Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 2

This is Part 2 in my three part series about the Nature of Morality. You can find Part 1 here.

In the first part on morality, I established several things: 

1. Universalism is demanded by any moral system. 
2. Morality is universal.
3. Morals aren't based on public opinion.

The only question left to answer is: What is morality based on?

Finding the answer to this question is no simple task since it has been debated for literally centuries but allow me to sift through it all and figure out the truth. 

I must first denounce divine morality before it is ever seriously asserted (theologians have done so for centuries). Morality cannot be based on a divine being because once you set foot on that territory, it begs the question: which divine being? There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of gods/demi-gods conceived throughout history, many times, arguing for different moral systems. To assert the moral rationale of one god would be to deny the systems established by the thousands of other gods. Pascal's Wager has been heavily disproved.

But there are larger reasons for the denunciation of divine morality. Allow me to expound on my reasoning by concentrating on the two most popular religions' today, and Judaism (the mother of the monotheistic religions).

There are many divine decrees that we all ignore today because they are viewed as cruel and unusual if not immoral. Let's take, for example, the Biblical and Torah punishment for breaking the Sabbath:

Exodus 31:

14: Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15: Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

In Islam, the punishment for theft is to cut off the theifs' hands:

“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned [i.e. committed] as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah. And Allaah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 5:38] 

I would hope that anyone reading this would believe that such actions are immoral, yet they are the decrees of an Abrahamic God. Based on what I know, no one today is killed for breaking the Sabbath and few Muslim countries today chop off people's hands (but feel free to prove me wrong).

The world of religion has greatly changed. Where once the act of God is considered divinely just, today we shrivel away from the call to kill each other for not relaxing. Every day our government or people don't kill those who work on Sunday, we are ignoring the word of God. The very fact that you would view such divine decrees on a scale of morality shows that God's calls can be judged by an independent standard; to tells us that God doesn't establish the good, rather, he is judged by it.

If you still aren't convinced, Christopher Hitchens laid out a challenge to all theists, and so far hasn't gotten an answer (that I know of, and including myself). He asked:

"Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an 'infidel'. [Then] Name a wicked action or saying that is justified by faith."

The challenge is the best way to summarize my position. Immoral things are/have been preached for the divine, while all moral things don't need to be.

There are plenty of debates about the source of morality and the divine; here is one with Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. It is the first part and at the end of each video you will see a link to the following part to watch the full thing. Al Sharpton isn't very impressive and if you are really interested in the debate, look for William Lane Craig. Although he has some flawed arguments, he's the most formidable theist opponent to atheists in this area. 

If a universal moral standard does exist and is not based on any specific deity, how do we determine if something is right or wrong? This is where the Consequentialism and Deontology come in.

Since I ascribe to a kind of consequentialism, let's talk about Deontology first. The most famed supporter (if not creator) of this moral system is Immanuel Kant.

Kant believed that we can base moral requirements (decide if something is right or wrong)  by what he called the "Categorical Imperative." He promoted, like his predecessors, and consequentialists, that reason be the basis for determining the moral standard. He talked of many things such as free will (still hotly debated), virtues, hypothetical imperatives and moral, but the categorical imperative established the following:

1. There are absolute, unconditional requirements that assert its authority on all actions and circumstances.
2. Such actions are judged as right or wrong by being moral as an ends in themselves (as opposed to consequentialism). 
3. He said "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

In other words, there are things that are right and wrong and must be universally applied to all circumstances. These acts can be judged as moral or immoral, not based on their consequences, but the act themselves. For example, lying should be considered universally wrong, as should things like murder and rape (among many others). 

The flaws with Kanatian morality is obvious and most usually shown by the "Inquiring murderer" hypothetical scenario. I'll explain the scenario, but to remove the hypothetical aspect from the example, I'll frame it in true historical events. 

It is 1940, and World War II is has exploded as the United States joined "Europe's fight." For years, the anti-semetic Nazi regime (amongst the larger anti-semetic Europe) had began finding, labeling, and soon imprisoning Jews (amongst gays, minorities, political opponents and more) as the Holocaust came underway. 

A Jewish family, not different from Ann Frank's is hiding with a non-Jewish family in Germany-invaded Poland. Nazi soldiers, on the search for "rats," come to the house asking the family if they have seen any Jews. 

What should the family do? Tell the soldiers that they have Jews hiding in the basement? or lie to the soldiers to protect their Jewish neighbors? 

Under Kant's moral theory, things are determined as moral or not in all circumstances. Therefore, it is the moral obligation of the family not to lie, and to tell the truth at all times. Lying would be immoral, even in this real historical example. The family is best off telling the soldiers the truth, thereby their actions are moral in-and-of themselves, and the Jewish family is taken away to labor camps and eventually thrown into ovens after being deprived of basic necessities. 

This is no hypothetical example that philosophers conjured up to show the flaws of another moral philosophy at all costs; it's history. Surely such a system shouldn't have been followed during World War II or at any other time period. 

With Deontology denounced, I'll delve into consequentialism in the last part of the series, Part 3. (I wanted to include it but it is just too long).

