In:

A critique of deontology

Deontology, a moral philosophy which has emphasis on duties and rules, often is connected to religious beliefs. However, deontology is often practiced by more liberal religious people, and many non-philosophers practice deontology without knowing it. First of all, here is how you know if you have a deontological moral world-view.


1. You follow a set of moral codes outside the government code
2. You tend to follow the rules.
3. You trust authority
4.You have many moral duties which you feel are more important than the overall amount of happiness that may result in a action violating that duty.
5. You feel their are objective, universal, moral laws.

Basically deontology is an ethical system with a strong emphasis on "following the rules", and that their are universal moral wrong like lying which is always wrong. The other two moral systems, consequentalism and virtue ethics, place emphasis on the overall amount of happiness as a result of an action and the character of the person committing an act. I will not try to prove consequentalism or virtue ethics to be a better system then deontology, but I will attempt to show that deontology is not a stable ethical system.

Problem 1. Deontology puts trust in authorities- Deontology puts too much weight in authorities when it comes to following the rules. Authorities could always be wrong, and they have been many times. If we did not have non-deontological thinking then we would live in a world without democracy.

Problem 2. Deontology has moral absolutes- Moral absolutes are statements such as "lying is always wrong". If a person follows deontological ethics, they will think that a number of things are "always wrong". Lying, killing, and adultery is considered always wrong? Is it always wrong? Sometimes, it may be necessary to kill one person for the greater good, and sometimes we must lie in order to make people happy. Moral absolutes demean the ability of the human to make decisions.

Problem 3. Deontology is often based on religion. Although a god/gods could possibly exist, and could possibly want people to follow moral absolutes, it is not very likely that this god would. Their is a chance that this god does not exist, actually a large chance since their are many different religions who have gods that cannot co-exist. If this god does not exist, deontological religious-based ethics fail, as these were codes written by humans who are morally inferior to us since the zeitgeist is moving progressively forwards.

Although I do not accept you to be converted from your deontological perspective, I hope that you re-think your deontological ethics.

In:

The connection of science, spiritituality, and philosophy


When searching the web, I came across a thought-provoking image that interconnected spirituality, science, and philosophy. I could not help looking at the site below it, which offered a well-written out, well-reasoned article that discussed how religion, philosophy, and science all were trying to explain the same thing: the nature of consciousness. I agree with most of the points that the author made, but when he tried to explain how religion believed in the "oneness" of god I could see his logic is flawed. Quoted from the article
"It will come across as a shock to many people and also seem like an unbelievable idea but the truth that lies at the heart of all World religion is the notion that a person's real identity is ultimately God. God is given many different names. In Hinduism God is called Brahman, in Christianity God is the Logos or the Christ, in Judaism God is YHWH, in Islam God is Allah and in Buddhism the equivalent term is the Void. However in all these great World faiths, when we explore deeply into their history and esoteric traditions then we discover a recurring theme. And this is the idea that our real nature is really that which is called generically God."
Really? Although the author made good points about the relationship between science, philosophy, and possibly a new spirituality, he really did not seem to grasp religion. The three major monotheistic religions do not believe our personal identity is god, rather they believe in
"the lord", a creator of the universe. Sure god is supposed to be everywhere, but he is also supposed to have created the universe as a whole. The "oneness" that the author speaks about is much more relative to Buddhism then any theistic religion. The author precedes to connect the theistic religions supposed idea of a "oneness" of god into quantum mechanics, which he does well, yet religions do not believe in a oneness of god but rather a supernatural creator. Why are their superstitions and the believe in the supernatural as the supernatural will transcend the "oneness" of the universe. To me, this article has strong arguments for pantheism and a supposed universal oneness. But he never even speaks about the supernatural, which all of the major religions do extensively. At the end of the article, he shows an image connecting philosophy, religion and science. What does this mean? In my opinion, the best tools we have for analyzing the issue of consciousness and the mind are philosophy and science. Once science and philosophy discovers the answer to these questions, a new spirituality must inform the public upon their teachings instead of monotheistic religions who tend to separate themselves from science because of superstition. This is the link to the article, which i recommend you read, although the part about monotheistic religion integrating into science should be read with skepticism as it betrays the tenets of their faith that a supernatural being created the universe.

http://www.iawwai.com/UnificationOfRSP.htm

In:

The moving zeitgeist: Where will it take us?

Yesterday, I was told that the word "zeitgeist" was "too old" to be used nowadays and was a "70s word". However, the word is extremely useful as it is the only word that fully expresses the evolution of morality. In the world today, morality is at a huge standstill mainly because of th right-wing religious right who would like to have 18th century morals in a 21fst century world. However, I predict that the zeitgeist will move on, however slowly and the world will become a better place. Lets look at some moral issues and predictions I have.

Gay marriage- Gay marriage in all 50 states is something that almost half of Americans oppose today! However, just like any of the other civil rights movements, like the women's suffrage movement, or the african-american rights movement, the gay marriage movement will eventually be successful. I predict gays will have marriage in a majority of the states by about 2025, and all of the states by 2030.

Abortion- Although women are legally allowed to have abortion, their is still a huge amount of opposition to abortion in general by the conservative society. I predict this opposition will dwindle by about 2018.

