THE Philosophical Question
All philosophy has, to me, come to one difficult to answer question. Should the focus of man's attempts at betterment be toward an individual (himself) or society as a whole.
To put it another way, should ones focus be at doing that which betters ones own life first, or do that which betters the situation of humanity as a whole first.
Or as a third alternative, should a person seek a middle path that balances the two?
Whatever school of philosophy you might choose, or religious doctrine you believe I think this is the most important decision. If you choose to do best for yourself then you can quite subjectively act however you think is in your own best interest as what's good for any individual is really their own judgment.
If you choose the other course however, the vast majority of problems faced can quite easily be breached with an objective solution that requires neither opinion nor belief.
The only real question is do you live for yourself or for the future of humanity.
Most people, no matter which they claim, live for themselves.
They may claim to work for the common good, but base their ideas of what is good on their own religious beliefs (this is probably the most common occurrence). Thus other beliefs with equal amount of evidence (or lack thereof) are suppressed and well founded scientific ideas do not flourish.
Conversely, if a problem is put forth more logically, that is not what's "right" but rather, what is the best solution we can enact so things become easier.
One example would be the abortion issue. Probably one of the most controversial issues of our time and obviously a problem that must be dealt with as there are many groups who want their way codified in law and forced on everyone else.
There is, however, a simple solution. The development of a contraceptive that prevents conception. This would entirely eliminate the issue. It becomes an issue of engineering. How do you design a 100% effective contraceptive and make it available. These are problems of biology, chemistry, materials science and transportation. These are not social issues or issues open to opinionated debate, but rather scientific issues about how to control our environment (in this case our internal environment). First the contraceptive must exist, and as current ones are 99% effective and better I'd say the problems half solved. The second problem is getting it available to everyone. The religious can wail all they want about how it encourages promiscuity but the truth is, if their religious beliefs were really accepted, people would follow them, and those that don't accept them shouldn't have to and things like pregnancy and disease are not a tool to control people's behavior. Refraining from using them that way, again, isn't based on some idea that it's "wrong", but rather based on the fact that it just doesn't work. This is out of behavioral science. (After all how many people really refrained from masturbating after being told it would make them go blind?)
In any case once such contraceptives are both in existence and universally available (available to anyone who might be in a situation to intelligently use it by their own choice) then abortion becomes limited to only two real groups of people, victims of rape and women who intended to be pregnant but who now face real health risks if they continue the pregnancy. The second group (Woman's health at risk) is supported in having a right to abortion by the vast majority of Americans (even most religious groups would allow abortion if the mother's life was in danger). It could be argued as being a choice between two lives, neither of which could be valued as more important than the other, thus should be left those it most directly effects which is only the mother herself. The other group, that is rape victims, is likewise supported almost universally. There are of course a few nuts who believe the woman should no longer have any right to self-determination, but most agree that she should have the right to do what she felt was right in such a situation, and if you weren't in that situation yourself, really, how could you understand?
Anyway, as this effectively eliminates all relevant debate on the topic (leaving the only people arguing being a few religious nut jobs who think the woman should always risk her life even if the baby may not survive or that rape none the less results in conception that is "god-given" and should not be stopped) it is therefore a solution to the problem without ever getting into a debate about "right" and "wrong"
People will have a child when they're ready and able to support it and not otherwise, which is a solution that people want, which is just control over their own lives, without debating subjective morals. The only parts that need to be fulfilled are making it available, both physically so people can get to it and through education so they know it exists and how to use it properly.
Therefore we have an engineering problem, how to design a 100% effective method of birth control rather than our current 99.99% effective ones, to eliminate the occasional failure.
Getting everyone to accept the solution though? Well, fixing human stupidity remains a dilemma. I'd argue the best solution is to make the solution available, the intelligent will use it and leave the idiots to their own devices, to continue to argue amongst themselves about "right" and "wrong" long after the argument has moved into pointlessness.
It's like an argument about the "right" way to get from New York to Rome. The most energy and time efficient is to fly. Take other methods only if the method itself, the voyage is particularly important to you. (You just NEED to sail? Have fun. But then, it's not really about Rome is it? It's about sailing now.)
Oh and back to my point... I think I'm for acting in the interest of humanity first. It'll out last you and just maybe you'll be remembered. Acting for yourself does have advantages though...
I guess I'm still working on this one.
