There are four tenets to a good philosophy. It must be interesting and sincere, coherent, consistent, and truthful.
To be interesting and sincere, the philosophy must stem from personal experience. One must have a deep insight into what one philosophizes over, and one must have the ability to put the insight into words to some degree. Of course, regarding high, philosophical concepts, words often fail. Nevertheless, one must try to make the philosophy meaningful.
A philosophy being coherent stems from it being interesting and sincere. The words have to make some measure of logical sense. The sentences must relate to experiences that we can recognize. In short, the philosophy must be grounded in reality. Really, this is simply a check on the sincerity of the philosophy. If the philosophy stems from empirical observation, it is naturally coherent, because nature itself is coherency in the flesh.
There is only one way for a philosophy to be consistent: the philosophy cannot make unwarranted postulations. This requirement is intimately tied up with the other requirements, because if the philosophy is sincere and coherent, it must be consistent. If one sees a red ball on a table, one can use the fact, "I see a red ball on a table" to improve their philosophy; this would be a sincere, coherent, and consistent statement. (An interesting side-note: I do not, at this moment, see a red ball on a table. Did I have the right to write that sentence? Is it a legitimate observation? This would make a great debate. I hold that I do have the right to make counterfactual observations, because one way to define reality is by what it is not. Anyone care to take this on? You don't necessarily have to disagree either -- you could just expound upon the idea. But, I digress.) But one cannot take the extra step and say "life is like a red ball on a table" with no evidence, because that is an unwarranted postulation.
For a philosophy to be truthful, it must be the same as telling the truth. You have to actually believe what you are saying. It cannot be a lie.
A great philosophy, I believe, is humble. It states the facts, humbly, with no extra stuff that you just made up. It gives insight because of its simplicity. It is full of meaning, yet devoid of postulations. That is my philosophy of philosophy.
30 October 2008
03 October 2008
The Negative Magnolia
Searching, finding, classifying, using, reading, talking, reporting, sitting, standing, walking can all be done in entropy. This entropy has a dulling effect on the mind, like carbon dioxide has on the planet. Experience can be closed — it can exist inside a building with no windows. Keeping busy keeps you in the system; it keeps you indoors, breathing old air and reading yellow pages between musty book covers. I look for these things, like a bee looks for flowers.
The open door. It is defined by spacial constraints, but it is an anti-object. I walk outside: which brings the new. The sparkling air brings externalism — I feel fresh. I don't refer to internal things anymore. I don't refer to flowers within flowers. I can go inside an object, I can go through an anti-object. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing — the door. It's a happy thing. If we had no doors, no cracks in the walls, we could have no objects. If we had no objects, we could have no doors. Really, looking through the anti-object is as beautiful as looking inside the object.
The open door. It is defined by spacial constraints, but it is an anti-object. I walk outside: which brings the new. The sparkling air brings externalism — I feel fresh. I don't refer to internal things anymore. I don't refer to flowers within flowers. I can go inside an object, I can go through an anti-object. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing — the door. It's a happy thing. If we had no doors, no cracks in the walls, we could have no objects. If we had no objects, we could have no doors. Really, looking through the anti-object is as beautiful as looking inside the object.
17 August 2008
Forms of Moral and Immoral Thought
Much of the time moral thought is covered by mundane decisionmaking. Sometimes, when one thinks of moral issues, they reach an obstacle to further thought — or a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas seem to come in four forms. These four forms are as follows:
The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.
An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.
The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.
An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.
The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.
An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.
The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.
An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.
Thought that overturns moral decisionmaking generally comes in three forms. The three forms are as follows:
Moral Rationalization: Where one searches for and comes up with a moral line of reasoning specifically to justify an immoral act.
Moral Hesitation: Where one feels an urge to do a moral act, and suppresses it. Usually this is followed by Moral Rationalization.
Moral Overwhelming: Where a strong emotion such as anger or guilt overwhelms one's decisionmaking, causing one to make a bad decision.
As with any dilemma or problem, moral problems are solved with patience and methodological thought.
The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.
An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.
The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.
An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.
The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.
An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.
The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.
An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.
Thought that overturns moral decisionmaking generally comes in three forms. The three forms are as follows:
Moral Rationalization: Where one searches for and comes up with a moral line of reasoning specifically to justify an immoral act.
Moral Hesitation: Where one feels an urge to do a moral act, and suppresses it. Usually this is followed by Moral Rationalization.
Moral Overwhelming: Where a strong emotion such as anger or guilt overwhelms one's decisionmaking, causing one to make a bad decision.
As with any dilemma or problem, moral problems are solved with patience and methodological thought.