Part 3 is coming soon!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Author's special note:Happy Birthday dad

Happy Birthday to the person closest to my heart,my mentor,and my best friend and that is my dad Rod Adagio.He influenced the musical preferences that I have now.I wont be writing about my favorite bands the Beatles,The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin right now If it weren't for him.I remember when I was a little boy he used to tell me stories about these huge bands and how he listened to them when he was in his teens.We would sit and he will turn on the radio and we would sing all these beautiful Beatles songs.I took it from there and I bought all these cool albums and started reading myself.

For me,he is the coolest dad in the world.Thank you for being a good father and thank you for giving me a cool name,a beautiful family name,awesome ancestry and heritage.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD

White Rock Angels accused in massive drug-smuggling ring

White Rock chapter of the Hells Angels supplied marijuana and muscle to a multimillion-dollar cross-border drug-smuggling ring in which 22 people have so far been charged, U.S. court documents allege.

U.S. law enforcement agents allege Hells Angel associate Trevor Jones was the Canadian "boss" of the drug ring alleged to have distributed up to a tonne of pot and 200 kilograms of cocaine a month for several years.

The ring was broken up last month with a series of arrests in several states and the seizure of almost $2 million US and 1,000 kilograms of cocaine from various locations.

The just-unsealed court documents say that Jones, who is not charged on the indictment, was observed by U.S. agents meeting a key member of the drug ring in Las Vegas in February.

And the documents say that U.S. members of the gang were caught on wiretap in April trying to get guns, baseball bats and pepper spray for the B.C. bikers so they could go after an associate believed to have stolen 106 kilograms of cocaine.

In fact, the coke had been seized by police.

"I believe that cocaine was destined for Canada and for the Hells Angels, possibly Trevor Jones," special agent Bryan Winger, of Homeland Security, testified in one court affidavit.

Among those now in custody are Jacob Stuart and Richard Lamar, the two Washington men alleged to have led the U.S. side of the operation, and John Washington, described as the group's main Seattle customer and "a member of the Blood street gang."

Three Canadians were also picked up: Glen Stewart -a 51-year-old who lives in Blaine -and Michel William Dubois and Mario Joseph Fenianos, who were arrested on April 26 in Los Angeles.

Dubois and Fenianos were arrested in a vehicle containing a duffel bag full of cocaine after agents observed them arriving to meet associates of the Sinaloa cartel.

The investigation began in early 2010 when U.S. Homeland Security came across three separate drug cases that all linked back to Stuart and his associates. Investigators got a series of wiretap authorizations and watched suspects in several states for months.

The U.S. Attorney said in one court document that the Stuart gang was international in scope, receiving shipments of B.C. bud trucked over the border, which were then transported across the U.S. using "aircraft flown by multiple pilots, who all have been observed by surveillance agents picking up suspected loads of marijuana."

Several suspects caught in the act agreed to become confidential informants and linked the case back to the Hells Angels in B.C., the documents said.

Members of the drug ring were "prepared to use violence to further their activities." Suspects were caught on tape plotting abductions and beatings as part of debt collecting, the U.S. Attorney said.

"Stuart was also intercepted talking to Lamar about obtaining guns, pepper spray, and baseball bats for use by a different crew of enforcers being sent down from Canada to investigate a large amount of missing drugs," one document said.

Stuart says on wiretap that he needs "some heaters, burners" -which is slang for firearms.

"They want some right now -our boss man does -because they are sending some people down to deal with the situation," he said.

One document alleges that Jones, 41, is the owner of Surrey's T-Barz strip club and the twin brother of fullpatch White Rock Hells Angel Randal Jones.

"Interviews with cooperating confidential informants (CIs) and subsequent wire intercepts indicate that the primary source of supply of the marijuana to the Jacob Stuart drug trafficking organization is a person who has been identified by their moniker of Red," Winger said in his April 26 affidavit to the court.

"Red is the nickname or code name for Trevor Jones. ... According to Canadian law enforcement Trevor Jones is a Hells Angels member and/ or associate."

Winger further alleges that while Jones was not captured on wiretap during the investigation, "we have intercepted calls we believe are about Jones and surveilled meetings between Jones and Lamar, acting on Stuart's behalf."

And he quoted records that confirmed that Jones "did fly from Canada to Las Vegas, making entry into the U.S. on Feb. 14, 2011" and stayed at the hotel where Lamar was sent by Stuart twice over several days.

"We believe that during this and the previous trip, Lamar was delivering money to Trevor Jones, which the Stuart drug trafficking organization owed for marijuana obtained from the Jones brothers," Winger testified in a court document.

After meeting Jones, Lamar is captured in one call to Stuart saying Jones praised him: "he says you're his best guy, which is good."

Jones, who lives in Langley, did not return telephone or email messages left for him Friday through T-Barz.

 

 

VICTOR SPINETTI:The funny man who drove the Beatles' movies

Ever wonder who's that musical director in the film A Hard Day's Night,the mad scientist in Help! and the army drill sergeant in Magical Mystery Tour? That is none other than Victor Spinetti,a Welsh comic actor who drove us all nuts on those Beatles films that we all loved.

Victor was a favorite comedian of the Beatles particularly George Harrison's.George even stating "You've got to be in all our films..If you're not in them,me mum wont come and see them coz she fancies you.."

