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.

   

     

Human Dignity vs. Sexual Promiscuity

     It appears to me that sexual promiscuity is becoming a norm among the youth of my age. Yet, at the same time, the youth of my age have a religious zeal toward protecting what they conceptualize as human dignity (whether they are right or not). I find in their beliefs a contradiction. And this contradiction is between their promiscuous behavior and their belief in human dignity.    

     If an average Western person were to be asked whether all human beings inherently have dignity to be respected, the average person would not hesitate to agree. However, if the same person were to be asked if watching pornography or sexual hook-ups are morally tolerable, the person would again not hesitate to say that they are morally tolerable.

     But there is this obvious and glaring contradiction between these two beliefs. What part of pornography and hook-ups respect the dignity of another? The intent of pornography is sexual pleasure by spectating, and the intent of hook-ups is sexual pleasure by real human interaction. In both instances, one uses another - be it across the screen or in person - toward the end of personal satisfaction with no good for the other in sight. This is different from romantic relationship in that romantic relationships are aimed toward the good of both, not one; they are intended to be beneficial for both, not selfish. For both acts disregard the other's good out of personal pleasure, it can be said that sexual promiscuity promoted by pornography and hook-up culture cannot coincide with respecting human dignity.

     At the same time, however, one of a deviant conscience would suggest that one can still respect the dignity of another while using someone for the end of personal sexual pleasure. Then this person of a deviant conscience perhaps has no proper conceptual understanding of human dignity and/or no proper understanding of one's own thought process. Is someone who is watching porn bent on taking into consideration the good of the actors? Exploiting another's sexual attributes toward self-satisfaction can hardly be said to be taking into consideration of the other's good. Is someone who is having a one night stand bent on taking into account the welfare of one's sexual partner? These behaviors are apparent only among couples in love.

Brief Observations on the Moral Knowledge of College Students

1)When average college students are asked about how to define morality, most have conflicting views within their beliefs. This is evident in inconsistencies in ways they go about to define it. Dialogue with an average college student goes something like this:

Whatever one does that does not harm others is moral. What would you qualify as a "harm"? Physical, psychological, and emotional. So would you say that me punishing a rapist is immoral since it harms the rapist's emotions? Well... if one has already harmed someone, he deserves it. So I am to be punished after punishing the rapist? That is to say, since I have harmed the rapist emotionally, am I morally culpable to receive punishment? Well...I meant to mention that only those who harmed an innocent should be punished. But by your definition of harm, no one is innocent. We all irritate someone emotionally/psychologically or, at rare cases, physically at one point or another. Well...

Nearly all of these dialogues end fruitlessly because the answering party keeps on adding a new category until their moral system becomes unintelligible.

2)When asked about how to define morality, most answer in terms of rights. However, they cannot define what rights are. One account, which also happens to be the most popular, points to Hobbesian notion of rights - an endless pursuit for one's own good. The second most popular view reflect Millian utilitarianism, focusing on the greatest quantity of good that is pleasure among the greatest possible number of people. Another account points to Kantian notion of morality based on duty without inclination. And there are the few of those that use the word "rights" as a form of metaphysical due that is human desert.

3)But one thing is peculiar... a mind of one individual college student most likely contains the first three accounts at the same time. There is a clear conflict of moral doctrines within one's mind. One may believe the Hobbsian notion of "pursuit of happiness", a right to relentless pursuit for one's own desire. Yet he may believe in a softer approach to mankind of Mill's utilitarianism, attempting to protect others' rights. At the same time, even when it is clear that a law may not allow for individual pursuit of happiness and provide the greatest good, one may exhibit enduring sense of duty to the law, a behavior exhibited by those who appear to be holding the constitution at an equivalent value of a religious holy book. The majority of college students that seem to be religious may have the fourth view along with the others: one might hold that the rights are God given, a metaphysical desert due to all human beings.

4)Most do not know that there are inconsistencies in their moral beliefs, but most know that they do not possess the knowledge of moral absolutes. Yet they commit to moral debates they do not fully understand with emotional outbursts of near-cultish zeal (well-fitting to the stereotype of bleedin' college liberal). They make judgments not with their reason but with their emotional impulse; rather than conforming emotional reaction to their reason, they conform reason to what they feel.

5)Granted, most students do not have time to contemplate upon morals and what not. So they submit to whatever or whoever is ready to lead them (unconsciously most of the times in case of the effects of the media). As one can observe easily, what is ready to lead them are starkly different. One is of the mainstream media, primarily consisting of modernist values. One is of the antiquity, the morals of the past championed by religions.

