Wednesday, January 28, 2009

I salute thee, first few commentors on the PH1101E blog.

I had to post 3 comments for a philosophy module. So I went ahead to check it out. Wow, 10 comments. Okay, sounds few enough, seeing my past experiences with blog comments never exceeded 4 lines, 5 tops. So I decided to read and then persuade it, since the module is about reasoning and persuading. So, you know, I have to do my thing.

Reply One was as such:

I've never been faced with a situation in which I've had to turn my mother/father in to the authorities, but I would think that there would never be a situation in which I could bring myself to turn either one of them in.

Even if the crime is as serious as that of *gasp* murder, there are a few pressing reasons that prevent me from turning them in. 1) The sacrificies they have made to raise me throughout my 23 years, and 2) the "good" reason they must have had to have committed said evil deed (which shows me that they didn't do it out of pure malice), and 3) the subsequent guilt that would haunt me for putting the person who raised me behind bars, and therefore breaking up the family.

However, that's not to say that I wouldn't "prosecute" them in my own way. I think that the best thing that can be done is to bring the issue up to the entire family such that everyone has a say in what should be done. Should we turn our dad / mom in? Or should we enforce our own punishment upon him / her?

I guess perhaps due to our Asian collectivistic culture, I would feel that such a large issue cannot be decided by just one person (me). Afterall, such a decision would affect the entire family and not just me alone.


In case that turned you on and you want to know what was it all about, here's the link.

Okay, a tad long. No problems, I'm a fast reader. I chew Deathly Hallows in 6 hours. It's cool.

Reply #2:

First things first, when faced with situations like this I think I'm a fairly illogical person (more emotionally based). That is just a pre-warning to the rest of my post. :)

In the first place, I think that it is rather difficult to prosecute anyone, not to mention someone that I'm close to. Prosecuting a person would make it appear that I have some sort of right or I'm above the very person that committed the crime, regardless of the severity. After all, being a human just like the crime committer, who am I to determine what is right or wrong? In justifying my actions, I would be exactly like Euthypro, trying to keep to the moral high ground whilst appearing a fool in the process.

Moving on, like sylvia has mentioned earlier, I feel like I owe my life to my parents. Without them, I would have never existed. There are various reasons in which I would be inflicted with guilt in prosecuting my flesh and blood. However on the other hand, I would feel guilty if I do not do so due to vague ideas of right and wrong that we've been brought up with. It is a no-win situation.

Thus if placed in Euthyphro's position, one needs to consider the consequences of the actions taken. There is the need to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. When it comes down to it, there is no perfect solution. Now, when I'm all comfortable with no future premonitions of family committing a serious crime, I would take the moral high ground and say 'yes, I would prosecute them as necessary and blah blah right and wrong blah blah'.

However, I think when it comes down to it, I don't think I ever could. After all, there's no happiness gained from being alone with only your beliefs to warm you.

As for seeing a person in Euthyphro's position, with a tattered arguement. I think it is pride that makes a person stick to his convictions. Especially a person who is so used to being 'right'. Thus when being forced to consider that he is being 'wrong', he would become irrational and not accept any other ways of thinking.

He would probably scoff to think that a 'bumbling fool' like Socrates would dare question him in his higher position and dismiss a 'lower' beings idiot ramblings. Enough excuses to save his perfect world from crumbling. After all, I feel that it is the belief system that gives a person his or her confidence. So to admit that his belief system is nothing but hot air, Socrates would have to diminish Euthyphro to nothing before he would accept such an idea. Especially one that is of such importance to him, as he considers himself an authority on 'holiness'.


Okay, brain sprain. A slight sprain, but no biggie.

Reply #3:

Both Sylvia and Caryl raise what I feel is a rather interesting point, about the debt we owe our parents for bringing us into this world and raising us. That this debt exists is without question; whether or not it justifies our shielding them from prosecution, however, is much less clear.