Spinetti was born in Wales of Welsh and Italian ancestry,he attended the Cardiff College of Music And Drama.Waiting tables and a factory worker were one of his first jobs before entering showbusiness.Perhaps the most memorable role Spinetti had was from the Beatles' second movie Help! where he played the role of Foot-the mad scientist who got obsessed over Ringo's ring and later on the orchid essense which has the power to shrink things from its normal size.He teamed up with the late Roy Kinnear,who played Algernon-Foot's not so clever assistant.

Actually,it was in Help! that I fancied Spinetti even more.Sir Paul McCartney used to describe him as the man who makes clouds disappear.

Spinetti made his last appearance on a Beatles movie in the film Magical Mystery Tour where he played the role of a wacky army drill sergeant.Post-Beatles,Spinetti appeared on Paul McCartney's London Town music video.

The last musical appearance of Spinetti was in 1985 when he teamed up again with Roy Kinnear and did a comic stint on Mike & The Mechanics music video "All I Need Is A Miracle".Kinnear died three years later in 1988 when he fell off while horseback riding.

Spinetti is now a fellow at his alma mater  the Cardiff College of Music and Drama.

My tribute to Victor Spinetti with all the love and admiration...Thank you Victor for making us all laugh

Gaza: The World's Largest Prison

Gaza is the world's largest prison. Home to over 1.5 million people 95% of which are under the age of 65.  Overpopulated, the Strip is greatly restricted by Israel (and the United States). Since Israel first enacted its policy to Gaza years ago, 100% of all textile factories were closed, which is part of the larger 96% of all factories  that were closed. The agriculture and fishing industry were almost completely destroyed, ruining tens of millions of dollars worth of food that would have been locally grown for families. 

All medicine that goes through Gaza is inspected. Israel constantly denies humanitarian aid to the strip and controls overwhelming majorities in Gaza's electricity and water production. Finally, all international funds going to humanitarian aid toward the Palestinian people is withheld by Israel unless it deems it appropriate. Israel even has control over Palestinian tax money in the West Bank (although the regulation is a bit easier there). 

It is clear that the territory has all the characteristics of a prison: Controlled hours when lights are on, confined (and in California's case) overcrowded rooms, controlled food and drinks, inspection on anything and everything that wants to come in and out. 

Actually with some reconsideration, Western prison is a better than what Gazans go through because they are at least guaranteed protection for their lives. Gaza is more of a Syrian, Egyptian, or Saudi jail.

Israeli leaders, such as the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and most of his predecessors), have always said something to this effect: "In the name of security we must continue this policy!"

Recently Israel just extended its emergency law powers for another year which would have the policy implemented for over 63 years. Haaretz describes the law's effect as the following:

"It bestows upon the government broad powers that infringe on civil liberties. These include the power of administrative detention, seizure of land, arrest of infiltrators, and limitations on the rights of terror suspects. In Israel's improvisational style, numerous writs have been issued under emergency law guidelines for the monitoring of goods and services. In such case, the emergency law was used not because of any real concerns about state security, but rather for bureaucratic convenience."

These expansionist powers are no secret and have been used against the Palestinians for some time now. The policy toward Gaza by Israel and the United States aims to alienate Gaza's leadership: Hamas, a group deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, EU and Israel. 

The policy is not only impractical, it's deeply immoral. The effects of the policy make the policy itself immoral, and if you can't see that, then just wait for my second part on the Nature of Morality. It's impractical because the harder you make the lives of a people, the more extreme their views will become. With more extreme views people will inevitably turn to more extreme leaders. Let me frame it this way:

A household is deprived of water, food, electricity, and medicine; no one is allowed to leave the house to get a job or get any essentials. The family knows that their current state is because of the neighbors who have initiated the harsh imprisonment. As the family gets organized, two possible leaders come up, the first of which, declares that negotiations must go on and we must sit with the neighbors that are starving our children, while the second declares that they must continue the fight for their independance and right to a proper household. 

Which would you choose? It may be difficult to feel empathy for the Palestinians because you read this of some kind of electronic device, at home or at work. You may not be deprived of basic living essentials as they are, and until you are in their position, you may never understand why they choose the more violent rebellious leaders. 

This short TED Talk may help you better understand, please watch:

This is why such a policy is impractical to long term solutions. The lack of empathy alienates entire populations most noticeably... the two closest to each other: the Israelis and Palestinians. As a result, radical leaders will take radical results which has led to 60+ years of non-stop violence.  

In the name of security, Israel takes such extreme actions. I'm not saying that the Israeli concern about its security isn't warranted, but I'm saying that the actions aren't however, I think there is a more fundamental issue at hand so let's talk about that first.

Israel enacts such strict controls over Palestinian life (but especially Gazan life) because they do not approve of the last Palestinian elections where Hamas won significant numbers of spots in the government. Since then, much has happened and the split between Palestinians factions broke off, with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip. In the last month, a unity government has been formed and will push for UN statehood recognition.

Rightfully or not, the Israelis don't like who the Palestinians elected to office. The fear of whom may be elected once democracy is established reminds me of the ongoing Arab uprisings, and specifically Egypt.

