Well, I suppose it's been long enough since this decrepit pit of ramblings, musings, and general malcontents has gone without attention, so I may as well pretend to keep an interest in it. This is, naturally, where I would discuss what I have been doing with my life recently. Considering the fact that it's been nearly (if not more than) a year since my last posting, that is a grim and daunting task. One that I am actually loathe to undertaking, so I will pass for the time being. Should this disappoint you, I'm sure you can find more suitable drains for your time than reading this in any case. Suffice it to say that life has been proceeding apace and things are more or less the same as they always are. I have switched to a Computer Science major (focusing in software design and engineering) from my previous Psychology major for more than a few reasons, not the least of which included a desire for some sort of challenge. While it may surprise many, if not all of you that personally know me, I do desire
some challenge in life, but primarily only that of the mental variety (though if you desire to challenge me to staying up or eating treats, I will be more than happy to accommodate you). The rest of the last year I will sacrifice to mystery and laziness so that I may move on to possibly
less interesting things that I have apparently deemed worthy of verbalization.
As for the meat of this "web log," I am undecided as to what to discuss with my silent-yet-loyal readers. I have received a peculiar number of suggestions from seemingly random people of late, including topics ranging from the mundane (my distaste for dogs compared to a certain fondness of cats), to the philosophical (my particular views regarding the afterlife [and I assure you, particular is an apt descriptor]), to the downright bizarre (what I believe life would be like if humans hadn't knee-joints). I suppose, before I start down whichever path I choose, I should let you know that this post is likely to be devoid of humor which some may have come to expect. Aside from my aspirations to be a bitter old man, I don't believe there is a specific reason for this, but if you are here for anything other than a morbid fascination... god help you.
*As a side note: I fully appreciate those of you who are like my own personal spell checkers. If there is one thing that I assuredly enjoy, it is finding that I have made a fool of myself in public. However, if you see fit to correct my grammar, specifically in the capitalization of "God" versus "god"... your correction will likely go unheeded, no matter the girth of your metaphorical red pen. I do not specifically care that a specific cult was unoriginal enough to come up with common noun to refer to their deity of choice, but if they want to squeeze the extra key-stroke from me, they'd damn well better figure out a name first.
I had just decided on heading down the path of philosophy with this post, but I feel that my points will be much less articulate without hand and arm gestures, exasperated sighs, and dramatic eye positioning... So I have decided to choose something a little more watered down than the meaning of life (if you don't know this already, then you've already missed your opportunity to anyway and my explanation would be useless). I have chosen to speak on the concept of objective moral truths. For those of you who don't know, an objective moral truth in this case is something that is
always going to be right or wrong. Now, the first thing to notice here is that I have named two
different sides of morality. This might seem obvious at first, but it actually suggests quite a bit. For example, it shows that I am assuming there are such things as right and wrong or good and evil and that our actions can be quantified as such. It also shows that we will be dealing with morals, consequently suggesting that morals exist and that it isn't an idea simply conjured by society. In any case, at face value, it may be that some people can confidently assert that there
are such things are objective moral truths. For example, if I were to find a random person off of the street and ask them if killing someone was wrong, chances are better than average (depending on location and the person asked, of course) that they will condemn the action. The same could be done with things such as stealing and so forth. However, it is my opinion that, if we look more closely at these things, we will find that the answers are not so simple.
In case some of you don't want to wait until I describe the situation, we will be using killing in our example here, but the same general idea works for any specific sin or otherwise "wrong/evil/bad/taboo/whatever" act. Now, onto the example: Let us say, for example, that we come home to a man holding a gun to our family. Now I know there are a lot of sticklers out there, so let me try to be as clear as possible with the situation and if there are still holes... then screw you anyway, this is my story and I am far too lazy to account for every additional variable, but suffice it to say that eventually we could conclude on a situation that fits my need. Also, I realize that this is a very specific example, but if we can come to just one situation where something "wrong" is considered at least partially "right," then we have disproved the existance of an objective moral truth. Anyway, this man with the gun is far too large for you to beat in any sort of armed combat (except for guns, but those are for sissies) and he has the only gun in the house or surrounding areas. You have the jump on the man though and you would be able to get in one fatal blow before he killed you (meaning you could kill him, but if you tried to simply subdue him, he would presumably kill or incapacitate you). Your family is also unarmed and they are all in a row for ease of slaughter. Now, you are faced with the choice of killing the attacker or condoning the killing of your family (let's say a family of 5). Let me explain this just so I don't have anyone crying foul at this point in the story: if you choose not to kill this man, you have given the go ahead for 4 deaths. You were the only person in any position to stop 4 deaths and you opted not to and, while you are not the one actually pulling the trigger, you are the one who did not stop the situation from happening. So, we can assume from here that to kill the attacker in order to prevent the 4 family deaths would be an acceptable thing to do (if you feel that letting the attacker kill your family, resulting in 3 more deaths than there would be if you killed him, is a better situation, then you and I disagree on a fundamental issue regarding responsibility and the worth of life).
Now, the smarter amongst you might interject here and suggest that we amend the moral truth at which we are looking. This amendment might take the shape of something like: it is always "right" to kill a person in defense of yourself or your loved ones provided that it will result in fewer deaths total and there is truly no other way to avoid the situation, but it is otherwise unacceptable to kill anyone. This would seem to make sense at face value. Essentially what we are saying is that it is okay to kill in order to minimize the loss of life or that it is okay to kill in order to protect our loved ones if necessary, but only then. However, if we take the previous attacker-situation a step further, we should see that there can be a catch then as well. Let us say that you walk in on the same situation and opt to kill the attacker under the concept that this is the "right" thing to do. Now, let us say that your family is all part of some sort of plot that will lead to the deaths of millions of people (which you, of course, had no idea of). The "attacker" is actually a FBI agent who was required to kill your family before they initiated the devastation by a way unknown to him (it could be as specific as the fact that one of the family members has an internally triggered switch that will send a message to whoever and so forth). So now, our previously amended moral truth is obsolete.
We are now faced with the problem that we will not be able to judge whether or not the action is right or wrong until we have all the facts, which is generally impossible. Considering that there is such an ambiguity as to the right or wrongness of a certain situation, I feel that it is safe to say there is no such thing as objective moral truths as we have defined and understood them. If you disagree, please let me know and we will see if we can come to some sort of philosophical conclusion.
In any case, I think this post has gone on quite long enough and I am going to end it now. If you have read this entire thing, I feel pity for you and hope that you find more interesting things to occupy yourself with in the future, both near and distant. However, I will likely add another post sometime relatively soon (it wouldn't really be the end of a post that I follow with several months + of inactivity unless I said that), so we'll see if it's a little more interesting then.