What Kind Of Freedom?

Are we really a FREE society? If freedom must include “freedom of expression”, then what could be wrong with all the "filth" that Hollywood broadcasts? Is it not our choice as citizens to either watch or not watch this "filth"? What ultimately influences Hollywood anyway? Money, which stems from viewership. It seems we, as a society, have chosen to watch this "filth". Of course this leads to questioning whether we are really free.....from our own depravity. What kind of freedom do we seek? "Freedom of expression" or "freedom from our own depravity"?

What then is or perhaps more accurately SHOULD be the ultimate ideal concerning freedom? Do we create a society predicated on "freedom of expression" (so long as these acts do not hurt others, this itself seemingly dubious in many instances) or "freedom from our own depravity" (of course this itself dependent on a consensus as to what constitutes depravity)? One seems to preclude the other in many instances.

"Freedom of expression" should theoretically leave Hollywood unhindered to broadcast whatever it so desires. But what about the seeming fact that this "filth" easily permeates and corrupts the minds of the impressionable among us, especially children and adolescents? Will somebody please think of the children! This sentiment seems to suggest we must censor material as we are essentially too weak-minded to control ourselves from sinking into the depths of our own depravity. But I think it reasonable to say that nobody is forced to watch t.v.! It is a choice!

In this sense, if one is hurt by this "filth", it is "self-caused"! And if determining "allowable expressions of freedom" are to be based on whether these expressions might lead to "self-caused" hurt, then I am afraid just about everything any of us does can cause "self-caused" hurt and lead others into "self-caused" hurt as well! For all I know, my eating a jelly donut in a coffee shop may, apart from my own "self-caused" hurt, cause one who is stricken with obesity or severe gluten intolerance to imbibe in a batch of them and hence engage in "self-caused" hurt just the same! Is this my fault? I think not.

Then I think it no more credible to claim that Hollywood is anymore at fault for what we choose to view. We must take ownership of our own depravity and not blame others! In any case, where must we draw the line between what should be allowed and what should not given that anything allowed can potentially cause "self-caused" hurt?

How should we resolve this freedom "dilemma"? The ideal of freedom seems predicated on how one defines freedom. "Freedom to act as we wish" or "freedom to avoid our own depravity"? It seems to me that many societies "we" label oppressive are simply seeking freedom based on the notion of "avoiding their own depravity". For if many practices thought to be destructive to society are banned simply as a means to maintain a more moral society (of course banning immoral behavior does not make a society moral, it simply prohibits their immoral tendencies which would otherwise likely manifest), how can this be oppressive? It is simply "freeing" the society of its inherent depravity. This is seen as freedom to some, but oppression to others!

Of course few view this issue with a strict either/or perspective. Most arbitrarily determine what must be allowed for the sake of being "free to act as we may" versus what must not be allowed under any circumstances because of its ill-effects on the morality and well-being of society. This arbitrariness is apparent in our society as it pertains to how we view, for instance, illegal drugs and food.

Many believe controlled substances are prohibited for the sake of protecting society from its ill effects. This could be the case but my own suspicion is that the government is reluctant to legalize currently illegal substances unless or until it can figure a way to control and hence TAX them. If this is not the case, perhaps these substances are illegal for the aforementioned reason: they cause undue harm to society. If so, what about the food industry?

What with the health-care issue plaguing our society, can not a reasonable argument be made to control the way our society feeds itself? How much of our precious health care resources are utilized to mitigate the effects of poor health caused by poor diet? If we prohibit certain drugs because of their ill effects on society, why not use this same reasoning to ban all junk foods and perhaps even FORCE every citizen to eat a ration of raw spinach and kale at every meal? How much might health care expenditures decrease?

Once again, do we as a society seek "freedom of expression" (which commonly leads to enslavement to something else) or "freedom from our own depravity" (which keeps depravity at bay only through suppression or force)? It seems both options, as they pertain to freedom, leave something to be desired.

Is there even such a thing as freedom? Or is it one of the many seeming paradoxes we must cope with on this godforsaken mud-ball we call Earth?

You Might Want To Think Twice.....Or More.....Before Judging Others

How does one know if another is genuine? What does it even mean to be genuine? Following morality for the sake of behaving as you think others would want you to (including God) or following morality because it is perceived by you to be meaningful in itself?

Why do some naturally possess a forgiving nature whereas others can only muster up forgiveness out of a sense of duty? And still others can demonstrate forgiveness only by believing rewards will follow, be it here or in eternity?

