An argument often used to support the existence of a Creator is that there are certain absolute fundamental moral values which are common to every society, and that these values must come from a higher being. When these values are violated, our conscience feels pangs of disturbance, hence our conscience must be divinely given.
I feel this argument is not valid.
Are there really absolute moral values? Let us look at the first commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
For many ancient societies, the duty of a son to avenge his father's murder was sacrosanct - take Hamlet for example. The ancient Chinese felt just the same way. Yet today, we believe in the law taking its due process, and some societies believe that the death penalty should not be given out no matter what the situation is. Many nations impose capital punishment that would not have been imposed in another nation, for instance the mandatory death sentence for selling or transporting drugs where I stay.
Clearly there is no absolute moral value here.
Another touted "absolute value" is the prohibition against stealing. But if we look into folklore, Robin Hood is regarded as a hero. In an era where the rich lived large and the poor went hungry, a thief like him WAS a hero, but in a more egalitarian society he would not be one. Here again the idea of rules that always apply fail.
Therefore we can see that there are no absolute moral values, as they change to fit the situation in different times and places. If there are values that coincide between societies, that is because such values are those that help most societies survive and prosper.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Perception Bias
One day I was chatting with my friend. She was pinching her arm and lamenting how fat she had become; when in truth she wasn't fat at all, which I pointed out. "Compare me with X (a slim girl)," she exclaimed. I then said "But you are thinner than Y (a plumper girl)."
She then answered "hey don't compare me with fat girls." After we had finished laughing, I gave some thought to the matter. Surely if one wishes to determine one's level of fatness in society, one should compare to everyone, both the fat and the slim ones. But my friend only compared herself to slim people.
An analogous example is when one says that businessmen are rich. From my observation, the successful ones are rich, yes. But many are just surviving, and many have failed. Why do we not include them in our overall assessment? Obviously there is a bias here - we tend to observe the ones which we aspire to be like, thus skewing our perception of the average towards that direction.
In a way, this biased perception serves a purpose for society: it spurs us on to achieve more. Yet we should also maintain a sense of perspective, for if we keep shifting the line of comparison upwards, the level of stress in society will constantly increase as well.
She then answered "hey don't compare me with fat girls." After we had finished laughing, I gave some thought to the matter. Surely if one wishes to determine one's level of fatness in society, one should compare to everyone, both the fat and the slim ones. But my friend only compared herself to slim people.
An analogous example is when one says that businessmen are rich. From my observation, the successful ones are rich, yes. But many are just surviving, and many have failed. Why do we not include them in our overall assessment? Obviously there is a bias here - we tend to observe the ones which we aspire to be like, thus skewing our perception of the average towards that direction.
In a way, this biased perception serves a purpose for society: it spurs us on to achieve more. Yet we should also maintain a sense of perspective, for if we keep shifting the line of comparison upwards, the level of stress in society will constantly increase as well.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Liberal vs Conservative Values
We often hear arguments about whether premarital sex is moral or not. I think this topic of argument is an interesting one to dissect; as it is a very good example of the clash between liberal and conservative values.
The liberal side of the argument cites the principle of freedom in supporting the legitimacy of sex before marriage, i.e. if both parties are adult and willing, and nobody is hurt by the act, why is it not moral? On the other hand the conservative side attacks on two fronts: the first being that religion and tradition forbid it, the second being that the risk of STDs, pregnancies, and distraction from study is a negative influence upon society.
If we analyze the conservative side carefully, the first reason can really be included under the second reason, for why does religion and tradition speak against premarital sex? Obviously because of the aforementioned practical risks of disease and unwanted babies. Religious doctrine is usually closely tied to practicality (in its time), for example the Jewish and Muslim edict against eating pork is due to the high risk of parasites in pig meat compared to other edible animals. We can see that most cultures traditionally place a higher value on female virginity compared to male; this is because if a woman had sex before or outside marriage, it is hard to ascertain the paternity of the baby she gives birth to, so the husband's family property might go to a genetic outsider. A man obviously cannot pass off a kid born outside as his wife's kid, so his virginity is of less importance. Therefore religion and tradition both speak from a practical viewpoint.
Let us generalize this to other points of dispute between liberal and conservative viewpoints:
A. Premarital sex - Liberals argue on the basis of freedom, conservatives argue on the risks of STDs, pregnancies, and historically the doubt of paternity.