There was much (unnecessary) speculation that with Mubarak out, the Egyptians would elect a government that is unfriendly to the United States, Israel and their policies. That may be the case since elections haven't begun yet, however, the larger concern is this: Why are the rights of (literally) hundreds of millions of people predicated on who foreign governments approve of as "representatives" for their nations?

Why is their even discussion about helping suppress the inalienable rights of our fellow human beings because we won't like who they have a right to elect? Is this even moral? (rhetorical) Better yet, when is a system democratic when those "elected" are filtered by forces such as Israel and the United States (if not Iran and Saudi Arabia)?

This discussion seems to have been re-ignited recently over the military government in Egypt's decision to permanently open the border that has been long closed by the U.S.'s puppet Hosni Mubarak. It is the first effort by any country to improve the lives of the Gazans and bring an end to the world's largest prison; I applaud the decision.

Of course, the border isn't opened for everyone; men between the ages 18-64 are required to have visas to travel back and forth, but it is still an important step. The system aims to allow for the flow of people and the economic opportunities they bring, but takes measures to inspect and limit the shipment of weapons that could be used against Israel.

Perhaps I'm downplaying Hamas attacks against Israel; attacks that seem greatly overshadowed when Israel responds and kills 75% more people, however, Israeli policy thusfar is not serious about long-term change. Illegal settlements, manipulation of basic necessities, illegal and immoral acts that radicalize another generation will never be the answer to peace.

Yes, the Israeli state deserves peace of mind, but more importantly, the Palestinians deserve a state. It is our job as fellow human beings, to ensure that everyone has access to the basic universal freedoms that I do when I type on this blog but we must remember that there are no strings attached to such freedoms and it is none of our business to dictate what they decide to do with that democracy.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Shootings at Motorcycle Club HQ

Police in Helsinki detained several people early Tuesday following a series of gunshots at a motorcycle club headquarters.
A number of shots were fired after midnight in or around the premises of the Cannonball MC on Viipurinkatu.
Police have declined to release any details about the incident, but say they do not know of any injuries.
Cannonball MC was formed in the 1990s by former Hell's Angels in Finland. It has member groups at least half a dozen Finnish towns and cities. A number of its leaders were convicted of drug-related and violent crimes in the 1990s.

 

Hells Angels member gets bail

chapter president of the Hells Angels motorcycle club was freed Tuesday pending sentencing for drug offences after a jury acquitted him last week of belonging to a criminal organization.

John Neal, 61, was granted bail, pending the outcome of a sentencing hearing on June 9.

A jury on Saturday acquitted five members of Hells Angels, including Neal, of the criminal organization charge. Lorne Campbell, 62, was released on bail immediately on Saturday and Larry Pooler, 61, had been under house arrest since charges were laid four years ago.

Two other members, Mehrdad Bahman, 48, and vice-president, Douglas Myles, 54, remain in custody. 

All the bikers were found guilty drug charges and will be sentenced on June 9.

But the criminal organization acquittals mean the men were spared lengthy jail sentences on top of their pre-trial custody.  

“If the state wants to go big-game hunting, they better bring out the heavy artillery and the evidence just wasn’t there in this case,” said defence lawyer Lenny Hochberg.

“The courts have found on multiple occasions that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization, but it has never been tried to the best of my knowledge, before a jury before the accused’s peers in other words.

“Now that a jury has determined, based on all the evidence and a year and a half of investigation, that it is not a criminal organization. It’s a huge decision.” 

Neal, Myles and Bahman were found guilty of conspiracy to traffick GHB, the date rate drug.

Pooler was found guilty of trafficking in oxycodone and possession of  a restricted firearm.

Campbell was convicted on trafficking cocaine.

The bikers were arrested in an undercover project — named “Project Develop” — which featured a former club officer named Dave (Shakey) Atwell, a paid police agent. 

The jury heard that Atwell hung out with the bikers for 18 months and secretly taped conversations with them between 2005 and 2007.

Bahman, whose club nickname is “Juicy,” pleaded guilty to nine counts of trafficking drugs and possession of proceeds of crime.

 

Hells Angels guilty of drug offences

Five Hells Angels motorcycle gang members face sentencing Tuesday on drug-related charges laid four years ago, one of their lawyers said Sunday.

But after hearing evidence since November, Lenny Hochberg said a Toronto jury found them not guilty of charges of association with a criminal organization.

“These jurors were there for six months,” said the lawyer with Hochberg Criminal Defence Group, on Bay St.

He estimated it took about 135 days to hear from witnesses and for evidence to be presented in a University Ave. courtroom.

John “Winner” Neal, 60, president of the downtown Toronto Hells Angels Club, vice-presidents Larry Pooler, 60, and Douglas Myles, 54 — plus members Mehrdad “Juicy” Bahman, 49, and Lorne Campbell, 62 — faced a total of almost 40 criminal conspiracy charges tied to the trafficking of cocaine, liquid Ecstasy and guns.

David Atwell, a former “full-patch member” who became a paid police informant, aided in the seizure of the Eastern Ave. clubhouse and arrest of dozens of people in raids in April, 2007 during Project Develop.

The trial exposed the outlawed gang’s inner-workings and fears of informants.

Hochberg, who represented Bahman, said his client remains in custody after being found not guilty of 15 charges.