Because I have no reasonable answer to this, I have absolutely no compulsion to judge others on this matter. What do you think? What might God think?

The Insanity And Absurdity Of Life

How do we determine the "right" course of action with "something" that more often than not seems neither "right" nor "wrong" but merely "liked" or "disliked"?

Since the "something" is not likely good or bad in itself, it needs to be "made" good or bad to provide the necessary moral justification for argument and conflict.

On the other hand, I understand that acknowledging the lack of goodness or badness in the "something" itself is not constructive because then HOW THE HELL DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THE "SOMETHING" SHOULD BE IF IT IS ULTIMATELY ARBITRARY?

Hence, in order to choose the "right" arbitrary decision, an ideological war must be waged. This is where politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, come into the fray. They (attempt to) recruit people to their arbitrarily chosen "something" by deluding others into believing there is either their "right something" or somebody else's "wrong something". People thus choose sides and war is waged.

Remember, people actually believe the "something" is over "right" and "wrong", not over mere preferences. But in the end, the chips "fall as they will" and the winner of this arbitrary decision "decides" what is "right".

Think of wars and conflict that result from argument and disagreement over mere preferences (of course it is by definition always believed to be over right and wrong). For if societies at large became aware that they were killing or fighting each other over mere preferences, they would likely cease fighting because of the lack of moral justification. But then how else would we determine what the "something" should be without waging wars or other forms of conflict?

The insanity and absurdity is thus: WE SIMPLY MUST CONVEY FALLACIOUS RIGHT/WRONG DICHOTOMIES TO EVERY "SOMETHING" IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS, OTHERWISE NONE COULD BE MADE!

The Dilemma Of God's Intervention In Our Affairs

Can God actually intervene in a divine or “absolutely perfect” manner when it seems much of our perceived reality is akin to a zero-sum game? More often than not somebody wins and somebody loses so how can God really intervene in our affairs perfectly?

If it is believed God providentially circumstanced a highly coveted job to Zach, this means Sally and many others did not get the job. So of course from Zach's point of view, God's will is perfect. But why would or perhaps should Sally and the others feel any obligation to share this assessment of God?

If they do believe that not getting the job is God's perfect will, then it is my opinion this belief stems from their inability to accept that they “lost” to Zach. And if they “need” to believe there is a divine reason they did not get the job, perhaps because God has something better for them, then so be it. But the idea of assuming everything that happens is God's “absolutely perfect” will doesn't account for the fact that there is no consensus as to what is “absolutely perfect” anyway. Certainly those on the losing side of a war are not likely to see their annihilation as being “absolutely perfect”.

Maybe the only way for God to “give” us a fulfilled life is not to intervene at all. As such we can be our true selves limited only by our own devices. In this case there can be no “favoritism” toward those more beloved which would better explain the apparent arbitrariness of who is “lucky” in tragedies, for instance. But the moral dilemma in God recusing Himself from our affairs is that His character appears suspicious at best when He fails to intervene in the abuse and torture of children, for instance.

I think the only way a “perfect” God fits into the context of reality is if everything was always perfect. But alas, this is clearly not the case. It is also interesting to question how “fate” is meted out by God. It seems common to believe that when good outcomes befall the faithful, this wonderful “gift” from God stems from faith and righteousness. But when tragedy strikes these same faithful, it is reluctantly pointed out that even they are not immune to tragedy. What gives? This is a situation where the idea of a wonderful God is not even in principle falsifiable because there is always a divine reason for any outcome, however awful. How about just accepting what is and not trying to find God where He very likely isn't?

Another primary reason I do not think God intervenes in our affairs is that it would likely influence our behavior such that we are not our true selves. At this point, I feel inclined to ask that if God “made” me to be a certain way, why would I want to encumber myself with dogma that can only ever be an impediment to who He “made” me to be?

Now I am not saying dogma will necessarily influence or manipulate one to be who he is not, but if belief has no influence on a person's behavior, what purpose does it serve? The only purpose belief seems to serve is to encourage a specified behavior in those that would otherwise not behave accordingly.

For example, take Christian dogma. One who practices the moral beliefs of Christianity may in fact benefit society but from a “Godly” perspective, I don't see any “meaning” in belief just as a means to “encourage” somebody to behave in a specified manner. Especially when so much of the time it seems we fail to act according to our supposed beliefs anyway! So why believe?

