What's Your Favorite Color?

There is a story based on ancient Greek thought concerning a professor who teaches a young boy law without charging tuition. It is only stipulated that fees be collected upon the boy's first successful case. However, after countless hours of being taught law, the boy decides to become a musician instead, much to the chagrin of his professor.

Wanting to collect fees from the boy, the professor figures he can sue the boy and win whether the court rules in his favor or not. His reasoning is thus: if he wins, the court rules the boy must pay tuition fees but even if he loses, the boy wins his first case, which, as per the agreement, would entitle the boy to pay up. The boy, who represents himself in the matter, sees things in a slightly different light. If he loses, obviously nothing is owed the professor because he fails to win his first case. But even if he wins his first case, the court rules in his favor meaning he owes nothing to the professor. So who is right?

Both are right. Each argument is logically sound. This paradox has puzzled many a philosopher for centuries without resolution. It is impossible to resolve this with any sort of “absolute” solution. Ultimately, whichever “right” answer is chosen is as subjective as one's favorite color. Neither answer is the moral imperative. This is how I see much of reality. I think this paradox illustrates why accepting alternative viewpoints is so beneficial for society. We need to stop claiming there is necessarily a good/bad or right/wrong dichotomy to everything just as a means to feel more right(eous). I used to discredit the idea that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another as liberal nonsense but in light of the aforementioned argument I now deem this mantra valid.

An example of this argument might concern God and fairness. What is fairness concerning financial matters? Many “conservative” people believe God's fairness concerning financial prosperity is based on the idea that one should reap what he sows. People that are smart and productive will thrive whereas those that are not will struggle. Where then is the grace (as in a man should not reap what he sows)?

On the other hand, the more “liberal” types tend to believe God's fairness concerning prosperity is based on the idea that one should not reap what he sows. Prosperity should in this case be distributed more evenly than will naturally occur thus necessitating higher income redistribution. Take wealth from productive people and give it to those, God bless 'em, that just don't want to produce or are very poor at it. There is of course grace here but where is the personal responsibility (as in a man should reap what he sows)?

Before progressing further, I want to say it is my belief that both of these viewpoints are valid or invalid if you like. In other words, neither is a moral imperative in itself. They are different ways of dealing with the fact that reality as we experience it is a trade-off.

Many staunch conservatives will claim liberals use income redistribution as a means to buy votes. And this certainly is true. But can not the liberal perspective claim the same thing concerning conservative dogma? “If you vote for me, I will create income tax sanctuaries for your hard earned dollars!” It is the same method of “buying” votes that liberals use so effectively.

It is so hard for one side to see the other as being in any way valid because each so badly wants to be “absolutely” right. The challenge in dealing with this conservative/liberal dichotomy is that we ultimately must reach a compromise because there is little chance either extreme would or could ever happen.

And herein lies the dilemma. What is the “proper” level of moderation concerning, for instance, taxes and income redistribution? It's just like picking a favorite color! We will be arguing about this for the rest of time to no avail! How about trading democracy for a dictatorship?

Though many will likely cringe at the thought of a dictatorship, who do people think rules Heaven? The Supreme (perhaps benevolent) Dictator a.k.a. GOD. So what could possibly be wrong with a dictatorship? Maybe democracy isn't the optimal form of government after all? So what's your favorite color?

The Paradox Of War

I've never understood the idea of following rules during war as if this was some “Godly” virtue to uphold. After all, the general goal of war is to annihilate the “bad” guys or force their surrender.

When the “good” guys criticize the “bad” guys for not adhering to said rules of war, I can't help but be puzzled. War does not seem inherently moral and therefore I am very suspicious of any claim or insinuation of right(eous)ness within the context of war.

So why would anybody attempt to find right(eous)ness within the context of war? To assert the ego's superiority in right(eous)ness thus providing moral justification for it. But obeying rules makes it very difficult to win when the “bad” guys do not, so it seems as if “dirty” tactics must be employed in order to remain at all competitive.

Many will protest this because it necessarily involves unfair and cruel strategies. This implies there exists some righteous manner in which to approach war. But I do not believe there is. Refer to the beginning of this discussion and notice the circularity of this argument.