Bahman, Neal and Myles remain in custody and Pooler, who represented himself, remains under house arrest. Campbell is free on his own recognizance.

Hochberg said the case was “probably one of the first jury trials” involving a not guilty finding for people accused of association with a criminal organization.

 

Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 1

Due to past discussions in the comment section of the blog, I've decided to delve into the century old debate about the nature of morality. Although there are many differing opinions, they can best be categorized into the following two:

1. Universalist
2. Relativist

I don't care much for the official terminology on the subject  because it only serves to confuse the layman and alienate this important discussion to the upper echelons of the philosophical profession. For those without a background here's a description of the two:

1. Universalist: One who believes that all human beings have similar and "universal" moral values that can be adhered to regardless of the culture, race, gender, etc. 
2. Relativist: One who believes that each society, culture, or religion has its own unique moral system that they can adhere to. They have no higher moral standard to aim for because our morals are "relative."

The most notable supporters of moral universalism are theists (I say this un-connected to the questions I have about my own belief). They hold the idea that there is a higher being that establishes what is moral and what is immoral. The followers are acting justly and those who don't listen to the teachings are acting incorrectly and will be punished in one way or another. Even if you believe that all religions lead to the same mountain peak, you would still concede that there is a divine being that teaches us right from wrong.

Of course, there are some deists who believe that the universe was created by a higher being, but it doesn't really care much past its initial creation; from this point, one can support moral universalism or relativism.

Finally, in the agnostic and atheist groups, there is far more differing opinions about the nature of morality. Although they didn't deal with the same question per se, and many dealt with very specific inquiries of morals, ethics, happiness and death, their opinions can be summarized best below: 

Ancient:

1. Socrates: Knowledge is the highest source of morality. Self-knowledge will get people to act morally; immoral action is due to ignorance. (This isn't so far off from some more modern stances.)
2. Aristotle: "Nature does nothing in vain" and so everyone should act within nature to attain happiness and good deeds. Self-realization and developing one's talent to become a "person" is surest sign of a moral life. Moderation was recommended from the extremes. 
3. Aristippus:  "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Take advantage of every pleasure regardless of how short lived. 
4. Epicurus: Rejected the teachings of Aristippus believing some pleasures are bad for humans. Summum bonum or the "greatest good" for the person was essential. Above all, overcoming the fear of death was extremely important because it would help one lead a happier life. 
5. Epictetus: Peace of mind was the highest value one could attain. Controlling one's desires and emotions would lead to spiritual peace. They must have the "will" to be independent. 

Not-Ancient but Not-Modern:

1. Consequentialism: Here I can't categorize by a single person because there are so many kinds of consequentialism. In general, this standpoint holds firm that an act is determined as moral or immoral by the consequences of the action. Although I don't think it is necessarily accurate, it is often described with the aphorism "The ends justify the means." Jeremy Bentham is one of the best known consequentialists. 
2. Deontology: For this, the name isn't too important. More important is the man behind it: Immaneul Kant. Rather than judge an act by its consequences, Kant believes that an act is moral if it is 'intrinsically good,' or doesn't make the situation worse. The act must be good, per se. 

As you might concur, most of these can be universal or relative, however, I am of the opinion that morality is universal in nature; furthermore, I ascribe to a specific type of consequentialism but allow me to expound on the former first.

Morals are universal regardless of where you come from, what your culture is, or your way of life. Allow me to explain it this way. 

There are actions that can be considered immoral in all societies; take, for example, murder. Of course there are the exceptions for defense and it is worth noting that murder refers to the killing of innocence so it can't be applied to war zones where militants fight other militants.  I can't think of a society where random or serial murder on citizens is considered a social or cultural norm. Even in the most violent of places in the world, "murder" wasn't a moral value and never could be. So we can confidently say that murder is an immoral value held by all people around the world throughout history. 

When you concede that there is at least one thing that is considered universally immoral, it becomes clear that there must be more: Rape, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there must be actions that are considered universally moral (although it isn't predicated on the former). 

Admittedly, the discussion about the source of this universal moral standard is still hotly debated. Theists believe that a divine being dictates those morals while others (some theists included) say that universal moral standards don't require a higher up. I'll talk about what I believe a moral system should be based on in Part 3 of the series. 

And so, with a universal set of morals every society on Earth has a duty to meet them. That's why we have laws: to maintain the peace, and seek justice. It is the reason why parents teach their kids not to lie to or bully others. 

So what's wrong with relativism? A lot, to say the least. The most disturbing of them all is that, if morals are relative to one's society, those morals would be based on the teachings of tradition, or that society's God/s or even secularly taught values. The problem is, some societies have horribly disturbing practices. 

Let's take Female Genital Mutilation. I'm well aware of the differing terminology, but to me, it's nothing less than mutilation, not comparable with male circumcision (although I don't support that either). Health leaders can call it "cutting", and "mutilation" may seem extremely judgmental, but I AM being judgmental of the practice. This video will tell you more about it:

Is this custom moral? Of course not. It's disgusting. Yet relativists would tell us that this act isn't immoral because we can not judge another culture's actions since we have differing moral systems. Our morals are relative to our culture and theirs to theirs.