B. Listening to parents - Liberals argue that children, once past the age of adulthood, should have complete freedom in deciding their future, as well as marriage partners, due to the fundamental right of liberty. Conservatives argue that parental opinion should be given more weight as parents have more experience and can often make better choices.
C. Gay marriage - Liberals argue that people are people regardless of gender, so everyone should have equal rights to get married. Conservatives argue that this is against religion and tradition, and that marriages are meant to be between men and women so that kids can be produced. I will elaborate on this later.
The common points between these three examples are that liberals argue based on absolute values such as freedom and equality, while conservatives argue based on practical points, probabilities. The probabilities are:
A. Higher chance of something bad happening. (STDs and pregnancies)
B. Same as above (if the kid pursues an art or musical career, it is statistically much more risky than pursuing a career in law or medicine)
C. A society which has more gay marriages will, on average, have fewer kids than one in which it is banned. In times where population growth is important, which was most of history, this is a negative.
Conservatives attempt to define a course which is "more likely to produce a stable outcome".
This is why liberals are stronger now than a hundred years ago: society is now much more prosperous and advanced, so we have more room to make mistakes. Two hundred years ago a women with a baby out of wedlock would be in a dreadful state with no man willing to marry and provide economically for her, but now women can work and support themselves, there is government welfare, and abortions can be obtained. With the modern economy, more economic opportunities abound so kids who do not listen to their parents and do something strange do not starve as easily, even without the support of the family. And lastly for gay marriage, with our current population levels we are not worrying about not having enough people to fight against bears or invading barbarians, hence the gradually relaxing attitude.
If we consider current attitudes towards homosexuality, it can be seen that urban areas tend to be more accepting of it that rural areas. This may not only reflect a more progressive mindset, but also that a higher population density affects our subconscious mind in the sense that for us city-dwellers, increasing population is fairly low down on our list of importance.
In other words, we now have more room to make mistakes, so the 'high probability of stability' path of conservatism can be increasingly forsaken for the 'absolute ideals' path of liberality. I predict that if times get tough, conservative values will again rise to greater importance.
The liberal side of the argument cites the principle of freedom in supporting the legitimacy of sex before marriage, i.e. if both parties are adult and willing, and nobody is hurt by the act, why is it not moral? On the other hand the conservative side attacks on two fronts: the first being that religion and tradition forbid it, the second being that the risk of STDs, pregnancies, and distraction from study is a negative influence upon society.
If we analyze the conservative side carefully, the first reason can really be included under the second reason, for why does religion and tradition speak against premarital sex? Obviously because of the aforementioned practical risks of disease and unwanted babies. Religious doctrine is usually closely tied to practicality (in its time), for example the Jewish and Muslim edict against eating pork is due to the high risk of parasites in pig meat compared to other edible animals. We can see that most cultures traditionally place a higher value on female virginity compared to male; this is because if a woman had sex before or outside marriage, it is hard to ascertain the paternity of the baby she gives birth to, so the husband's family property might go to a genetic outsider. A man obviously cannot pass off a kid born outside as his wife's kid, so his virginity is of less importance. Therefore religion and tradition both speak from a practical viewpoint.
Let us generalize this to other points of dispute between liberal and conservative viewpoints:
A. Premarital sex - Liberals argue on the basis of freedom, conservatives argue on the risks of STDs, pregnancies, and historically the doubt of paternity.
B. Listening to parents - Liberals argue that children, once past the age of adulthood, should have complete freedom in deciding their future, as well as marriage partners, due to the fundamental right of liberty. Conservatives argue that parental opinion should be given more weight as parents have more experience and can often make better choices.
C. Gay marriage - Liberals argue that people are people regardless of gender, so everyone should have equal rights to get married. Conservatives argue that this is against religion and tradition, and that marriages are meant to be between men and women so that kids can be produced. I will elaborate on this later.
The common points between these three examples are that liberals argue based on absolute values such as freedom and equality, while conservatives argue based on practical points, probabilities. The probabilities are:
A. Higher chance of something bad happening. (STDs and pregnancies)
B. Same as above (if the kid pursues an art or musical career, it is statistically much more risky than pursuing a career in law or medicine)
C. A society which has more gay marriages will, on average, have fewer kids than one in which it is banned. In times where population growth is important, which was most of history, this is a negative.
Conservatives attempt to define a course which is "more likely to produce a stable outcome".