31 July 2008
Thoughts on Religion
Question: What does your religion mean to you?
Answer: It means everything to me. It inspires me to benefit others, it gives me strength in times of doubt, it carries me through in times of trouble, it gives me the patience and fortitude to make great works of art, and it protects me from evil and hell. These things are what religion is for, and I encourage everyone to find these things in their religion.
Question: But, especially in some religions, these things can be so easily perverted into something which causes hate, intolerance, and violence. What should one do when religion leads them on this path?
Answer: Abandon it.
Question: Abandon it forever?
Answer: If something causes these negative things, it is not a true religion and is worthless. Sometimes the truth is buried deep in garbage. That doesn't mean the garbage should be taken as truth.
Answer: It means everything to me. It inspires me to benefit others, it gives me strength in times of doubt, it carries me through in times of trouble, it gives me the patience and fortitude to make great works of art, and it protects me from evil and hell. These things are what religion is for, and I encourage everyone to find these things in their religion.
Question: But, especially in some religions, these things can be so easily perverted into something which causes hate, intolerance, and violence. What should one do when religion leads them on this path?
Answer: Abandon it.
Question: Abandon it forever?
Answer: If something causes these negative things, it is not a true religion and is worthless. Sometimes the truth is buried deep in garbage. That doesn't mean the garbage should be taken as truth.
23 July 2008
03 July 2008
Conventionally Ultimate
Edit: This experience has actually happened to me. Every two weeks, on the dot, I experienced extremely ultimate physical pain while I slept, beginning at my incarceration in the mental hospital, and lasting several months. Eventually it faded, but there is no possible way in human existence to experience more physical pain. It was as though every nerve ending of my body which had the capability of feeling pain was fed overwhelming supplies of the molecule responsible for pain. The dreams only reemerged once, recently. In the recent case, I was on a reality television show, and the pain was accompanied by the words "Medication Alert" on the screen. I felt the pain coming on, and the usual hopeless inevitability, but this time, I was saved by the unexpected presence of a Dharma teaching. Please be human. Please oppose psychiatry.
Question: Is there such a thing as ultimate pain?
Answer: Yes, I think so — in a sense. Pain is a concept like everything else, and thus can exist in pure form in an entropic environment.
Question: What about in another universal formation that allows for more of similar elements?
Answer: Yes, that too would be ultimate. They're both ultimate in relation to their constructs.
Student: It's like for one man something is ultimate, while for another man something else is ultimate.
Answer(er): Yes, sort of. Except, concepts only make sense in regards to their universal formations, so the idea of "ultimate" is really the same in both cases — there is no hierarchy.
19 June 2008
A Galaxy of Stars
One night Jacob was lying in bed with his elven lover, Lilly. After laying still for some time, Lilly said, "Look at the ceiling with your head cocked like this — the dark in the corner forms a triangle with the other two points on the ceiling. It's a natural occurrence. It's beautiful — like a star."
Jacob responded, "You're so... alive."
"So 'alive?'"
"I almost said 'human,' but that would've been species-centric. How do you come up with things like that anyway?"
"Like the triangle?"
"Like it being like a star."
"It's the same as everything else. Every commodity you make is another star in your universe."
"What about bad commodities, or derivative commodities?"
"Okay, correction. Every new commodity is another star."
Jacob responded, "You're so... alive."
"So 'alive?'"
"I almost said 'human,' but that would've been species-centric. How do you come up with things like that anyway?"
"Like the triangle?"
"Like it being like a star."
"It's the same as everything else. Every commodity you make is another star in your universe."
"What about bad commodities, or derivative commodities?"
"Okay, correction. Every new commodity is another star."
14 June 2008
Tanha and Economics
"Tanha" is a Buddhist term, meaning "thirst" — thirst for existence and becoming, or thirst for self-annihilation. The Buddha said that "nirvana," or the ultimate end of all suffering, is reached essentially when one fully discards this thirst. However, this does not mean that Buddhas cannot reincarnate, or that the thirst has been completely destroyed for all time, never to arise again. Countless living beings have experienced this tanha since the enlightenment of the Buddha, so it is not the case that the Buddha completely destroyed tanha. Nor is it the case that tanha is ultimately bad, or that it cannot be an element of enlightenment.
I believe that tanha should be discarded by everyone. Selfish hoarding of material things is not conducive to happiness in the slightest. However, once one has discarded this tanha, given it up, renounced it, one can then develop a thirst which is very similar — the thirst to help all sentient beings. One can develop a thirst for generating new dharma (enlightened teachings) and a thirst to cultivate the requirements for a free life, which is a prerequisite to putting dharma into practice.