Are the women right to celebrate as little girls are forced to have their clitoris and (sometimes) labias cut off? Absolutely not! Anyone who supports such as practice is supporting nothing less than the mutilation of millions of screaming girls throughout history. The fact is, there are acts that societies deem moral, yet we know for a fact that they aren't right. Yes, there are some in the regions where this is practiced who are fighting to change it, however, the relativist stance establishes that whatever a society believes is moral, is in fact moral. 

This is perhaps it's largest fallacy. The word "belief" doesn't imply the word "is." I may "believe" that killing is moral, but that doesn't mean that it "is." Likewise, they may "believe" that FGM is moral, but that doesn't mean that it "is." Surely, relativism is not a proper moral ideology. 

And so we reach an important milestone: morals are NOT determined by public opinion. One hundred years ago, it wasn't immoral to enslave someone, but today we know better than that. So if not determined by public opinion, what should morals be based on?

I'll cover this in Part 2 of this series. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

My Analysis: Obama's Middle East Speech

Today, President Obama gave his much anticipated speech about the quickly changing nature of the Middle East.  Here it is:

If you want to read a transcript of the speech, click here.

I expected much out of the speech (as anyone should from their leader) but find myself with mixed feelings.

The President does well in pointing out recent positive development that are crucial to the region:

1. In Iraq, "We've removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there."
2. "In Afghanistan, we've broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead."
3. "We have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden."

He continues by telling us the obvious:

1. Bin Laden is evil.
2. How the Mideast uprisings began.
3. People are fighting for their rights in the region.

The President makes a point that he has made before:

"The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism."

On this point I take issue. Yes, colonialism has ended for some time, but not foreign power intervention and influence in the region. He is right to say that we can't keep blaming others and our tribalism, religion, and sects have all doused the fire with fuel but U.S. and European intervention didn't cease politically, socially, economically, financially or militarily. At some point, we must stop blaming others, of course, just as soon as negative material involvement ends from "the West."

Next he lays out the question at hand; as the narrative rapidly changes:

"The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds."

 and concludes:

"--a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world."

Of course, this is just an eloquent way of saying: It is against U.S. interests to stay with the status quo; something I've preached about since it all began! It is also evident that repressive dictatorships and oppressive king only generate a temporary illusion of stability.

I'm glad that the president also pointed out that the work in Egypt and Tunisia isn't complete. With the short time spans (something even I am guilty of), many people tend to think that the democratization of those two nations is complete. 

After reiterating his stance to support intervention in Libya, Obama establishes that Qaddafi will leave Libya either by force or through a deal that would have him willingly leave. Obama describes the opposition by calling it a "legitimate and credible Interim Council" yet the administration refused to endorse the rebels as the recognized government of Libya. 

I was very glad to hear Obama recognize the repressive actions of the governments of Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. The speech follows the U.S.'s strongest sanctions against the Syrian regime. The government's slow reaction to the 1000 deaths comes as a bit of a surprise to me. One would assume with its opposition to Syria's funding of organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine that the administration would move quickly to support the protests of the Syrians to remove this leader, for the chance of another one. 

Of course, the issue is more complex than that; Syria maintains a peaceful border for Israel and any replacement may choose to change things (a claim also made in Egypt; we have yet to see the extent of those results). After taking all this into consideration, the President lays out his -- strongest yet- message which can be best summarized with this sentence:

"President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. "

So far, it seems that President Bashar Al Assad is taking the route his father took decades ago by massacring his own people.  I highly recommend "liking" this Facebook page: The Syrian Days of Rage. The activists post content several times a day with very graphic video and images. No other outlet I know shows such direct video of the events on the ground. 

From Syria, the president moves to Iran by highlighting Iranian aid to the Syrian regime in suppressing protesters. This is similar in style to how Iran suppressed its own political protests years ago. This is an obvious move by the President to channel attention to Iran and its suppressive practices. Over the past months, it is obvious that the governments takes any chance it can to point out Iran's oppression (rightfully so) but it doesn't do so out of the kindness of its heart, rather, it wishes protests would be re-ignited to de-stabilized its regional nemesis. 

I'm glad to see Obama's public statement that the President of Yemen should sign the agreement and stop delay, a move I believe falls into what I've written about previously: the government should use whatever resources it has with the weight of its influence to help the protesters create a better government. 

On Bahrain, two paragraphs were dedicated, which seems to fall in line with the typical attention span of the government toward the widespread crackdown on Bahrainis by the suppressive dictatorship. Al Jazeera has an entire series dedicated to coverage of all the protests from Tunisia to Yemen to Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and more. It seems to be the only organization to detail the widespread crackdown of the Bahraini government. See here. They've covered mass allegations of torture, the governments crackdown on protesting football players, medical professionals, students, and religious centers. 

Of course, I will always support the President's call for the enforcement of universal rights, because morality is, well, universal. The president presses on:

" The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential." 

Soon afterwards, Obama details a plan to invest in Egypt and Tunisia to help alleviate the people and their grievances. 

Finally, the last issue addressed is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that has been going on for more than 60 years. I like the President's characterization of Israeli troops in the West Bank as an occupation (because that is what it is). He continues with rigid but clear language:

"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."