Ultimately, the person who should be most admirable in God's eyes is the person who has a heart of gold all the while believing “nothing”. Clearly his behavior stems from “who he is” as opposed to being rooted in the belief that his obedience will garner reward while his disobedience will lead to judgment and punishment.

The Mirage Of Moral Perfection

It seems to me an even trade-off concerning many peoples' desire to create a more moral society. As the system utilized to evaluate morality gets more stringent, it progressively exposes more of our individual and collective “flaws” so much so that it does little or nothing to change peoples' relative perceptions about morality. 

Figuratively speaking, suppose society “progressed” to a point where the word "fuck" was never, ever uttered again all because of the valiant efforts of the Banishment of Foul Language Society (BFLS). It seems we might be getting somewhere in creating a more moral society, eh?

But now as per my argument, the fact that "fuck" is never heard anymore is of no consequence in evaluating our “goodness”. What is today a fairly benign word, crap, becomes the new "fuck". Ideals change.

Remember, what should be never is because there is always another what should be lurking behind whatever is thought should be.

It seems the ego does not want to relinquish its feeling of moral superiority and does so by declaring things should always be something they are not and never will be!

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!

The Value Of Understanding One Another

Two people with contradictory conclusions can be more alike than two people with identical conclusions.

For instance, let's talk about what to do with illegal immigrants already in this country. Jim and Sally both emphatically believe these people should be able to stay in this country. They conclude the same thing so they will probably be thought of as having similar ideologies, right?

Well, what if Jim is a "greedy" contractor who views illegal immigrants as nothing more than cheap labor with little gumption to revolt against oppressive work standards thus resulting in more profit and less hassle for himself? And what if Sally is genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants' plight and as such believes they should be allowed to stay? The two share no common ideology in this case. They only share a conclusion.

On the other hand, let's say Sally is talking to Bob and they are at odds over what to do with illegal immigrants. Sally believes they should be allowed to stay but Bob thinks otherwise. They must share different ideologies, right?

Well, what if each is motivated by sympathy to peoples' plight but assume Bob is thinking more that the sheer number of illegal immigrants in this country will “cannibalize” social services for the “legal” immigrants and citizens already here? In other words, they are both motivated by sympathy and mercy for people but are at odds over how to engender the desired good for society.

My underlying point is that it seems so often there is much argument concerning conflicting conclusions whereas I think these conflicting conclusions do not necessarily suggest difference in ideology or moral sentiments. But because this is thought to be the case, conflict ensues regarding whose conclusion is right.

And so fosters a lack of understanding which ultimately causes disharmony and precludes “us” from getting along. A primary focus of my viewpoint is that I care less what somebody believes and more why somebody believes.

A "Godly" Moral Paradox

Many of the devoutly religious seem apt to believe that being 100% certain they are right is somehow a virtue God respects above all else. I believe St. Paul, among others, encouraged this “Godly” stance. However, a “moral” contradiction arises.

If one is absolutely certain he is worshiping the one and only true God, where is the humility? Which stance might God honor more? Being absolutely certain or humbly conceding the fact that as much as one might really believe or at least really want to believe he is right, he could just as easily be wrong?

However unconscious it may be, I think many are reluctant to adopt this less than certain stance because they fear they would be “letting God down”. But without humility, what does this type of thinking systematically foster? Self-righteous superiority. This need not be blatant and obnoxious. I remember a “strong” Christian girl (please forgive me but this notion plasters on my mind a girl bench-pressing 350 lbs.) at a party causally and without any doubt asserting how others of different faiths were “buying into a lie”.

It seemed so innocuous, as she was a very amiable girl whose only “problem” was that she was absolutely certain she was right. Nothing overly harmful about said comment. But ultimately it projected self-righteous superiority. Once again, where is the humility?

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.

Incessant Wanting

I always want more wisdom! This is the same as always wanting more money! Except that it entails wisdom, not money! It seems we always want more of something. Be it fame, sex, money, influence, godliness, righteousness, wisdom.....it's all the same. Wanting to want! The fundamental insanity of the ego!

I readily admit that as much wisdom as I already possess, I will never be rid of my want for more! How is this any different from wanting more fame or sex or money or influence or power or even godliness and righteousness? Seemingly not much! Certainly these pursuits produce a wide range of effects on society, from terrible to wonderful, but they are all ostensibly based on wanting to want more than wanting to have!