Thus I believe that this thirst, when properly harnessed, expresses itself as democratic economic growth. People who have generated an altruistic wish to help society, a type of thirst, naturally examine people and their needs, then bring into being a commodity or service to fulfill these needs. This is capital gain. Then, through a process of implicit or explicit (in America, implicit) bargaining, these people acquire the means to secure the continuing production of the commodity or service while bringing the commodity or service to the public. This is how it works in a good, capitalist society.
In a communist society, the idea is that people work only for the good of others. Any capital gain is shared among everyone, and only for the purpose of living a utilitarian life devoid of things that do not provide utilitarian value. I believe staunchly individualist capitalists have two things to learn from communism: the altruistic desire to help one's comrades, and the renunciation of luxury. (Indeed, the Buddha gave a moral imperative for employers to share "unusual delicacies" with their employees. Thus Buddhism admonishes employers to renounce their luxuries, if not entirely, at least to the point of being willing to share them with the public. Note: Buddha lived in a capitalist society.) But in a very important sense, communism and democratic capitalism are the same: they both produce commodities and services for the good of all.
In any society, in order to be of any substantial benefit to anyone, one must have two things: material welfare, and an altruistic wish to benefit others. The latter, although ultimately the responsibility of the individual, can be cultured by social interactions — by good people creating a good society which adequately ensures peoples' welfare. The former must be created socially. Material welfare consists of seven things: a) food and water, b) shelter, c) sanitation, d) healthcare, e) inspiration to work for others' welfare, f) capital or means to work for others' welfare, and f) leisure time. (I believe in the Buddhist canon there are many different breakdowns for what beings need to be of benefit to others, mostly including things such as food and water, and not inspiration or dharma — dharma or inspiration is usually something people participate in after their material requirements have been met. The reason why I include these as material requirements is because in America, music, films, books, etc. all can provide inspiration, but are considered a "commodity" or material thing, not something one actively participates in per se. Also, they usually cost money. It is because of this materialist approach that I include these things as material "requirements" for a good life.)
Now I believe the details of the institutions which provide these seven things are unimportant. Thus, communist state institutions, private institutions, charity institutions, church institutions, democratic state institutions, or any other kind of institution can adequately provide these seven things. In America, it is understood that private social clubs and churches and various networks of friends, or private companies (eg. "the media") or nonprofit organizations, are to provide inspiration to work for others' benefit — sometimes for a price, sometimes for free. (Here, again, I'm referring to material goods, like books, or internet access, which provide inspiration to help others, in addition to exhortations from friends or one's pastor etc.) Water and sanitation are provided by publicly funded and state regulated private or public companies. (Water can also arise as a product of the environment in which private citizens live, such as a well or spring.) Leisure time is provided by the employer. The employer usually provides the means for acquiring shelter, food, healthcare, and capital or means for everything else (including capital or means to work for others' welfare) and private companies provide the actual food, shelter, and healthcare for a price, with the understanding that most people have the means to fulfill this price.
Can these things be provided more efficiently through other institutions? It's hard to say. I believe a very strong case, based on empirical evidence, can be made that democratic state institutions are better at providing healthcare for more people than private companies. However it really doesn't matter, because the following principle operates in every society (but especially in a democracy or communist society): everybody is responsible for everybody's material welfare. This means (now pay attention WalMart!) that if you are an employer in America, YOU are responsible to make sure the money you provide employees is enough to secure food, shelter, and health care.
It is my opinion that to adequately work for other people's welfare, one must work AT MOST 2050-2070 hours a year, and make AT LEAST enough to pay for auto insurance, housing (even if it is just a manufactured or trailer home), food, health care, plus something like 10-25% more. It is my opinion that the upward trend in the federal minimum wage is not enough to counteract inflation, and in some large cities, you simply cannot make it work. For example, I've seen evidence that the cost of living in New York City is about $50,000-70,000/year, and New York State minimum wage at 2070 hours/year gives you less than $15,000/year, before taxes! Of course, in New York City, even unskilled labor will pay more than minimum wage, perhaps more than twice as much. But $30,000/year in NYC still doesn't cut it. At least, this amount doesn't meet my requirements.
Thus those who wish to live in the city and are unskilled and have not completed college need to realize that they simply cannot make it work. I feel deeply sorry for those born in New York who's parents can't afford to send them to college — they have no recourse at all, whether or not they possess natural talents or inclinations towards greatness. In theory, welfare should provide for them. But in 1993, as Theresa Funiciello reports in her book Tyrrany of Kindness, the average welfare grant for a three-person family was about $441/month. Again, this simply cannot cut it. The only hope for the inner city poor and uneducated to become upwardly mobile is if the government raises the dollar amount of welfare checks, or if some program were created to at the very least move these people to less expensive areas to live. I think it would be good for everybody if these people were given the option of upward mobility, or at least some sort of fulfillment. Of course, this is a very complicated issue with no easy answers. One thing I would suggest is for dharma people to participate in the marketplace as employers, and give dharma to their employees. In that way, the poor can work full time and still at least have spiritual fulfillment.