Comment and let me know your opinion. (Preferably about acting for yourself or for humanity, but go ahead and rant about abortion if you feel the need)
To put it another way, should ones focus be at doing that which betters ones own life first, or do that which betters the situation of humanity as a whole first.
Or as a third alternative, should a person seek a middle path that balances the two?
Whatever school of philosophy you might choose, or religious doctrine you believe I think this is the most important decision. If you choose to do best for yourself then you can quite subjectively act however you think is in your own best interest as what's good for any individual is really their own judgment.
If you choose the other course however, the vast majority of problems faced can quite easily be breached with an objective solution that requires neither opinion nor belief.
The only real question is do you live for yourself or for the future of humanity.
Most people, no matter which they claim, live for themselves.
They may claim to work for the common good, but base their ideas of what is good on their own religious beliefs (this is probably the most common occurrence). Thus other beliefs with equal amount of evidence (or lack thereof) are suppressed and well founded scientific ideas do not flourish.
Conversely, if a problem is put forth more logically, that is not what's "right" but rather, what is the best solution we can enact so things become easier.
One example would be the abortion issue. Probably one of the most controversial issues of our time and obviously a problem that must be dealt with as there are many groups who want their way codified in law and forced on everyone else.
There is, however, a simple solution. The development of a contraceptive that prevents conception. This would entirely eliminate the issue. It becomes an issue of engineering. How do you design a 100% effective contraceptive and make it available. These are problems of biology, chemistry, materials science and transportation. These are not social issues or issues open to opinionated debate, but rather scientific issues about how to control our environment (in this case our internal environment). First the contraceptive must exist, and as current ones are 99% effective and better I'd say the problems half solved. The second problem is getting it available to everyone. The religious can wail all they want about how it encourages promiscuity but the truth is, if their religious beliefs were really accepted, people would follow them, and those that don't accept them shouldn't have to and things like pregnancy and disease are not a tool to control people's behavior. Refraining from using them that way, again, isn't based on some idea that it's "wrong", but rather based on the fact that it just doesn't work. This is out of behavioral science. (After all how many people really refrained from masturbating after being told it would make them go blind?)
In any case once such contraceptives are both in existence and universally available (available to anyone who might be in a situation to intelligently use it by their own choice) then abortion becomes limited to only two real groups of people, victims of rape and women who intended to be pregnant but who now face real health risks if they continue the pregnancy. The second group (Woman's health at risk) is supported in having a right to abortion by the vast majority of Americans (even most religious groups would allow abortion if the mother's life was in danger). It could be argued as being a choice between two lives, neither of which could be valued as more important than the other, thus should be left those it most directly effects which is only the mother herself. The other group, that is rape victims, is likewise supported almost universally. There are of course a few nuts who believe the woman should no longer have any right to self-determination, but most agree that she should have the right to do what she felt was right in such a situation, and if you weren't in that situation yourself, really, how could you understand?
Anyway, as this effectively eliminates all relevant debate on the topic (leaving the only people arguing being a few religious nut jobs who think the woman should always risk her life even if the baby may not survive or that rape none the less results in conception that is "god-given" and should not be stopped) it is therefore a solution to the problem without ever getting into a debate about "right" and "wrong"
People will have a child when they're ready and able to support it and not otherwise, which is a solution that people want, which is just control over their own lives, without debating subjective morals. The only parts that need to be fulfilled are making it available, both physically so people can get to it and through education so they know it exists and how to use it properly.
Therefore we have an engineering problem, how to design a 100% effective method of birth control rather than our current 99.99% effective ones, to eliminate the occasional failure.
Getting everyone to accept the solution though? Well, fixing human stupidity remains a dilemma. I'd argue the best solution is to make the solution available, the intelligent will use it and leave the idiots to their own devices, to continue to argue amongst themselves about "right" and "wrong" long after the argument has moved into pointlessness.
It's like an argument about the "right" way to get from New York to Rome. The most energy and time efficient is to fly. Take other methods only if the method itself, the voyage is particularly important to you. (You just NEED to sail? Have fun. But then, it's not really about Rome is it? It's about sailing now.)
Oh and back to my point... I think I'm for acting in the interest of humanity first. It'll out last you and just maybe you'll be remembered. Acting for yourself does have advantages though...
I guess I'm still working on this one.
Comment and let me know your opinion. (Preferably about acting for yourself or for humanity, but go ahead and rant about abortion if you feel the need)
posted by cyber-mountain guru at 1:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home