What could be insane about wanting to want any of these? There is no finality! In other words, it never comes to fruition. It is like tomorrow. It never is! In my opinion, this is the principle reason we always think something should be other than it is! It implies an incessant wanting to want.

Why might this be? Perhaps this keeps us busy? In other words, because we Homo sapiens have “progressed” so much, we have to keep ourselves constantly challenged. And what bigger challenge might there be than wanting to want! It is unquenchable by definition because once you have something you want, you can no longer want it because you have it!

Once again, the fundamental problem with this is that we are never where we want to be. Is this good or bad? It is likely neither good nor bad in itself. It just is. If other less aware animals knew what we human beings obsessed over, might they have pity on us? Why can't you humans ever be completely fulfilled and content exactly where you are?

Firmly Planted In Mid-Air

Many will say my open-mindedness leaves me with no absolute moral foundation in which to approach life. Noted theologian and writer Ravi Zacharias cleverly expresses this by saying that those who lack an absolute moral foundation have their feet firmly planted in mid-air. This brilliant cliché is more or less true but is this necessarily a bad place to be?

Without this absolute moral foundation, it is thought, one is forever precluded from knowing the fine line between what is right and what is wrong. This will then systematically lead to what is commonly perceived as perverse and wicked behavior. It can lead to this type of behavior but it can also lead to a very open and understanding person who feels no need to judge and criticize others who do or believe seemingly peculiar things.

Additionally, many require an absolute foundation only because they need to “know” they are right in order to feel fulfilled. This is a form of control motivated by nothing more than ego. I don't need to be in control of “truth”. I can just be who I am without such control.

Perhaps some are suspicious of their own intentions and as such need a firm foundation in “truth” lest their real self might come out and wreak havoc on themselves and worse, others. Furthermore, I presume many have been indoctrinated with the belief that one must have a worldview based on absolutes to have any semblance of peace and fulfillment. This then commonly becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

Alas, there is a crippling flaw with any sort of "absolute" moral foundation: contradictions inevitably ensue. This is not the fault of the person per se, rather it is the fault of this system of thinking. It doesn't work. Different absolutes are clearly in opposition to one another but are believed wholeheartedly nonetheless. Doublethink as George Orwell so wisely termed this.

In addition, many absolutes are arbitrarily embraced on a preferential basis. At this point, absolutes are merely relatively absolute. Which means they are not absolute. Are they relative? Certainly not, for if they are relative, they could simultaneously be absolute.

I have reflected extensively on the absolute/relative dichotomy and have comfortably concluded it to be an irreconcilable paradox*. On the other hand, not establishing an absolute foundation does not create these contradictions but is of course replete with its own set of problems. Everything pertaining to the morality and well being of societies is a trade-off and therefore nothing can ever be absolute.


*Please see a couple of my writings on a more thorough examination of this paradox:

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Shortcoming Of Absolutes
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html

A Reflection On Morals

Need God even exist for moral precepts to have intrinsic meaning and value?

If one finds morality irrelevant without God, he is actually making a scathing indictment of His moral precepts. How so? The implication of morality only being relevant if God exists necessarily implies that morality is merely arbitrary in the sense that it can in principle only be good because God deems it such. But if it is only arbitrarily good and not intrinsically good, how does this make God good?

Whether God exists and whether morality ultimately comes from Him, I think the overarching importance of morality is not for the sake of making God happy but rather is ostensibly for us in order to have more fulfilled and peaceful lives free of unnecessary drama!

It puzzles me that many implicitly seem apt to believe God's precepts are nothing but obstructions to their happiness but that in the end, their obedience (translation: suffering) to said precepts will open up a treasure trove of rewards.

But I think this is silly. I believe the reward is the obedience to said precepts as they are intrinsically meaningful and valuable and as such will lead to fulfillment and peace devoid of needless suffering. Now if one does not agree with my assessment that obedience itself leads to fulfillment and peace, he is making a mockery of God's chosen precepts by either reluctantly following them or simply following them as a means to amass rewards for “stellar” behavior. Of course if he is not following said precepts, he will certainly be judged, will he not?

But I don't believe God would be heard saying, “I'm so happy you are following My moral precepts for the sake of being obedient to Me!” Rather, I think He would say something like the following: “Here are My immutable moral principles which lead to peace and fulfillment. I don't want you to follow them for My sake. Rather, I want you to ponder their value and significance such that you might feel compelled to follow them for your own sake!”