In any case, America is a land full of tanha, with an economy that the word "thriving" seems to fall short of describing. Everyone seems so ambitious — everyone works quite hard. I believe that each individual's tanha, once discarded, purified, then harnessed, can manifest itself as democratic economic and spiritual growth for the good of everyone.
I believe that tanha should be discarded by everyone. Selfish hoarding of material things is not conducive to happiness in the slightest. However, once one has discarded this tanha, given it up, renounced it, one can then develop a thirst which is very similar — the thirst to help all sentient beings. One can develop a thirst for generating new dharma (enlightened teachings) and a thirst to cultivate the requirements for a free life, which is a prerequisite to putting dharma into practice.
Thus I believe that this thirst, when properly harnessed, expresses itself as democratic economic growth. People who have generated an altruistic wish to help society, a type of thirst, naturally examine people and their needs, then bring into being a commodity or service to fulfill these needs. This is capital gain. Then, through a process of implicit or explicit (in America, implicit) bargaining, these people acquire the means to secure the continuing production of the commodity or service while bringing the commodity or service to the public. This is how it works in a good, capitalist society.
In a communist society, the idea is that people work only for the good of others. Any capital gain is shared among everyone, and only for the purpose of living a utilitarian life devoid of things that do not provide utilitarian value. I believe staunchly individualist capitalists have two things to learn from communism: the altruistic desire to help one's comrades, and the renunciation of luxury. (Indeed, the Buddha gave a moral imperative for employers to share "unusual delicacies" with their employees. Thus Buddhism admonishes employers to renounce their luxuries, if not entirely, at least to the point of being willing to share them with the public. Note: Buddha lived in a capitalist society.) But in a very important sense, communism and democratic capitalism are the same: they both produce commodities and services for the good of all.
In any society, in order to be of any substantial benefit to anyone, one must have two things: material welfare, and an altruistic wish to benefit others. The latter, although ultimately the responsibility of the individual, can be cultured by social interactions — by good people creating a good society which adequately ensures peoples' welfare. The former must be created socially. Material welfare consists of seven things: a) food and water, b) shelter, c) sanitation, d) healthcare, e) inspiration to work for others' welfare, f) capital or means to work for others' welfare, and f) leisure time. (I believe in the Buddhist canon there are many different breakdowns for what beings need to be of benefit to others, mostly including things such as food and water, and not inspiration or dharma — dharma or inspiration is usually something people participate in after their material requirements have been met. The reason why I include these as material requirements is because in America, music, films, books, etc. all can provide inspiration, but are considered a "commodity" or material thing, not something one actively participates in per se. Also, they usually cost money. It is because of this materialist approach that I include these things as material "requirements" for a good life.)
Now I believe the details of the institutions which provide these seven things are unimportant. Thus, communist state institutions, private institutions, charity institutions, church institutions, democratic state institutions, or any other kind of institution can adequately provide these seven things. In America, it is understood that private social clubs and churches and various networks of friends, or private companies (eg. "the media") or nonprofit organizations, are to provide inspiration to work for others' benefit — sometimes for a price, sometimes for free. (Here, again, I'm referring to material goods, like books, or internet access, which provide inspiration to help others, in addition to exhortations from friends or one's pastor etc.) Water and sanitation are provided by publicly funded and state regulated private or public companies. (Water can also arise as a product of the environment in which private citizens live, such as a well or spring.) Leisure time is provided by the employer. The employer usually provides the means for acquiring shelter, food, healthcare, and capital or means for everything else (including capital or means to work for others' welfare) and private companies provide the actual food, shelter, and healthcare for a price, with the understanding that most people have the means to fulfill this price.
Can these things be provided more efficiently through other institutions? It's hard to say. I believe a very strong case, based on empirical evidence, can be made that democratic state institutions are better at providing healthcare for more people than private companies. However it really doesn't matter, because the following principle operates in every society (but especially in a democracy or communist society): everybody is responsible for everybody's material welfare. This means (now pay attention WalMart!) that if you are an employer in America, YOU are responsible to make sure the money you provide employees is enough to secure food, shelter, and health care.
