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.

   

     

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.