This is why liberals are stronger now than a hundred years ago: society is now much more prosperous and advanced, so we have more room to make mistakes. Two hundred years ago a women with a baby out of wedlock would be in a dreadful state with no man willing to marry and provide economically for her, but now women can work and support themselves, there is government welfare, and abortions can be obtained. With the modern economy, more economic opportunities abound so kids who do not listen to their parents and do something strange do not starve as easily, even without the support of the family. And lastly for gay marriage, with our current population levels we are not worrying about not having enough people to fight against bears or invading barbarians, hence the gradually relaxing attitude.
If we consider current attitudes towards homosexuality, it can be seen that urban areas tend to be more accepting of it that rural areas. This may not only reflect a more progressive mindset, but also that a higher population density affects our subconscious mind in the sense that for us city-dwellers, increasing population is fairly low down on our list of importance.
In other words, we now have more room to make mistakes, so the 'high probability of stability' path of conservatism can be increasingly forsaken for the 'absolute ideals' path of liberality. I predict that if times get tough, conservative values will again rise to greater importance.
Friday, January 18, 2013
My Religious Beliefs
Disclaimer: Please do not read further if you tend to feel insulted by unorthodox religious beliefs.
Personally my belief is somewhat close to Buddhism.
I think somewhere in the universe, probably in another dimension, there is a clearinghouse where souls wait to be assigned to different lifeforms. Each time we descend to enter a body, all memories of the past are locked so that we cannot access them, thus when we are born our mind is a blank slate. However when we return to the clearinghouse we can access all the memories of all our lives.
So coming to this world is really like starting a new game, one that restarts each time we are born. What would be the purpose of this then? At first glance it seems rather meaningless. But I think each time we come down we receive different experiences; we explore different facets of life. For instance, in past lives I could have been a pregnant mother, a king, a beggar, a great warrior, a victim of war, a scientist or a man of religion. When I go back to that clearinghouse all the memories mold together so that I can understand the universe and the true nature of life better.
The more diverse these experiences are, the faster we get to understand truth. If I had been an ordinary worker in every life, this would not help me attain wisdom very quickly as all my memories would be mundane ones, the most vivid might be banging a different girl in each life, but after a few lives that would feel the same as well. What would help would be something like being a conqueror that slays millions in one life, then a man whose family is killed in war in another.
As for karma, does it exist? I am inclined to doubt it. For compared to our true form as souls, life as flesh is truly insignificant. For us to hold on to grudges from these lives would be as foolish as two people fighting because one fellow killed the other in a computer game (not that I have not seen this happen before). So why should deeds from one "game" affect the starting conditions in the next round?
I think that the conditions which we are born under, whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, beautiful or ugly, smart or dumb do not reflect our deeds in the past, but instead represent different starting conditions in which we begin each round of gaming, and these variations paired with our actions bring us different life experiences. Just the same as you would play a hand of poker differently depending on whether the two cards that were dealt initially were a pair of aces or a three and an eight.
Then we may ask: is doing good of no consequence? Should we commit evil since this life is unimportant anyway? This is the question my philosophy cannot answer. My personal feeling is that although the actual impact of our actions are of no consequence on the cosmic scale, if we keep harboring negative intentions in every life it may impede our understanding of the universe, thus slowing down our ascension to divinity.
So when we finally understand everything and do not need to go into the cycle of life again, we merge with all the other souls that achieve enlightenment. This entity is the most powerful being in the universe. It would also be very very bored as there are no challenges, so its pasttime would be to contemplate within itself. Fortunately its members bring in a lot of experiences and perspectives. So for their sake, we must all strive to attain nirvana so we can join them and add our experiences into the pool.
Personally my belief is somewhat close to Buddhism.
I think somewhere in the universe, probably in another dimension, there is a clearinghouse where souls wait to be assigned to different lifeforms. Each time we descend to enter a body, all memories of the past are locked so that we cannot access them, thus when we are born our mind is a blank slate. However when we return to the clearinghouse we can access all the memories of all our lives.
So coming to this world is really like starting a new game, one that restarts each time we are born. What would be the purpose of this then? At first glance it seems rather meaningless. But I think each time we come down we receive different experiences; we explore different facets of life. For instance, in past lives I could have been a pregnant mother, a king, a beggar, a great warrior, a victim of war, a scientist or a man of religion. When I go back to that clearinghouse all the memories mold together so that I can understand the universe and the true nature of life better.