It is my opinion that to adequately work for other people's welfare, one must work AT MOST 2050-2070 hours a year, and make AT LEAST enough to pay for auto insurance, housing (even if it is just a manufactured or trailer home), food, health care, plus something like 10-25% more. It is my opinion that the upward trend in the federal minimum wage is not enough to counteract inflation, and in some large cities, you simply cannot make it work. For example, I've seen evidence that the cost of living in New York City is about $50,000-70,000/year, and New York State minimum wage at 2070 hours/year gives you less than $15,000/year, before taxes! Of course, in New York City, even unskilled labor will pay more than minimum wage, perhaps more than twice as much. But $30,000/year in NYC still doesn't cut it. At least, this amount doesn't meet my requirements.
Thus those who wish to live in the city and are unskilled and have not completed college need to realize that they simply cannot make it work. I feel deeply sorry for those born in New York who's parents can't afford to send them to college — they have no recourse at all, whether or not they possess natural talents or inclinations towards greatness. In theory, welfare should provide for them. But in 1993, as Theresa Funiciello reports in her book Tyrrany of Kindness, the average welfare grant for a three-person family was about $441/month. Again, this simply cannot cut it. The only hope for the inner city poor and uneducated to become upwardly mobile is if the government raises the dollar amount of welfare checks, or if some program were created to at the very least move these people to less expensive areas to live. I think it would be good for everybody if these people were given the option of upward mobility, or at least some sort of fulfillment. Of course, this is a very complicated issue with no easy answers. One thing I would suggest is for dharma people to participate in the marketplace as employers, and give dharma to their employees. In that way, the poor can work full time and still at least have spiritual fulfillment.
In any case, America is a land full of tanha, with an economy that the word "thriving" seems to fall short of describing. Everyone seems so ambitious — everyone works quite hard. I believe that each individual's tanha, once discarded, purified, then harnessed, can manifest itself as democratic economic and spiritual growth for the good of everyone.
13 June 2008
Requirements for Transmission of Knowledge
When you are going to transmit something to someone else, you need three things: 1) contextual knowledge, 2) skillful wisdom, and 3) the essential knowledge of the thing to transmit. Contextual knowledge refers mainly to language. So, one needs to know a handful of words and their meanings in order to transmit something. Skillful wisdom requires a knowledge of dispositions and a proven method for interaction. Essential knowledge of the thing to transmit refers to a real, deep-rooted experience regarding the thing to be transmitted. For example, in order to teach someone how to make films, you must be a filmmaker, with filmmaking projects in your head.
These can be broken down in regards to time: contextual knowledge refers to utilizing the past. Skillful wisdom refers to dwelling in the present. Essential knowledge of the thing to transmit refers to a meaningful, energetic trajectory for future actions well grounded in reality. Thus, spheres of material represent past (contextual knowledge); the hand represents present (skillful wisdom); and waves of energy represent future (essential knowledge of things to transmit). One needs to see the whole picture to be well qualified to transmit something.
It is like bottling wine. In order to bottle wine, one needs a bottle. One needs to know the proper method for putting the wine in the bottle. And, one needs actual wine to put in the bottle. Here, wine represents essential knowledge of things to transmit, the method of putting wine in the bottle represents skillful wisdom, and the bottle represents contextual knowledge.
These can be broken down in regards to time: contextual knowledge refers to utilizing the past. Skillful wisdom refers to dwelling in the present. Essential knowledge of the thing to transmit refers to a meaningful, energetic trajectory for future actions well grounded in reality. Thus, spheres of material represent past (contextual knowledge); the hand represents present (skillful wisdom); and waves of energy represent future (essential knowledge of things to transmit). One needs to see the whole picture to be well qualified to transmit something.
It is like bottling wine. In order to bottle wine, one needs a bottle. One needs to know the proper method for putting the wine in the bottle. And, one needs actual wine to put in the bottle. Here, wine represents essential knowledge of things to transmit, the method of putting wine in the bottle represents skillful wisdom, and the bottle represents contextual knowledge.
11 June 2008
Criminality and Society
It seems to me that the criminal has a dangerous road. To some extent, he has given up society and gone "underground" if you will. Society may seem constricting, but it is useful in that it provides a construct for being good to people. There is a sense that what's good for society is good for everyone, so in a very real sense, someone who civilizes himself is working for the good of everybody. But the person who gave this up to pursue criminal purposes is probably working only for himself. Society teaches us to think about other people, instead of just about ourselves. This is why it is good to impart in people a sense of being civilized.
In some cases, movies and television glorify criminal life. Particularly, there is an idea that violence is justified, even if it is illegal, as long as there is a sense of moral violence. This is bad on two counts: it justifies violence, and it justifies criminality. Anyone could get the sense that doing this or that is bad in most circumstances, but in my case it is okay. In fact, this is quite common, and quite mistaken.