This is certainly true, as even Hamas and other Islamist organizations must be blood-drunk or simply deranged to think that Israel will ever end or cease to exist in the manner they want it to.  He goes on to denounce the effort by the Palestinian Authority to gain recognition of a Palestinian state. Here I strongly disagree as I've stated by a previous blog post titled "The Wiser Palestinian Fight." This seems odd despite the president's support of a Palestinian nation within the 1967 borders (give and take some land swaps).  I believe that with the inevitable recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians enter the negotiations not as leaders of a land, but leaders of a nation; a nation that is being illegally occupied by foreign troops. It helps make Israel look worse, and Palestinians better. It doesn't add chips to play at the table, but it helps build legitimacy for a people that are far too often neglected. 

On Israel, the President clarifies:

"...we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."

 Iran is singled out for criticism as is Sudan, Egypt, Libya, and any other nation that commits horrible actions so why not Israel? If a nation isn't criticized in international forums, where should it be? All nations should be criticized on all levels.

The President, as all previous presidents, establishes that with a two state solution: "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people." Of course, I'm completely opposed to a "Jewish State" because of my opposition to any religiously based government; a Jewish one included. His statement also neglects the fact that Palestinians can be Jewish, and Israels can be Muslims and Christians. 

All-in-all, the speech contradicts itself at several points, but it certainly makes some good ones. If a strong policy follows suit, I can find myself in support of it, with just a few changes here and there namely the following:

1. Support of the recognition of a Palestinian State in the UN, regardless of the situation of negotiations. 
2. Introduce UN sanctions against the Syrian government to take stronger action to stop the killing.
3. More strongly move to push Saleh to sign the agreement. 
4. Push for the withdrawal of Saudi troops from Bahrain and for government reform in Bahrain. 
5. Push for economic development (not oil related) to the entire region. 

What do you think of his speech? the introduced actions? My suggestions? and more~!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

TECH Update: Google's Strategy Part 2

This is Part 2 in my look at Google's strategy. Click here for Part 1.

...

Google released its own browser named Chrome. The web browser (which I'm using right now and have implored you to switch to in more than one TECH Update post) followed Google's famed simply design and introduced so many new ideas the competition is copying it.  Chrome's design is meant to remove the browser out of your online experience by making it as thin as possible, so you can experience and see the web instead of the browser bar. It was also tested as the fastest browser in start-up and website speed.  Google then opened its design to allow others to copy it. 

Why would a company want its competition like Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari to copy it?  Simple, if Google' leads the development of browsers to make them faster, simpler, better protected, and with better support for HTML 5 and Javascript, it would greatly benefit Google's other products like its Instant Search, Docs, Calender and more.  Google benefits when all browsers move forward and become better; it didn't see enough development and made its own browser to push the market forward. Today, Google's sandbox, Omnibox, thin browser have all been copied in newer versions of Internet Explorer and the new Firefox 4. 

But Google didn't stop there when it came to the browser. Eventually Google released its Chrome Webstore. Here, Chrome users and can use and download Extentions which are built into your browser to enhance your web experience, Apps which are found in your new tab page. Some are built in, but most act as simple links to websites to show up of power of the web in a store where you may not have discovered otherwise. The Apps vary from Education, Games, Shopping, News and much more. The Chrome Webstore also includes a large array of Themes (copied from Firefox) to customize your browser. Finally, you can find Google's Ebook store where you can find 3 million free books to read online.

However, not all things are free. Like other App stores, there are some Apps that do charge for their download. 

Recently, Google has taken Chrome one step further. It finished its initial testing of its ChromeOS system and has introduced it to the world; the future of computing. 

Because the laptop runs on a stripped-down system, first-time setup takes three minutes, and the computers boot up in 8 seconds,Sundar Pichai, an executive for the Chrome group, said during the presentation

Acer and Samsung will be the first to sell the Chromebooks for around 500 dollars.  Here is an introductory video:

This introduction comes at the same conference that the company released its beta version of a cloud music player called Music Beta which I wrote about in my last post here.  With all this in mind, we haven't even talked about Google Blogger (which I use on this blog) and a plethora of other online software. 

Google's strategy is clear: move everything online and all these steps prove it to be true. As its office tools like Google Docs, Calendar and more get stronger, its web browser continues to double in popularity each year (went from 70 million to 160 million today in 1 year), Android system take over the smartphone market and quickly grow in the slate market, Google wants everyone to be able to do everything without ever doing a computer virus scan. 

It imagines a world where you never have to update your operating system manually, where you never have to save a document (it automatically saves), where you have access to your music, books, games, and favorite websites anywhere with an internet connection (or with the option to download). Never again should you worry about the memory on your computer or downloading malicious software. My skeptics look at Google's investments in driveless cars and windmills and question the sanity of the company's leadership, but I see a clear direct strategy to bring the world closer to the web. Yes, it has failed when it comes to social networking, but the company is not as weak or careless as some portray it to be. All it needs to do is follow the strategy is has so far and better connect all its different software into a central platform. Through Gmail but using Chrome on computers and Android on other platforms, this is how Google is aiming to do it. 