6)But who is better off? I observe the religious few to be better off. They have a consistent system of morals with valid arguments already made out (the Catholic Church grounded upon Thomistic virtue ethics being the better example), while the former based on contemporary modernist values do not; they reflect the doctrinal conflicts mentioned in the third section. Further, most of the former have yet to realize that they do not possess beliefs without inconsistencies. But the latter subscribe to religions knowing that they are like sheep, unable to find their paths on their own: they actively search for the shepherd to guide them out of humility.

7)One might oppose the sanity of religion saying that religions "brainwash" people. To be completely fair, cults do. But not religions. Further, in accusing religions of brainwashing in a modern Western society, one must answer this question: Is a religious person exposed more to his religion or the values of modernity these days? Which is more likely to brainwash? An hour spent at church and thirty minutes of daily prayers, or hours and hours of modern pop music and television shows riddled with socially liberal values?

8)There are some of the former who recognize inconsistencies in their beliefs. But most of them do not care. Out of indifference and hubris, they subscribe to whatever they feel is right. They set out to "create" their own morals. But all one will observe is human beings fallen from their true potential, enslaved by nothing but their own desires.

Quantum Mechanics and the Existence of God

This is a short post about a question that's been bugging me for a while. It concerns the quantum observer effect made sense by the Copenhagen interpretation. A feedback is appreciated. Here's the pitch:

1) Modern physics, Copenhagen interpretation, in particular, states that particles collapse into an ordered state only if an observer observes it; particles in an infinite superposition of states collapse into a singular state, i.e. the universe we observe and live in.

2)The tests were done by human subjects based on human observations.

3) Human beings cannot predate the universe itself, neither can anything that exist (except God) in this universe.

4) It appears, then, there is a Prime Observer that exists by necessity to bring about order to an actual singular universe which we live in out of infinite possible universes.

5) Therefore, this interpretation of quantum mechanics coincides with the belief of a creator God in Christian faith.

Possible Objection: It appears that the microcosmic universe (smallest particles) becomes ordered only when it is observed. If God is omnipresent and omniscient, he observed everything already. The experiment we perceived would not have been possible. Therefore, it seems that quantum mechanics and the belief in the existence of God is incompatible.

Reply: Theologically, this can only makes sense when the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is in play. God the Father may be omniscient insofar as He is outside of time and space, since everything has played out already at the end of time; He does not need to be in this universe to be omniscient or omnipresent. Jesus and the Holy Spirit, however, may not know; as God lowered Himself in the form of Christ the Man, He may have humbled himself in his knowledge as long as He is present with us in our relative timeline. After all, according to the Holy Scripture, Jesus did not know the day of the apocalypse (Mark 13:32). This is compatible, it appears, with the belief that God has given us the freedom to bring about our own future via the freedom of will. Therefore, it appears that, in light of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, quantum mechanics and the existence of God is compatible.

Fifty Shades of Tragic Fate of Arts

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville talked of the fate of fine arts in modern mass democracy. He said that in democracy, the arts will appeal “only to the body; and they substitute the representation of motions and sensations for that of sentiments and ideas; finally, in place of the ideal they put the real” (442); the arts will become modes to nurture carnal pleasures, not the intellect or the soul. From what can be seen from modern works of art, it appears that Tocqueville was right. To show how he was right in saying that fine arts will become modes to nurture carnal pleasures, Tocqueville’s thoughts on fine arts in democracy will be explained in detail. Second, a successful modern piece of literature Fifty Shades of Grey will be used as an example and its success will be analyzed under the thoughts of Tocqueville.

          In order to explain his thoughts on fine arts in democracy, Tocqueville compared democracy with aristocracy. In aristocratic centuries, he believed that fine arts were made to indulge the few educated elites who were very difficult to satisfy; the aristocrats knew the markings of a masterpiece and those that are mediocre or subpar. The immobility of social classes in aristocracy thus renders also the standard of arts immobile at its finest point. Tocqueville observed that, to appease the clients who have very high standards with regard to works of art, the artisans in aristocracies strove to master their skills. “In aristocratic centuries, the aim of the arts is therefore to make the best possible, not the quickest or the cheapest” (439). While Tocqueville thought that the aim of arts in aristocracy is to create the best, he thought that the aim is contrary in democracy. In democracy, Tocqueville observed that the class structure is fluid and highly mobile unlike aristocracy. In the fluidity of classes, the social bond that is always present between artisans and elite aristocratic customers become nonexistent. And when the bond is absent, the need to produce the best also disappears. Also because of the fluidity of classes, one can always find a man whose fortune multiplied greatly in a short period of time and whose desires outgrew his fortune. From this, Tocqueville observed that “in democracies one always encounters a multitude of citizens whose needs are above their resources and who would willingly consent to be incompletely satisfied rather than to renounce absolutely the object of their covetousness” (440). When there is an increasing demand for mediocrity and broken social bond between elites, the artisans no longer have the incentive to produce the best; they are merely bound to the desires of their customers.