Now I think a fundamental precept of democracy is to maintain a dialogue which constantly tests the values of the government. In reality, almost nobody is good all the time, and this includes those who run the government. Democracy admonishes every citizen to take an active role in policy-making. It makes explicit the fact that politicians must answer to their constituency. Thus laws can change. Some people make the decision to be a criminal, I think, because they are destitute. This is understandable, though regrettable. But some people decide to become criminal simply because they feel society is wrong — society requires too much work, or society doesn't solve everybody's problems, or society has made mistakes. This is incorrect. Even if this were true, turning criminal is not the right answer. People who behave like this legitimize a harsh penal system, and further disenfranchise the destitute who turn criminal because they have no other choice. Because of people who behave like this, destitute criminals who have no other choice are given little sympathy. In the end, if one feels society is wrong, one should find legitimate ways to change society, because turning criminal does no good.
In some cases, movies and television glorify criminal life. Particularly, there is an idea that violence is justified, even if it is illegal, as long as there is a sense of moral violence. This is bad on two counts: it justifies violence, and it justifies criminality. Anyone could get the sense that doing this or that is bad in most circumstances, but in my case it is okay. In fact, this is quite common, and quite mistaken.
Now I think a fundamental precept of democracy is to maintain a dialogue which constantly tests the values of the government. In reality, almost nobody is good all the time, and this includes those who run the government. Democracy admonishes every citizen to take an active role in policy-making. It makes explicit the fact that politicians must answer to their constituency. Thus laws can change. Some people make the decision to be a criminal, I think, because they are destitute. This is understandable, though regrettable. But some people decide to become criminal simply because they feel society is wrong — society requires too much work, or society doesn't solve everybody's problems, or society has made mistakes. This is incorrect. Even if this were true, turning criminal is not the right answer. People who behave like this legitimize a harsh penal system, and further disenfranchise the destitute who turn criminal because they have no other choice. Because of people who behave like this, destitute criminals who have no other choice are given little sympathy. In the end, if one feels society is wrong, one should find legitimate ways to change society, because turning criminal does no good.
Drugs: Should They Be Legal?
First of all, I would like to point out that people should avoid drugs. I think doing drugs is useless if not dangerous. The benefits aren't really benefits, and the dangers are real dangers. For example, many people may get into drugs to change their reality, and not finding substantial change, they may take more and more dangerous drugs until they find themselves in a very bad situation. This is a real danger. (Drinking alcohol is also dangerous for the same reason.)
Note, however, that I also disapprove of gambling, frequenting strip bars, watching unethical television shows, not holding the door open for people, spending too much money, driving motorcycles, and other things. That doesn't necessarily mean that these things should be illegal. It is a very serious decision to make something illegal, and when making this decision, one should analyze the act not just in theory, but also in practicality.
I think marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and possibly ecstasy should be made legal, on three grounds. One: doing so would bring some positive benefits to society. Two: doing so would alleviate many negative effects on society. And three: the essence of the decision to take these drugs doesn't feel like something that should be illegal.
Here are the positive benefits to society. Alcohol has strong cultural significance, thus alcohol culture is very prevalent. Legalizing other drugs which are as dangerous or less dangerous would legitimize and bring into the open other drug cultures (like marijuana culture, or ecstasy culture) and increase cultural plurality. It would also legitimize a significant sector of the economy. (Admittedly, these are not very significant benefits analogous to, say, what legalizing free trade, free competition, and free markets would have been in the 15th century. However, the negative effects that would be alleviated are quite significant.)
Since drugs are illegal, drug selling is illegitimate. Currently, there is a market imperative for marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and ecstasy, because their users don't feel like they are doing anything wrong to take them. Thus, there will always be drug sellers. Legalizing these drugs would legitimize selling them, which would bring drug dealers to much closer public scrutiny. This would reduce the dangers associated with these drugs, such as selling a more harmful drug in the place of a less harmful one, lacing the drugs with very harmful drugs like PCP or, in the case of psilocybin, selling poisonous mushrooms. (Dancesafe is a good organization that tries to reduce some of the dangers associated with using ecstasy. I know of no such organizations for the other three above-mentioned drugs.) Legalizing these drugs would also reduce crime — selling drugs would not require criminal networks and would not be done in conjunction with other crimes. Also, making a clear distinction grounded in objective facts between dangerous drugs and non-dangerous drugs would reduce the gateway effect of the less dangerous drugs. In other words, marijuana would be less associated with methamphetamine, so taking marijuana would less often lead to taking methamphetamine. These are the negative effects of the drugs that would be alleviated if they were made legal.
