time, they haven't the slightest notion of the conceptual knowledge of justice; they merely grasp at the shadow of it. This means that the vast majority of people are not qualified to vote on social matters regarding morals. One has to be educated in philosophical matters to carry out such votes, and those that are philosophically educated are few.

     It can be easily observed that emotional appeals made on grounds of justice entraps the people's minds, not making rational judgments. Let us examine briefly recent events and topics to see how it is so. Take current scandals about policemen for example. For every police overreaction people see, the public is quick to jump on the police officer through media outlets about the man being racist or being racially motivated, criticizing him of immoral acts. The fact of the matter is, the public is not epistemically equipped to judge such matters. It may be true that the officer may have overreacted unprofessionally, but the moral worth of his actions can only be weighed by the particularity of the situation in which the public was not present. Yet, by emotional impulse, the public harasses the officers through social media, oftentimes ruining their lives and any prospect of future employment. The public does this for they were taught that racism is bad. However, they were not taught how to reason with cool heads; no public school system has a course that grows higher moral reasoning within children's minds. Out of emotional impulse that is the emotion of disgust, they jump on the bandwagon of criticizing, regardless of how ignorant they are.

     There are other cases that are more directly connected to the democratic process. The most apparent issue that can be commented on is how Ireland voted for same-sex marriage. The majority voted for same-sex marriage. Yet, at the same time, one must ask: how knowledgeable are the ones that voted on moral matters regarding marriage? How many of them voted because of their moral conscience based on fundamental moral principles? Apart from some Irish Catholics (who were taught those moral principles by the Church) that voted "no", not many. The majority that did not vote from justified moral conscience believed what they believed for there was a bombardment of  advertisements invoking human empathy for years. One can check the advertisements the Irish media showed and it is obvious that there is almost no intellectual appeal to them - only emotional. In this, the Irish democracy is already down its path to failure... or perhaps it already failed.

     In examining what happened in Ireland, it would be wise for all of us to examine ourselves. Do we believe what we believe because we thought through them down to the fundamental moral principles? Do we believe the things we do because we have contemplated upon them? Or do we believe what we believe because we were shown propaganda invoking our emotional impulses? Do we cry "justice!" for the things we do because the news we see confirm our prejudices? When a man like Socrates presses on our beliefs, can we answer him without contradiction?

     For all citizens of democratic nations, the above mentioned questions must be asked without being partial to a sense of pride and confirmation bias. They are questions easily answered if one takes time to contemplate upon them, given that they are willing to part some time off of their texting and cat videos. Very few people, philosophers and religious clergymen/clergywomen for the most part, are able to answer without contradiction when pressed upon their beliefs. For others, few can; even students of philosophy who study and write about these things on a daily basis cannot. Democracy offers a generous amount of political freedom for mankind and yet mankind must be equipped with intellect worthy of utilizing it. So for those who love democracy, it would be wise of them to be impartial to their ignorance and inability to reason in accordance to the truth. If not, from what can be observed, modern form of democracy is on its path down to inevitable failure. Or, on the off chance that it already failed, perhaps the people can one day rebuild democracy in doing so.