Others are concerned of its dominance in these markets and I certainly welcome competition from Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook but its clear that Google is taking the lead and making the risky investments. Bravo. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Religion's Oppression

It has been quite some time since I began contemplating the existence of God (some 3 years ago) and during that time, I've discovered a discussion like no other: debates on the source of morality, historical evidence of miracles, and gaps in science that can never be explained, to name just a few, yet there is something that hasn't been properly addressed; what I consider the 500 lb gorilla in the room : Homosexuality. 



I won't entertain debates on the natural-ity of homosexuality for other reasons than being distasteful: 

1. Homosexuality is a direct product of natural processes, of which can not be dictated by the parents, environment, or person.
2. Science is verifying such a belief with many discovering that it is a mix of neurological and genetic alternations from the "norm" of heterosexuality. See here.

By concentrating on the gay community (as I've done in the past), many atheists may be offended by my choice to address just one aspect of the divine; their impression of the Abrahamic God is best described in the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of Richard Dawkin's bestseller The God Delusion:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, magalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I choose to address just one aspect of his intense description because I believe it is the most relevant today. No group (that I know of), in the history of the world, has faced as much religious hatred as gays have. Nearly every religion in the world denounces homosexuality as unnatural, deviant, unholy, blasphemous, and impure (Buddhism and Hinduism have thousands of denominations that vary in belief, so it's harder to pinpoint)

To name the Abrahamic religions:

Islam:  

Sura 7:80-84: "And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in? Verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.' But his people's answer only was to say, 'Turn them out of your village, verily, they are a people who pretend to purity.'  But we saved him and his people, except his wife, who was of those who lingered; and we rained down upon them a rain; -- see then how was the end of the sinners!" [Here, God massacres thousands of people] Christianity and Judaism: Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." There is much more in all the texts, but these help summarize the basis of belief; All center around the story of the Sodom and Gommorah. All translations, yet homophobia is prevalent in English speaking Muslim, Christian, and Jews as they are in Hebrew and Arabic speaking believers; the homophobia exists inter-linguistically. Of course, I recognize Islamic history's shaky acceptance of flamboyant men and masculine women, but this is no substitute for the hateful anti-gay speech found in many other places. I'm also well aware of the debates within the religious community that center around whether homosexuality is the sin, or homosexual intercourse is; either way, it's just as disgusting. If homosexuality is accepted but not the relationship, do we force all gays to marry people they don't want? Of course not, that's absurd. Despite the debate (some more lively than others), there is one thing that can't be denied: The belief in the divine is the the reason that children are raised believing gays are wrong; the reason gays grow up in hiding; the reason outed gays are hung in Iran; the reason the Catholic Church (as well as most others) denounce gays; the reason gay girls and boys are bullied; the reason they are beat. Two gay men hung in Iran Why such torment? Because of who they are. Their sin? No evil action, no far worse: Their sin is in their state of being. No other issue boils my blood as this does. The debate here in the United States about gay rights and gay marriage is quite a step forward from other countries where expressing one's homosexual tendencies will have them jailed, tortured, raped, and killed. This isn't abuse of man of the "loving" word of the divine, no, nor is it the changing of rules by the corruption of men; this is a God that hates the people he makes.  "Hate for being" quickly reminds me of human slavery where colored people were considered property to others because of who they were; regardless of their natural equality.  The hatred toward gays is as open today as the hatred toward colored people was all over the world (from Native Americans, to Africans, to the Chinese) at it's peak. Pink Triangles Labeled Holocaust prisoners as Gay; similar to the Star for Jews Could homophobia exist in a secular world? Sure, but it would never have the mandate and authority of an all-wise, all-powerful divine being; thus easier to overcome. In fact, the only reason homosexuality is as big of an issue anywhere in the world is because of religion, be it personal faith or religious institution. What should have been addressed long ago is being dragged out (far past the end of my lifetime) to deny gays safety, equality, and dignity in all countries.  The hatred toward homosexuals isn't limited to the boisterous protesters of the Westboro Baptist Church nor the loudest demagogues in the mosques of Saudi Arabia nor in the longest public decrees of radical rabbis. Overwhelming majorities throughout the world believe homosexuality is morally wrong.  There is nearly 0% tolerance of homosexuality in the UK Muslim community while 75% of French and German Muslims also believe homosexuality is, by nature, immoral.  (See here).   Even in the United States, 43% of Americans (regardless of faith) believe that homosexuality is wrong. That's around  129 million people that believe a state of being is wrong.  On this issue, more-so than any other, even the most (seemingly) intelligent and open-minded people I know, express (with pride) their denouncement of homosexuality. They don't base their decree on any evidence, because they don't need to: Whatever contradicts the word of God should be shunned. No other force on earth gets people to believe in such hateful things as the divine does.  No one can deny that the belief in the divine is the direct cause to the imprisonment, torture, rape, and murder of millions of gays throughout history. We can put aside the killing of children, the genocide, the rape that has been sanctioned by the divine throughout the Torah, Bible and Qur'an because even then, this divine being shows itself to be quite hateful, quite unforgiving by sentencing a girl who grows up to love women, to an eternity in hell.  Think about that. To burn forever, for loving someone she wasn't supposed to love.   If God does exist, I'm not sure I'd want to worship him.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!