          Tocqueville did not say that artisans in democracy will not produce the best. Rather, he said that the overall quality of whatever is produced by the artisans is constricted by the desires of consumers; in democracy, the desires of consumers can range from the worst to the best, mediocre being the majority. He presupposed that the arts of the ideal are of superior quality than that of the real; the arts of the ideal seek to nurture the intellect and the soul while the arts of the real are mere carnal amusements. Now since the consumers are feeling content with arts that are of mediocre quality, they are prone to seek the real not the ideal. Out of human vanity, they reach out to understand the concepts within arts that only educated elites can grasp. And when they fail to grasp the concepts of the ideal, they resort to and demand the concepts of the real. While the educated elite desire arts that satisfy the hunger of their intellect and their soul, the uneducated social regulars desire arts that satisfy the hunger of their flesh. Tocqueville thought that the knowledge of true art remains in the minds of the aristocrats and social elites, a knowledge that is lacking in most citizens of democratic societies. 

          In modern mass democracy, it appears that very few of its citizens know how to differentiate between the arts of the ideal and the arts of the real. And it also appears that even fewer will understand the philosophical way by which the words “ideal” and “real” are used in the context Tocqueville wanted them to be used in the quote above. Tocqueville thought that, from their restless pursuit to fulfill human vanity and lack of leisure, they have came think theoretical ideas such as the ideal as “wasting their time in examining particular cases” (415). Thus the people of democratic societies are prone to look for arts that please them physically more than arts that please their intellect or their souls. To show how this is so in modern mass democracy, a book called Fifty Shades of Grey will be used. Its contents and its popularity within the society will be discussed.

          The book Fifty Shades of Grey is an erotic novel written by an author pen named E. L. James. The plot and the content of the novel will not be discussed in detail here for the sake of civility. But for the sake of the current inquiry, the most basic of its elements should be described. The book was originally meant to be a fan fiction of another book of its genre Twilight, but the author changed her mind and went on to write her original book. It is about a 21 year-old woman in a submissive sexual relationship with a wealthy 27 year-old named Christian Grey. The content of the book is riddled with corrosive immodesty and descriptions of sexual acts which many moral institutions might regard as abominations. The book focuses solely to appease the momentary carnal entertainment of its readers, not to invoke intriguing thoughts like that of novels by Jane Austen. And indeed it has entertained many. The success of the book is astounding. The erotic novel “sold more than 100 million copies worldwide” (Bosman). It has maintained over a hundred weeks on the New York Times best-seller list and is also currently undergoing a multi-million dollar motion Hollywood adaptation.  

          Fifty Shades of Grey reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on fine arts in two ways. The first way is that it is not of fine quality. If it is to be compared in quality to that of other books of the genre, the book will turn out to be mediocre, if not below mediocre. The author’s characterization and her stylization “hew close to worn-out romance novel archetypes” (Reaves). Tocqueville observed that arts will not be made to be the best possible but to be mediocre by quickest or cheapest means in a democratic society. Like so, the book utilizes a similar process by which the precedent works of its genre, therefore the cost of mental process on the author’s part was minimal. Further, the book was originally meant to be a fan fiction of another book, therefore its concepts were quick to produce.

          The second way the book reflects Tocqueville’s ideas is that it is a work of art that is of the real, not the ideal; its prime purpose is the carnal amusement of its readers. The book’s main plot focuses on the sexual life of its main female character. Further, her sexual life is not what would be considered as normal in societal terms; it involves abusive sexual fetishes. Apart from its awkward romantic elements, the book is, in its essence, pornography. Tocqueville thought that the arts of aristocratic centuries sought the ideal whereas the arts of democracy will seek the real. And like so, the book sought after the real; in its contents, the book placed the representation of motions and sensations over sentiments and ideas.

          From what can be seen from the success of Fifty Shades of Grey, it appears that the current condition of modern democratic society also reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on the fate of fine arts. The very fact that the people brought about its success reflects it. Tocqueville thought that artisans work to appease the taste of their clients. Whereas artisans work to produce the finest of goods to appease the social elites in aristocracy, artisans in democracy work to appease the mediocre taste of social regulars. In the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, it can be deduced, from the fact that the work is not of fine quality, that the author produced her product to appease the mediocre standard of taste of social regulars. It can also be deduced from the astounding popularity of the book that the vast majority of the current democratic society consists of social regulars, not elites; a fact Tocqueville also observed. And since the knowledge of the finest of arts is within the minds of aristocratic elites and not within the minds of social regulars, the middle class consumers are prone to invest in things that are of lower qualities. Further, from what can be seen from the success of Fifty Shades of Grey and its highly sexual content, it appears that one of the most attractive qualities within mediocre or subpar works of art is appeals to carnal desires. Tocqueville also warned that it can be “particularly dangerous for democratic peoples to indulge in general ideas blindly and beyond measure” (416). The general idea that has consumed the minds of the democratic peoples, it seems, is hedonism, a philosophical thought that places pleasure as the chief aim of human beings. This is also reflective of Tocqueville’s thoughts because hedonism is perhaps one of the most real of all philosophical schools of thought. Tocqueville considered the ideal superior over the real. It can be deduced that Tocqueville would have considered works of art that reflect hedonism are of inferior quality. The book, therefore, came to reflect Tocqueville’s thoughts because the author appealed to the people’s desire for inferior hedonistic arts.