The more diverse these experiences are, the faster we get to understand truth. If I had been an ordinary worker in every life, this would not help me attain wisdom very quickly as all my memories would be mundane ones, the most vivid might be banging a different girl in each life, but after a few lives that would feel the same as well. What would help would be something like being a conqueror that slays millions in one life, then a man whose family is killed in war in another.
As for karma, does it exist? I am inclined to doubt it. For compared to our true form as souls, life as flesh is truly insignificant. For us to hold on to grudges from these lives would be as foolish as two people fighting because one fellow killed the other in a computer game (not that I have not seen this happen before). So why should deeds from one "game" affect the starting conditions in the next round?
I think that the conditions which we are born under, whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, beautiful or ugly, smart or dumb do not reflect our deeds in the past, but instead represent different starting conditions in which we begin each round of gaming, and these variations paired with our actions bring us different life experiences. Just the same as you would play a hand of poker differently depending on whether the two cards that were dealt initially were a pair of aces or a three and an eight.
Then we may ask: is doing good of no consequence? Should we commit evil since this life is unimportant anyway? This is the question my philosophy cannot answer. My personal feeling is that although the actual impact of our actions are of no consequence on the cosmic scale, if we keep harboring negative intentions in every life it may impede our understanding of the universe, thus slowing down our ascension to divinity.
So when we finally understand everything and do not need to go into the cycle of life again, we merge with all the other souls that achieve enlightenment. This entity is the most powerful being in the universe. It would also be very very bored as there are no challenges, so its pasttime would be to contemplate within itself. Fortunately its members bring in a lot of experiences and perspectives. So for their sake, we must all strive to attain nirvana so we can join them and add our experiences into the pool.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Girls and short hair
I've heard many girls ask why guys like girls with long hair more. Here is my explanation:
Traditionally guys wear their hair short and girls wear their hair long. Think of it, how many guys you know would look better with long hair? I think the answer is: not many. Sure, some handsome or artistic-looking fellows may look great with a lengthy hairstyle, but these guys are definitely in the minority.
Hence, we can extrapolate from this that the percentage of girls who look good with short hair are also in the minority.
Traditionally guys wear their hair short and girls wear their hair long. Think of it, how many guys you know would look better with long hair? I think the answer is: not many. Sure, some handsome or artistic-looking fellows may look great with a lengthy hairstyle, but these guys are definitely in the minority.
Hence, we can extrapolate from this that the percentage of girls who look good with short hair are also in the minority.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Good deeds
Many people express the sentiment that one should not expect returns for one's good deeds; the act of doing good should be ample reward in itself. Though I admire the nobility of this sentiment, I cannot agree with it in the larger picture.
Let me relate a story. A long time ago in China, when it was split into several countries, the master sage Confucius had a disciple who was traveling outside his own nation. This disciple came upon a fellow countryman who had been sold as a slave, so he took out his purse and paid the required amount of money necessary to free the man, who was naturally very thankful.
When the disciple returned to his own country, he told Confucius of this. Confucius commended his act and told him to claim the amount of money he had spent with the government. At that time, in their nation there was a law saying that if money was spent to save a fellow citizen from slavery in a foreign country, the government would reimburse the giver.
Confucius' disciple declined, saying that he was willing to perform this good deed using his own funds. Upon hearing this, Confucius insisted that he reclaim the money from the government. The disciple was puzzled: why would Confucius prevent him from doing a good deed?
The sage then explained: "If you spend your own money to save this man, all our country will admire you. However in the future, if other men see our fellows being enslaved overseas, how will they act? Will they save them then come and claim the expense? That would make them look petty next to your example. Yet if they do not claim the expense the cost to themselves would be significant."
"The logical outcome is that they pretend not to notice when they see our people being sold into slavery," Confucius concluded.
Therefore, is it wise for us to expect people to do good purely out of the nobility of their hearts? Such nobility does exist, but we should never count on it from day to day, as it could be worn out by constant use.
Much better to promote a culture where goodness is seen and recognized, and rewarded by praise and respect. The recipient of kindness should constantly think how to repay it. For we all act in our self-interest, and if such self-interest can be aligned with the interest of society, the motivation for helping others will be significantly stronger than solely altruism.
Let me relate a story. A long time ago in China, when it was split into several countries, the master sage Confucius had a disciple who was traveling outside his own nation. This disciple came upon a fellow countryman who had been sold as a slave, so he took out his purse and paid the required amount of money necessary to free the man, who was naturally very thankful.