Finally, the essence of taking these drugs, for many people, does not seem to be illegitimate. In other words, many well-informed people do not feel they are doing anything wrong or particularly rebellious by taking marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, or ecstasy. It is analogous to drinking alcohol. I think in order for something to be illegal, it should be so dangerous that the harm would outweigh the benefit, and practically speaking, making it illegal would cause more benefit than harm. It should feel wrong, or dangerous. It should feel harmful to society. I don't think doing these drugs is like that. In theory, doing a drug like methamphetamine does much harm. In practice, it does much harm as well. In practice, doing marijuana also does harm, but mostly only because it is illegal. In theory, doing marijuana does not do much harm. So many people do these drugs, especially when they are young, because they feel it is not harmful to do so in theory, and they are not well educated about the harm it does in fact (or they feel that society deserves this harm, because certain drugs should be legal). Thus in the case of the illegality of certain drugs, it is not the drugs that are made illegitimate, but rather the government. This, I think, is a real danger.
Now I do not support the idea of doing drugs just because they should be legal. It is a fact that they are illegal, and doing illegal things is harmful to society. I would also like to reiterate that even if drugs were legal, I would not admonish people to do them, because the "benefits" (i.e. experiencing a drug induced state of mind, or experiencing reality in a different way) are not really true benefits: one is not made more educated, more morally upright, more free in spirit, more connected with reality, more friendly, more open, or more wise by taking drugs. However, practically speaking, legalizing certain drugs would probably benefit society a great deal. Also, I feel this change is on the horizon: The Pita Pit, a highly successful, corporate fast-food chain, markets specifically to marijuana users. If this is so successful, it indicates that marijuana is used by a large bloc of voters.
* * *
Now consider this interesting, Libertarian view: Over Four Hundred and Fifty an Hour? Life is Full of Risks. The author (Ralph Maddocks) claims that all "consensual acts" should be legal. According to Maddocks, only acts which cause harm to others or coerce people into doing something without their consent should be made illegal. Thus, all drug taking and prostitution should be legal.
This is an interesting philosophical point of view, but unfortunately, I think it is a wrong one. I think an act or thing should be illegal if it causes more harm than good, and if making it illegal causes more good than harm. I think I have successfully argued that although taking marijuana, psilocybin, mescaline, and ecstacy often does more harm than good, making it illegal does even more harm. The same cannot be said for other drugs or prostitution.
Let's consider prostitution. One might feel that "employing the services of a prostitute" doesn't cause much harm. I think objectively, it doesn't, if one behaves safely (i.e. tests for STDs): sex does little harm to the body, and in terms of money, the situation could be beneficial for the prostitute. Subjectively, for most people, I think hiring a prostitute simply feels perverted or wrong, so subjectively it probably does more harm than good. But even if sex with prostitutes did not feel perverted, I still don't think it should be legalized.
The strongest argument for legalization of prostitution, I think, is one based on sympathy for the prostitute. Prostitutes may not have other ways of making a living. However, there are other, more effective ways to ensure the welfare of prostitutes or would-be prostitutes. Further, legalizing prostitution, unlike legalizing the four above-mentioned drugs, would not significantly change the nature of the act. Even if it did not feel perverted, sex with a prostitute would have the same lack of benefits and potential downfalls if legalized, because there are no downfalls associated with prostitution which arise solely because it is illegal. In other words, prostitutes are not laced with PCP, they do not engage in criminal networking to the same degree as drug dealers, and so on. Thus, I think prostitution should remain illegal.
Note, however, that I also disapprove of gambling, frequenting strip bars, watching unethical television shows, not holding the door open for people, spending too much money, driving motorcycles, and other things. That doesn't necessarily mean that these things should be illegal. It is a very serious decision to make something illegal, and when making this decision, one should analyze the act not just in theory, but also in practicality.
I think marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and possibly ecstasy should be made legal, on three grounds. One: doing so would bring some positive benefits to society. Two: doing so would alleviate many negative effects on society. And three: the essence of the decision to take these drugs doesn't feel like something that should be illegal.
Here are the positive benefits to society. Alcohol has strong cultural significance, thus alcohol culture is very prevalent. Legalizing other drugs which are as dangerous or less dangerous would legitimize and bring into the open other drug cultures (like marijuana culture, or ecstasy culture) and increase cultural plurality. It would also legitimize a significant sector of the economy. (Admittedly, these are not very significant benefits analogous to, say, what legalizing free trade, free competition, and free markets would have been in the 15th century. However, the negative effects that would be alleviated are quite significant.)