I believe the answer (if there is one, that is) lies far beyond a simple consideration of the number of sacrifices which have been made for us, or the benefits we have received from the person in question. We decry bribery, and I'm sure not one of us will protect a friend (much less a stranger) who has committed a severe crime against our families, no matter the sacrifices this friend may have made for us before. There are clearly other factors for the 'closeness' we feel to our parents, and the guilt both Sylvia and Caryl mention a consequence of our prosecuting them. What makes us such loyal debtors to our parents? Caryl implies that prosecuting our parents leaves us alone and without happiness. Might our reasons for protecting them be completely selfish then, born of a concern for no more than our own welfare? Do we protect members of our family hoping that they too will protect us if/when we need protection? Perhaps, but if this were true, would we not feel more vulnerable and afraid (instead of guilty) if we were to prosecute our parents?

Sylvia also asserts the motivation for the crime, the ‘good reason’ for it, a significant reason for not turning one’s parents in. One might note that this presupposes the existence of such a motivation. Less cynical a person might wonder if _any_ good reason could justify _any_ crime (surely not?), or exactly how good a reason has to be to justify a crime of a given severity. We might be able to sympathize with the poor (i.e. not rich) man who steals food to keep his family alive, but are we equally understanding about the poor man who goes to claim a debt owed him by someone, and tortures the guy into revealing the details of his bank account? Does his pressing need to provide for his family justify his actions?

Sylvia then goes on to suggest the possibility of the family prosecuting the offender in its own way, of enforcing its own punishment. But does not the need to prosecute and punish within the family acknowledge the criminal nature of the act in question? If the act has been acknowledged wrong and culpable, should we not then let the law of the land fulfil its raison d'ĂȘtre and dispense justice? What could possibly justify us taking in our own hands the law we are sworn as citizens to uphold? Assuming we follow through with this ‘internal’ prosecution and punishment, what do we then do if someone else comes pressing charges against the offender? Exercise our right to remain silent, sure. What if we are issued a subpoena? Do we then testify against our parents and suffer the crushing guilt of seeing them punished _twice_ for the same offence, or do we become criminals ourselves and lie in court?

Caryl says something interesting – that we are asserting moral superiority over someone if we prosecute him or her, and that we have no right to determine what is right or wrong. Regardless of the severity of the crime. If we see someone we recognize shoplifting, do we keep quiet and let it go, telling ourselves we’re all human, that we have no right to prosecute? How about if we see someone plant a bomb which kills hundreds, and catch a glimpse of the guy some time later? Do we look away, or do we chase him down and hand him in to the authorities? From another point of view: is it possible for us to prosecute someone simply on the basis of whether or not he or she has disobeyed the law, without judging if the person’s actions were right or wrong? If we could, this quite nicely puts the whole issue of moral superiority out of the picture. On the other hand, however, we would then have to consider what kind of obligation we have to upholding the law, and whether or not it is so perfect in its implementation that we can accept it and its treatment of criminals so unquestioningly.

Caryl also later asserts that agreeing to prosecute one’s parents as necessary would be taking the moral high ground. Does this mean that not prosecuting them would be an immoral act?

Lastly, Caryl puts forward one’s pride as the reason for sticking to one’s beliefs in the face of arguments against them. I would like to also suggest fear another possible factor, especially when dealing with religious beliefs. Using scientology as a rather humorous example: its teachings assert that alien spirits and whatnot are stuck to our bodies and cause illnesses and the like. Science tells us this is absolutely ridiculous, but for some the concept of bacteria and viruses may seem as hard to believe as the teachings of scientology, and they might stick fervently to their belief in the latter in the fear that they’d be losing out or otherwise negatively affected if it turned out science was wrong all along and the scientologists were right. Euthyphro quite possibly stuck to his guns because his convictions must have made the world a very comfortable, understandable place for him on the surface, and accepting that his beliefs were nothing more than hot air would not only have hurt his pride as an authority on holiness, but also set him awash on a very scary sea of doubt.

