….But What If?

The hunger of, often veils
Metaphors of imaginations trickle
A slow paced chaos
My heart beats as part of a drum circle
The dancing figures of unrest
Glide over in mysterious movements

A rather benevolent mind
Starts to play tricks of a circus joker
Somewhere there is a need
Of the soulless jester to lighten up
As I indulge in tantrums of thoughts
Through the my own hands
I nurture a new born idea into
A callous criminal, guiltless
With an appetite of a beast
That feeds over my consciousness
As I too feed off the angst; “thinking”
To sustain the cob wed
I build to be real

The hunger of, often veils
For every thought must be alive
Alive enough to affect
Alive as I make them
It is my own indulgence in the
Captivation show of misplaced reality
That shadows of relentless assumptions
Are strong as the scorching sun
It is I who gives them power
It is I who veils my own
Serenity

My Friend Frenzy

I bestow unto you my dear friend
The frights and flights
Wonder why I couldn’t understand
The horrors of your insecure faith
Off the surface you calm son of a bitch
Find the depth in the powers of angst
We are one as you said; you recall?
I am me and you separate!

For long the jolts of your wit
Have sufficed my reason and action
Of the untrue, you sly wizard
I find you to be the crux of ugly snoot
Incongruous fallacies of imaginations
Scurrying a stampede of rampant thoughts
Of your cloaked fury of darkness

I have now the one who rest beside me
Of fantasies she makes my belief
The deeper I swim with her
I find your sneaky little tactics
Behind me
The one who rests besides me
Tells me a reality of a forever she sees
I bestow unto you my dear friend
A goodbye, so long you boastful snob
I hope to never see you again

Normative Ethics: after the leap into Objectivism.

Ye olde leap o faith.

The oft misquoted Dostoevsky saying reads: If there is no God then everything is permitted. This is a rough summary of perhaps one or more of the utterances of Ivan Karamazov, a character in Dostoevsky's classic novel: The Brothers Karamazov. It might even be a summary of Father Zosima (another character in The Brothers Karamazov) when he says: "Our people believe tirelessly in the truth, acknowledge God, weep tenderly. Not so their betters. These, following science, want to make a just order for themselves by reason alone, but without Christ now, not as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, there is no sin. And in their own terms, that is correct: for if you have no God, what crime is there to speak of?"  All in all, this hyperbolic expression falsely attributed to Dostoevsky seems to correctly amplify the over all debate in his novel, and possibly, his personal opinion. The opinion that if there is no absolute God, then there is no absolute morality.  

When examined at first glance "absolute morals" point towards religion. Albeit, the fact that there are varying principles of morality within the paradigm of religious belief seems to indicate that divinely prescribed morals are at least not true in every instance. In Islam, for example, it is not OK to eat pork, whereas in Jainism vegetarianism is a compulsion. It is however also worth noting that there is no way to bargain/weigh-in divinely prescribed morals for its adherer.

How can we question the perfect word of God? This is not a question but a condition. Believers of such morals feel that they have answers or guidance and they are satisfied or obliged to follow. This in turn gives meaning to their life. 

But not everyone who believes in absolute morals believes in religion, what then is their moral compass?

Normative Ethics is the part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with the criteria of what is right or wrong- good or bad. It is the discipline of philosophy concerned with formulating or stipulating moral guidelines for human actions, institutions (such as the legislative sort), and how one should live. Thusly, the pivotal query of normative ethics is determining how basic moral standards are arrived at and justified. The answers to this question fall into two broad categories: deontological and teleological.

Deontological theories use the authenticity of its own inherent virtues or rightness to establish moral standards, while teleological theories consider the good and value brought into being by actions as the principal criterion of their ethical value. Thus, deontological theories akin to religion stress the concepts of duty, ought, obligation, and right and wrong, while teleological theories lay stress on the good, the valuable, and the desirable. 


Deontological theories set forth formal or relational criteria such as equality or impartiality; teleological theories, by contrast, provide material or substantive criteria, as, for example, happiness or pleasure. The word "teleological" is derived from the word ‘Telos’, which is Greek for "purpose".

Problems with Objectivism and conscience on the Objectivist account.

Note to reader:

The following post is a continuation of a series of posts on this blog entitled "The Distinction Between Morailty and Ethics". Please refer to the previous posts for my overview of other moral disciplines, namely: Socratic Ethics, Relativism, Subjectivism & Humean Subjectivism. For a short introduction to the distinction between morality and ethics, please go here.




Since Objectivism is a theory that explains moral persuasion, from the school of thought of metaethics, objections to it naturally follow from the other two theories on moral persuasion. In this write-up, I plan to explore relativist and subjectivist criticisms of objectivism.


Relativist Objections:


In her famous book, Patterns of Culture, Ruth Benedict describes how the Kwakiutl people of the Northwest Coast of Canada, especially their chieftains, saw the death of a family member as an affront or insult that could only be overcome, and dignity and nobility restored, by killing someone - man, woman or child - from another tribe. Does this show that the value of human life - perhaps the cornerstone of morality- is not universal? Could our sense of the value of innocent human life be a cultural creation - the product of our history and our social practices- a creation that the Kwakiutl never achieved? Is morality finally then conventional as relativist claim? 