Since drugs are illegal, drug selling is illegitimate. Currently, there is a market imperative for marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and ecstasy, because their users don't feel like they are doing anything wrong to take them. Thus, there will always be drug sellers. Legalizing these drugs would legitimize selling them, which would bring drug dealers to much closer public scrutiny. This would reduce the dangers associated with these drugs, such as selling a more harmful drug in the place of a less harmful one, lacing the drugs with very harmful drugs like PCP or, in the case of psilocybin, selling poisonous mushrooms. (Dancesafe is a good organization that tries to reduce some of the dangers associated with using ecstasy. I know of no such organizations for the other three above-mentioned drugs.) Legalizing these drugs would also reduce crime — selling drugs would not require criminal networks and would not be done in conjunction with other crimes. Also, making a clear distinction grounded in objective facts between dangerous drugs and non-dangerous drugs would reduce the gateway effect of the less dangerous drugs. In other words, marijuana would be less associated with methamphetamine, so taking marijuana would less often lead to taking methamphetamine. These are the negative effects of the drugs that would be alleviated if they were made legal.
Finally, the essence of taking these drugs, for many people, does not seem to be illegitimate. In other words, many well-informed people do not feel they are doing anything wrong or particularly rebellious by taking marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, or ecstasy. It is analogous to drinking alcohol. I think in order for something to be illegal, it should be so dangerous that the harm would outweigh the benefit, and practically speaking, making it illegal would cause more benefit than harm. It should feel wrong, or dangerous. It should feel harmful to society. I don't think doing these drugs is like that. In theory, doing a drug like methamphetamine does much harm. In practice, it does much harm as well. In practice, doing marijuana also does harm, but mostly only because it is illegal. In theory, doing marijuana does not do much harm. So many people do these drugs, especially when they are young, because they feel it is not harmful to do so in theory, and they are not well educated about the harm it does in fact (or they feel that society deserves this harm, because certain drugs should be legal). Thus in the case of the illegality of certain drugs, it is not the drugs that are made illegitimate, but rather the government. This, I think, is a real danger.
Now I do not support the idea of doing drugs just because they should be legal. It is a fact that they are illegal, and doing illegal things is harmful to society. I would also like to reiterate that even if drugs were legal, I would not admonish people to do them, because the "benefits" (i.e. experiencing a drug induced state of mind, or experiencing reality in a different way) are not really true benefits: one is not made more educated, more morally upright, more free in spirit, more connected with reality, more friendly, more open, or more wise by taking drugs. However, practically speaking, legalizing certain drugs would probably benefit society a great deal. Also, I feel this change is on the horizon: The Pita Pit, a highly successful, corporate fast-food chain, markets specifically to marijuana users. If this is so successful, it indicates that marijuana is used by a large bloc of voters.
Now consider this interesting, Libertarian view: Over Four Hundred and Fifty an Hour? Life is Full of Risks. The author (Ralph Maddocks) claims that all "consensual acts" should be legal. According to Maddocks, only acts which cause harm to others or coerce people into doing something without their consent should be made illegal. Thus, all drug taking and prostitution should be legal.
This is an interesting philosophical point of view, but unfortunately, I think it is a wrong one. I think an act or thing should be illegal if it causes more harm than good, and if making it illegal causes more good than harm. I think I have successfully argued that although taking marijuana, psilocybin, mescaline, and ecstacy often does more harm than good, making it illegal does even more harm. The same cannot be said for other drugs or prostitution.
Let's consider prostitution. One might feel that "employing the services of a prostitute" doesn't cause much harm. I think objectively, it doesn't, if one behaves safely (i.e. tests for STDs): sex does little harm to the body, and in terms of money, the situation could be beneficial for the prostitute. Subjectively, for most people, I think hiring a prostitute simply feels perverted or wrong, so subjectively it probably does more harm than good. But even if sex with prostitutes did not feel perverted, I still don't think it should be legalized.
The strongest argument for legalization of prostitution, I think, is one based on sympathy for the prostitute. Prostitutes may not have other ways of making a living. However, there are other, more effective ways to ensure the welfare of prostitutes or would-be prostitutes. Further, legalizing prostitution, unlike legalizing the four above-mentioned drugs, would not significantly change the nature of the act. Even if it did not feel perverted, sex with a prostitute would have the same lack of benefits and potential downfalls if legalized, because there are no downfalls associated with prostitution which arise solely because it is illegal. In other words, prostitutes are not laced with PCP, they do not engage in criminal networking to the same degree as drug dealers, and so on. Thus, I think prostitution should remain illegal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