And herein lies the dilemma. I am not saying “we” should never go to war. I simply reject the idea of proclaiming or at least implying right(eous)ness within the context of war and recommend doing whatever need be to win if winning is the ultimate goal. Suffice it to say, I don't think any entity would willingly engage in war if victory was not its ultimate goal.

Now I will ask this of myself. If I was in a situation where I had to fight in a war, would I use “dirty” tactics such as using a child as a shield to tip the scale in my favor? I believe strongly I would not. But why would I not as per my prior argument? Because it is not in my nature to do such a thing. My reason for refraining from such “dirty” tactics is not because I am consciously or unconsciously trying to figure out a “righteous” manner in which to partake in the war, rather it is just not in my nature to do such a thing.

Furthermore, if I had to fight in a war, my ultimate goal would not be to win. Rather, my ultimate goal in a war or in life generally is to just "be myself”. That is why I would not likely use “dirty” tactics. And that is also why I would not be a devoted soldier ready and willing to unquestionably follow orders. Albert Speer and other Nazi officers were strongly condemned for using this excuse!

Concerning war, the paradox is thus: wars are only ever fought over conflicting moral imperatives but the mere act of war is so immoral it becomes complete madness to try to “force” moral imperatives immorally!* War is an evolutionary mindset built upon a contradiction. It is the pinnacle of insanity!

*Perhaps it would elicit less disagreement and anger by suggesting that when uncalled for (this itself seemingly dubious in many instances), war is neither "moral" nor "immoral" as opposed to suggesting it as altogether "immoral". The point of restating war thusly is to make clear that those "forced" into an uncalled for war are NOT "immoral" (necessarily, at least), rather they are neither "moral" nor "immoral". Notice this still precludes any entity from ever claiming right(eous)ness within the context of war because it can only be right(eous) when it is moral. Since morality is precluded within the context of war, it can never be said that the action of war is right(eous). It can at best be neither "moral" nor "immoral", at worst, altogether "immoral"**.

**It seems so unfair to deny an otherwise "moral" entity from being so within the context of an uncalled for war. And of course, it is. Much like the entire class "suffering" for the adolescent antics of a few "immoral" classmates, so too do "innocent" bystanders "suffer" when dragged into conflicts they did not ask to partake in. Lest you forget, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

For Practicality's Sake Or For Tradition's?

It is being debated whether the Australian Parliament might end the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at the start of each session. It is a tradition more than a century old and as such many question its relevance in today's secular society.

But what puzzles me is that many traditions seem to be followed not because they are in any way relevant but because they are cherished traditions.

What is the imperative? To follow tradition for the sake of following tradition or to follow tradition only when deemed relevant to today's society?

If we uphold tradition only if relevant to today's society, why even call them traditions? Why not just call them “relevant practices”? Is not tradition almost by definition not practical, hence why it is referred to as tradition.

The Root Of All Evil

Accepting what is will not necessarily preclude things from getting better anyway. It just means our primary focus is not on changing what is to what should be. An analogy to this is how evolution seems to promote “changes for the better” unconsciously or involuntarily.

I strongly believe because our hyper-driven society is so fixated on achieving goals in themselves that the ultimate moral imperative is lost. What is, or at least should be (I am well aware of my implicit denial of what is) the ultimate moral imperative? To make the world a more pleasant experience for everybody and everything.

If one's primary focus is achieving in itself, decency and sensitivity toward others will often be subverted because it gets in the way of an ultimate goal. I believe if everybody became aware of the destructive nature of their ego, the world would systematically become a much more inviting place!

Evil stems from neither religion nor lack of religion. It stems from unconsciousness to ego! Many non-believers and believers alike have big egos and will therefore sow disharmony and destruction just the same. Conversely, many believers and non-believers alike do not have big egos and will therefore sow harmony and peace just the same.

To the overly prideful atheist or overzealous religious hawk, neither belief nor lack of belief in God systematically leads to evil. Each leads to evil only insofar as how one uses ideology, or lack thereof, to inflate himself above others. For though good will be sown in the world only because of belief, bad will also be sown in the world only because of belief. Conversely, for though bad will be sown in the world only because of disbelief, good will also be sown in the world only because of disbelief.