In Arab Bedouin culture, with its strong emphasis on communal solidarity, marriages are arranged and no one can marry, or embark on any other significant enterprise in life, without the approval of their tribes's Sheikh. Western liberal culture regards this practice as an infringement of individual freedom and self-determination. Is there any independent standpoint from which we can evaluate these conflicting traditions? Is either right or wrong? Or are they different and incommensurable social conventions as relativists argue? 


Subjectivist Objections: 


Subjectivists argue whether there can really be any moral facts? Aren't facts things that we can, at least in principle, see or touch or hear in the world around us? But, as Hume said, we cant see good and evil. So Isn't morality in us, in the way we subjectively respond to our experience? 


Aren't feelings and desires what motivate us? How can the judgement that something is good or evil be a motive?


Objectivist Disclosure:


We are justified in following, and obliged to follow, our best- that is, our informed and considered - moral judgements even when those judgements are mistaken. However, society is entitled to stop us from following our consciences when the resulting action involves significant injustice or a significant threat to public order. This means that we can give reasons for our moral beliefs and judgements; we can be mistaken in our moral beliefs and judgements, and that moral beliefs and judgements can be true and false.


That is, individuals and communities may believe that they are morally justified in following a particular course of action; but this belief may be objectively wrong. Many of those who practised paternalistic slavery did so in good conscience, believing that some races were like children and incapable of choosing for themselves; but they were mistaken in this belief- an the profound injustice of slavery entitled those who opposed the practice to force slave owner to free their slaves. 


So, if we assume that Objectivism is correct, what sorts of reasons should guide us in our moral decision-making? How do we decide what is objectively right or wrong, good or evil? Relativism and Subjectivism appear to offer immediate guidance for moral decision-making- What is the social convention here? What are my feelings on the matter? 


Socratic Ethics, Utilitarianism, Natural Law Theory, Kantianism, Divine Command Theory and Ethical Liberalism are essentially Objectivist theories (though there is a significant subjectivist element in Preference Utilitarianism) which each provide a different answer to these questions - that is, they propose very different and conflicting "basic moral norms".

In my next post, I will explore the transition from Metaethics to Normative Ethics by looking at the key elements of the Utilitarian point of view.  

Voice me

The world shouldn’t exist in anarchy
There shouldn’t be wars or any war drums
There shouldn’t be beats
that silence those who breathe
From hands of who
They sound their energy

Don’t you see
I was a kid just as you
praying for a future
We were one,
for the stars were to many
For us to see any doldrums

What happened my friend
We used to play hide and seek
to no end
We used to believe in
Football, basketball, volleyball
Rock, pop, hip hop
Strawberries, raspberries,
blueberry ice creams
What happened, why do you
Keep fiddling with that blackberry

Don’t you see time and again
I come back to see
The little dance you promised to keep
Up and down the merry go round
Circling, yes! circling at the same spot
You promised you loved me
So I am back again
Don’t you see
Burglary, theft, murder, divorce,
Marriage. Kids. workload
Complacent to me
Your hands theyr so filthy
with greed

Don’t you see
There!
that was the past as you like to believe
I am here again
Time time time – I am the spell
Don’t you remember
As you ran into the wooden door
Jumping in bed that morning
What a beautiful child you were

Don’t you see
I am your present
And im back to release
That little symphony
You tickled on the piano keys
Don’t forget me
this time
Please

While God sat in the vanity van

There are gods
and there are gods
Who do you decide to keep?
Who shall be the one;
The one that
resides as a mere belief ?
Or one that decides not to preach ?

There are questions you ask to
No other than your self belief
Lest in words you find
Ones who agree
As (when) you insist
There are gods to keep
As you pick them
From a busy street

I sit silently
Pondering
what a mystery you create
On the hustlers street
There are gods
And such gods you steal

They must look like you
On a canvas sheet
Talk like you
And of what you preach
They are your gods
You flip
Through a magazines

There are gods and
such gods you preach
You are men
and as men you deceive

none but yourselves
in a quest to please
idols you find in people
in them,
of what you must be

And today there is he
And tomorrow
swept away
into
Another shiny monastery

There are gods
And such gods you keep
Nothing but a reflection of
What you believe

As I idealize you
There are your own
You keep
How could we ever
Ever agree?

There are gods
Just not in what we perceive

Sermon to a Mathematical Society

Let me go down to dissect
every ludicrous thought behind the scene
as I rupture thoughts flooded with debris
of the unspoken virtues of our envy
we live our reality
through the sermons of the dead
into the land of such fallacies
our children are born as ghosts, plundered
on rage of nations over nations
we are people,
we forget at times such as these
where is the form in the formless?
where is the color in the colorless?
distinctions separate you and me
yet we build on the mathematical society
where my cause is the effect on we
in our eagerness to plead our sanity
to our unborn
wars bygone, wars go on
the sounds of the bombs are silent now
there is noise within me
let us breath the air of peace
where is the soulful journey?
wrapped in cloaks, “knowledge”
there is no bigger devil I see
in the name of serendipity
I am you are we are nothing but just lazy
Monuments of our times
Stranded between the paths
Of prayers, appeals, beliefs, morality
We are no heroes
Heroes don’t live
to see themselves succeed
lets not build this family
into vengeful gun trotters
living on the street
listen, listen closely
I hear screaming
The shouts of the children
We once were to be
Lets let them out of the misery
Of practicality
Of partiality
of the illusions of superiority
let them breathe free
let our children speak