          It can thus be concluded that the book Fifty Shades of Grey reflects Tocqueville’s thought on the fate of fine arts in democratic society because it fulfills two factors. The first factor is its contents. Tocqueville thought that the arts will appeal to the real, not the ideal, and that the vast number of them will be of mediocre quality. Fifty Shades of Grey appeals to the real and is of mediocre quality in terms of its literary style. The second factor is its massive success in the market. Tocqueville thought that the people will desire works of inferior qualities without knowing and artisans will make arts to appease the tastes of their clients in democracy. The author achieved an astounding success through Fifty Shades of Grey by appealing to the hedonistic inferior appetite of her clients. It appears that if any praise should be given to the book, it should praised on how well it reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on the fate of fine arts.

Works Cited

Bosman, Julie. “For ‘Fifty Shades of Grey,’ More Than 100 Million Sold.” New York Times. The

          New York Times Company. 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Reaves, Jessica. “Fifty Shades of Retrogade,” Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. 14 Apr. 2014.

          Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago:

          University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.

Fifty Shades of Moral Decadence in Modern Society, more like

How We Can Know Morality is Objective

In a New York Times editorial “If It Feels Right…,” author David Brooks comments on University of Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith’s findings. Brooks summarizes that, according to the discovery of Smith and his research team, most young adults of ages 18 to 23 think morality is “something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart”, and that they tend to believe that what makes something moral is how the individual feels about the action. If this claim is true, then morality is relative, not objective. However, in this paper I argue that this notion that morality is relative is contrary to the nature of this universe, and therefore false, because it defies the rule of logic. To prove how this is so, I will provide an example of how a human being can discover morality through the faculty of reason.

This universe we are living in operates under rudimentary principles of logic. In mathematics, a numerical representation of logic, there cannot be two answers of different values to a problem. If two plus two is four, all other values within the range of infinity are wrong. It is self-evident that, if this principle is not in effect in our world, our world would not be in material form. When an action made by a subject, for example a human being, is in accordance to the logical order, then it is moral. If not, it is immoral. We humans call this logical order of actions moral principles, a guiding set of logical orders that help us to act righteously. Most of these moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason much like the way we discover different ways to do mathematics. To explain further, I will provide an example of how moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason. If we bother to withdraw ourselves from our senses and formulate an idea of an organic being, we will quickly see that organic beings are of finite nature, since finitude is one of the predicates of anything that is material. In mathematical terms, if even a little is added to a value, then it is not the said value anymore. If even a little is taken away from the value, then it is not the said value anymore. Similarly, this principle can be applied to things of finite nature, especially organic ones: if too much of emotions or nutrients are exerted or too much of them are added to organic beings, then it is fatal to them. Human beings incorporated this principle to themselves. In applying the principle to human beings, both Aristotelians and Confucians dubbed it as the Doctrine of the Mean. To provide an example, the only way a human being can maintain good health in terms of diet is to eat in moderation; one should not eat too much or too little. Further, the only way a human being can be righteous is to be angered at right things; one should be angry at unjust things while not being indifferent or going berserk. In given examples, it can be easily determined that, if one were to act excessively or deficiently, he would be breaking the Doctrine of the Mean; maintaining a mean between the excess and deficiency is the only way one can act righteously in the given examples. Thus, it can be seen that moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason and that there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to righteous actions.

Moral relativism, however, does not take moral principles into its system of morality. If one feels that an action is wrong and the other right, then, in accordance to moral relativism, what is right is how each thinks is right. Under the system of moral relativism, two or more different values can be answers to a problem. Under the system of moral relativism, one can exert anger or be indifferent at unrighteous things. The two actions can both be right depending on the thinker’s mood. It can clearly be seen that the notion that what is right and wrong is determined by how the individual feels is contrary to the nature of this universe, since, as I have established above, there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to righteous actions.

            Moral relativism cannot be true, because it does not hold true to logical principles that are established in this universe. It is a system that allows two different answers to have a same value. It is lamentable that so many young adults do not take moral principles into account when thinking about morality and lean toward their feelings when deciding what is right and what is wrong.

picture from