I've remained quiet this week in class, even though I had plenty to say. I have no problem with talking in class, it's just that with real world issues I enjoy working them out in my head. I then go home and write a song about it, sounds dorky/emo, but check out my Myspace if you don't believe me. My first comment is about whether everyone should have the same rights... from the everyone is created equal segment of class. My answer, no. First off, everyone should have basic fundamental rights, but with anything I believe there are needed exceptions to the rule. There are two basic principles for me on this subject, first- You cannot please everyone, second- Not everyone has the same capacity and capabilities. This does not excuse the concept of humanity, but does illuminate the diversity of heritage, physical and mental traits, and varied interests. The topic that comes to mind is religious differences, both from class material and current news articles.
Free will, it came up announced proudly in class and with much acceptance from peers because, who wouldn't want such a great option? Free will is pursued ignorance! You see, the idea of me being able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't interfere with you is absurd... that is if free will means such. To make your own choices without relations to future actions, to decide your route in life. This by itself requires you to have no contact with future outcomes on the basis of your presumed primary act. The cliché to this concept is the Butterfly effect, which shortened can be translated into the knowledge of what I do ultimately impacts future relations with or without my conscious choice and by those actions initiated by others. Will may be free, but it is not by the exclusion of actors past, present or future with relations hinged on the decision of a single act.
Coming back to the classroom discussion and religious differences. Christianity is seen as a close-minded religion which accepts few critiques if dealt with as a dogmatic practice. However, the key to this situation, is the individual who claims Christianity as being close minded when they themselves are close minded to the religion. This is not to say only Christianity can be applied to this situation but that there is a common understanding of Christians being close minded in the UNCG culture. My purpose in saying this? The main goal of most religions is to spread the message and ideas of the religion. If I am spreading Christianity and you are spreading Islam, eventually we should meet. As we communicate our message, one of us must give. You see, there is no gray area, I believe I am right, you believe you are right, and to say we serve the same God is to undermine the religion which then questions the accuracy of differing beliefs. When dealing with the right to life, abortion must be dealt with. When defining what makes a human, the class rallied statements for health and will. The characteristics of a fetus and an adult in a coma are quite similar in regards to these traits. The condition of health and sustenance require a mother or donor of nutrients and safety. Should these two not have the same rights as myself? If the answer is no, than you understand why equality does not exclude differences, and if yes than welcome the debate of abortion.
There is much more I could talk about, but as usual I have exceeded my amount of words. Please comment and I'll be glad to continue a debate or discussion regarding these topics.
How did this relate to Global Warming? Similar to scientists arguing over the severity and solutions to rising temperatures, my classmates and I disagree on the severity and solutions to an unequal world.
2 comments:
I must say that while I may not agree with all of your points, I do respect your willingness to post your thoughts so freely online for the class to examine and (were they willing) take pot shots at.
We are given free will. We must however temper it with our goals. We use our free will to steer towards our goals if possible, it allows us to delineate the path we would take, however there are certain paths that will lead us to those goals and others that will take us away from those goals.
So is Will really free? Well you can choose to not pursue those goals in so much as your willing to sacrifice your goals, but your working away from your wishes. So in a sense will remains free but our goals keep us on track. Free in the sense that you Could Choose either path, but restricted in that only some of those paths will take us where we want to be. Which limits our Good Choices.
Well I am at a disadvantage, as the term free will is of Christian origin, and is somewhat ambiguous to a person who was not raised a Christian. First we can debate on whether we were "given" anything, and if it IS "free will", CAN it be "given", or is it just there, does it simply exist without any origin other than the state of being human? It only makes any sense in contrast with a concept of some higher being controlling our actions, or leaving us to control our own. That is an explanation that many accept; for many others, it has no place in a world that is not controlled from afar by something invisible but omnipotent [sic]. The term is usually used, it seems to me, to describe having control over one's own actions, in contrast with absolving one's self of responsibility for actions. However, we have seen just in this class, what to speak of any who have taken other Soc classes, or Poli Sci, or Psych, to name a few, how interrelated humans are, and how few actions actually happen in a vacuum of decision-making. One's options in any given situation are limited by one's capacity for compassion, which may be very limited if one has never experienced hardship. They are limited by one's monetary situation; I may have to make a decision between helping my own children or someone else's, never an easy choice to make. They are limited by one's upbringing; as Americans chances are we would never choose to marry our daughters by contract rather than allowing them to choose a husband, or eating a dog or cat for dinner. We are limited by our own understanding of the world; before we knew that CO2 emissions were linked to global warming, we had no context within which to make a choice about our impact on our environment. In fact, free will is a myth, put forward by the very people who do exert control over our environments and worlds. It is used to put down those who are caught in the worst parts of life, those from whom we have taken every option away, to say that they could have chosen not to do this or that, when in reality we have made such strictures on them that their choices are limited to a bad one and a worse one. As I have mentioned before on this blog, if I have a choice between watching my child starve and stealing some food, I am going to steal some food every time. Would I normally steal food if I didn't have to? Of course not. Have I been given a choice within a vacuum in that situation? No, I have not. It is the same for every one else. We can sit in our comfortable middle class lifestyles (and even those of us who had to struggle to get to this point still have enough advantages somehow to have gotten here; there are so many who never could) and we think we can judge what others do around the world, because we think they have "free will". Do any of YOUR decisions happen without any influence from any of the circumstances of your life? I would bet a million dollars they do not. So name me a situation where someone's will is ACTUALLY free, and we can talk some more about it. How about when NONE of the legitimate paths open to you will take you where you want to be? Are you supposed to stop wanting the things that everyone wants? Or would a true go-getter, ambitious and dedicated, would that person's best choice not be something that places them at odds with the laws and societal rules that put him and keep him in that spot in the first place?
Post a Comment