Stem- Cell Research- Although Barack Obama has passed a law legalizing government funding of stem-cell research, it is still very limited. However, Stem-cell research is another ethical abortion-like issue that is opposed vehemently by many conservatives so it is not likely it will be completely funded until 2035.

Although their are other issues like genetic engineering and waterboarding, I wish to predict further issues that we must be eqquiped to handle.

Cloning- I see this as the biggest issue coming up for humanity. If we overclone, clones could possibly take over the workforce and it will be quite easy for the Earth to become overpopulated. Clones could result in a loss of biodiversity and the "best" genes could always be picked for a certain job. A sense of individualism could possibly be lost and all positive qualities about a person could be "cloned" and made better. Cloning does have some benefits of course. We could emply brilliant clones to advance science, powerful clones to work labor, and other clones to do household jobs. However, these are all taking up jobs of actual humans, and like I said could result in the loss of biodiversity. I would much prefer to have artificial intelligence do jobs for us.

Artificial intelligence- Unlike clones, robots and computers would not result in a loss of biodiversity, although they could result in a loss of jobs. The computers could work hundreds of times more efficiently then humans, and eventually humans may be able to integrade some of the properties of artificial intelligence into themselves. This will probably be a huge ethical issue. Can we become robots ourselves, becoming smarter and healthier at the expense of losing some of the intangible qualities of a human?

Their are many more ethical issues probably that I have not foreseen , and i appreciate comments concerning my writing and other ethical issues that may rise up in future years and ways we could handle them.

In:

An atheistic religion?

I recently wrote a reliigion based on fact and evidence which tries to draw awe and wonder from the vastness of the cosmos. Realizing humanity's place in the universe, or realization, can be achieved in many different ways. Below I list seven ways in which this feeling of realization can be achieved.

1. Realization in where we are in the universe, and that there are a huge number of other places in the universe completely alien to us.
2. Realization that we are not alone, and extraterrestrial creatures would regard as just as odd as we regard them.
3. Realization that the universe is not orderly, but random, and that this only makes it more beautiful.
4. Realization that the chance of us existing is extremely small, although we came to be.
5. Realization that each of our personalities are completely unique and we are all bonded together by being human but also separated by DNA, which is sacred.
6. Realization that the colonization of Earth and the buildings are equally as beautiful as life since they are created by life. This is also realizing that there are civilizations like ours on other planets, but yet extremely different.
7. These together may not seem so powerful, but realization is the word not discovery, it takes a much deeper sense of meaning then simply reading these.



1.To understand where we are in the universe, the person has to be presented the vastness of the universe in multiple ways. The person must understand the size of the cosmos in relation to the rise of our planet. Readings of Sagan’s books and other astroneners will help them understand this concept. The person will bep resented a number of objects that scale to sized of plantes when in relation to eachother. The person will be presented maps of our solar system, which is tiny in itself, and maps of the galaxy, which is dwarfed by the vastness of the universe.

2.To understand this concept, the person has to learn more about evolution. The person must understand that humans might look entirely different if not for a very simple error in evolution. The person will be put through complex evolution stimulations in which we will show how creatures from another planet may look or how humans may have appeared to look. Understanding this will open the person up to the beauty and unpredictability of life .

3. This concept is closely related to the first concept, but in its nature is different. People must understand that Earth may look normal to us, but if we did not originate here it would look odd. The person will be presented pictures from the hubble telescope, and realize that the universe is controlled by the blind forces of nature and light is scarce, while darkness is imminent. The person seeing pictures on the Hubble telescope will help them see how the many different clusters in the universe do not have any order. This helps the person understand that the universe is not only huge, but without order and cannot be fully conceived of by any mind.

4. This concept is difficult to achieve by looking only at the tiny percent chance of us existing as we are, but instead through more analogical methods. These analogical methods would consist mostly of going “back in time”, and realizing that there are numerous events that if not having occurred would result in us not existing it all. Understanding this would help the person understand the beauty and sacredness of the individual.

5.Achieving this is a rather large part of realization. To understand this the person will learn about genetics, and how different genetics may make up all of the qualities that a person will have. The person has to understand that personalities and genetic codes can never be created again once they have died, and will realize that uploading, or preserving a person’s genetic code, is a vital practice.

6.This is one of the concepts of realization that some might seem as odd, but it is definitely important. To understand the beauty of our civilization, the people must be presented virtual civilizations which are different from ours in every which way. After understanding that there are civilizations like ours in the universe, the person must to begin to view our civilization in a perspective of someone who never lived on Earth before. The person will begin to see have awe and wonder as our civilization, which is vital to realization.

7.This is the last and final part of achieving Realization. The person must bring it all together and find the deeper meaning. For the final step, nobody but the person can decide whether to take the final step and bridge the gap to realization.

Intellectual Discourse

Welcome to my website, and thanks for stumbling upon it. In this website I will discuss topics such as philosophy, science, religion, humanity and politics. I am not an expert on any of these topics as I am only 13, but I do have original ideas about each of these topics which I hope to share with the world. Specifically, here is a list of random topics I discuss.

-Consciousness
-Culture
-Existence
-Evolution
-Arguments for and against god

Enews And Updates

Labels

Subscribe to Feed


Powered By Blogger

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Posts