Still, pride and fear together do not even come close to being a complete answer. People speak of life-changing supernatural encounters, for example, and assert their truth despite possible arguments to the contrary. And we can’t, after all, conclusively prove that they didn’t experience what they say they did, and on their part few people would be willing to easily discount their own experiences. If one were to base one’s beliefs about right or wrong on such an encounter, might it not be conceivably difficult to change one’s mind?


Seriously, I didn't even feel like reading that one. I'm still nursing a brain fracture as we speak. And my screen reeked of bull now. Shit, that is.

Fuck it, Imma just going to sit it out.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

I was bored.




You Are Silver



You are a flexible person. Being open to opportunities in life has served you well.

You are very polished and sophisticated. You're probably in a higher class than you were born into.



You are naturally popular and quite influential. You are a bit of a trend starter among people you know.

And while you are well liked, you don't let it go to your head. You remain contemplative and wise.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Seat belts on buses for kids.

That word sounds just as great as Long John Silvers serving overcharged meals for shrivelled up chicken.

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder.... WHY?!

We are trying to keep kids safe by... STRAPPING THEIR BODIES INTO THEIR SEATS! Whatever happened to "don't abuse our children"?!

I don't need a seat belt to feel safe in a car. I need my DRIVER TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SKILL. Did anyone question the quality of the bus driver? No. I want to strap my kids in so in times of danger I know my kid is still stuck in his seat.

I'm waiting for the day the news reports that they are removing seat belts because "a bus of 17 burns alive because the kids are too panicky to unbuckle."

If you're going to complain, think if your kid can maintain a level head while the whole bus IS FUCKING BURNING AND HE IS SUFFOCATING.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Give up your seat for the needy, not the elderly.

It makes me sound like a dick, but I have my justifications.

1. The elderly have more fighting spirit than me. All I want to do is survive my bus trip in one piece. Elderly fight for EVERYTHING in the bus. Seats, standing areas, bus tickets, getting on, getting OFF, etc. If it involves conflict, they are fucking FIRST on the action.

2. The elderly aren't setting a good example. When I see my elders set a good example (e.g. giving up a seat for a pregnant lady) I follow suit. Its only right. When I see a 50 year old labourer (he is obviously fitter than a pregnant lady) snatch a seat from a pregnant lady, I have the compulsion to trample his nuts, kill his entire family, and ensure the branches of his family tree are all reduced to dust at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

3. The elderly aren't needy. Don't confuse the terms. The elderly are far more fucking rich than any of us. There are the exceptions, but even them are exhibiting far more wealth than any of us. Wealth, in terms of fucking warfare experience. Let them up and you will wonder where did your kidney go.

4. The elderly are seriously out for war. Ever see the auntie warriors board the train? They don't give a shit who is staring, they don't give a shit who is in their face, they charge shoulders first and heels as follow ups. They aim for your soft spots so you will buckle out of your seat and they can settle their vulture asses into your warmed seat. And they have the Spartan stare. We have been taught since young to display aggression against terrorism. Now is seriously a good time.

5. The elderly are seriously great actors. They all deserve Emmies, Oscars and Star awards. Every single one of them. Those that cut the queue in bus queues, they get best actor of the fucking world. They pretend to have backaches, but walk straight once they get on the bus. One auntie cut in front of me, and then asked is this bus coded white or green. She spoke in decent english. Fully punctuated, grammar marinated, solid vocabulary English. The bus had a fucking large W stamped on it. She asked if its green of white. Talk about a fucking good story. And she just acted like nothing happened and continued to stand in front of me. Again, the urge of genocide rose. Had it been war, her daughters will be dragged out into the open and impaled on steel rods on a stormy Sunday afternoon, with the rest of the fucking family bound in barbed wire linked to them. Fucking rotten strain needs removal. Fast.

I am a dick, yes, but only against the fucked up elderly. Wonder why our nation is becoming a fucked up society? Wonder no more, kill a fucker today.