When the disciple returned to his own country, he told Confucius of this. Confucius commended his act and told him to claim the amount of money he had spent with the government. At that time, in their nation there was a law saying that if money was spent to save a fellow citizen from slavery in a foreign country, the government would reimburse the giver.
Confucius' disciple declined, saying that he was willing to perform this good deed using his own funds. Upon hearing this, Confucius insisted that he reclaim the money from the government. The disciple was puzzled: why would Confucius prevent him from doing a good deed?
The sage then explained: "If you spend your own money to save this man, all our country will admire you. However in the future, if other men see our fellows being enslaved overseas, how will they act? Will they save them then come and claim the expense? That would make them look petty next to your example. Yet if they do not claim the expense the cost to themselves would be significant."
"The logical outcome is that they pretend not to notice when they see our people being sold into slavery," Confucius concluded.
Therefore, is it wise for us to expect people to do good purely out of the nobility of their hearts? Such nobility does exist, but we should never count on it from day to day, as it could be worn out by constant use.
Much better to promote a culture where goodness is seen and recognized, and rewarded by praise and respect. The recipient of kindness should constantly think how to repay it. For we all act in our self-interest, and if such self-interest can be aligned with the interest of society, the motivation for helping others will be significantly stronger than solely altruism.
Friday, December 14, 2012
(Fiction) The Princess and the Dragon
In a land far far away, and a time long long ago, there lived a young prince. He was the last of a proud and noble family; both his elder brothers had perished on quests to rescue the most beautiful princess in the world, locked up in a crystal tower guarded by a fearsome dragon. His eldest brother had been the greatest warrior in the land, but he never rode back from single combat with the dread creature. As the second brother rode to avenge him he charged with a hundred fierce knights, yet all was naught before the deluge of flame.
The young prince decided that his brothers should not die in vain. He was ready to face the dragon. Although his mother pleaded with him not to go, that he was her only son left, he stood resolute. Only a few knights went with him as he rode to that crystal tower, other attendants trailing behind reluctantly.
After some riding, they reached a vast plain over which the tower loomed. Above it flew a mighty dragon, scales black as night, eyes red as blood. It was large enough to cover small towns in its shadow. His attendants trembled in their boots.
But instead of pulling out a sword, the prince pulled out a horn and blew it loud enough to wake the dead. The dragon stared downwards. Was this challenger foolish enough to fight it bare-handed? Alone? It would make him regret. Steadily it flew down towards him.
Yet as it got near, it paused. The prince's attendants had laid out pigs and cows on the ground, all without hair and cooked to a crispy perfection. The smell was heavenly. The dragon landed before the small party and their offerings.
"You do realize we dragons are immune to poison, don't you," the dragon smirked.
"Of course, Mighty One," the prince smiled. "These animals have been cooked with spices by the best chefs in my kingdom. Please enjoy".
The dragon chomped down. It was truly a feast fit for a dragon. It tore through the tender flesh with teeth as sharp as daggers. When it had finished, it let out a mighty burp.
"That was pretty good. Thanks. Now let's fight and get it over with". The dragon said, thinking it would finish it quickly and mercifully in thanks for the food.
"Wait. If you kill me, you aren't going to get any more of this food." That made the dragon pause. The lunch it had just taken was much much better than any of the tough, stringy knights it had eaten before. Indeed that was all the food it got, and fewer and fewer of them came nowadays.
"You suggest we not fight?" This was somewhat out of the norm.
"How about you follow me back to my kingdom? Help me burn some enemies occasionally and I will make sure you dine like this forever. My servants will help you clean your scales too"
The dragon considered the offer for a moment. It sounded much better than guarding a silly tower and killing knights once in awhile.
"But I am bound by a magical contract to guard this tower."
"What does the contract state?" The prince asked.
"I must not harm the princess, and I must kill anyone who attempts to rescue her." The dragon replied.
"We can get around that easy. Let me in the tower."
"That would be against the terms"
"I'll go in and kill the princess. That way you can let me in because I'm not trying to rescue her. After she's dead you are free from the silly contract and can follow me back home."
The dragon scratched its head, then looked at the prince.
"Deal."
Thus House Targaryen was born.
The young prince decided that his brothers should not die in vain. He was ready to face the dragon. Although his mother pleaded with him not to go, that he was her only son left, he stood resolute. Only a few knights went with him as he rode to that crystal tower, other attendants trailing behind reluctantly.
After some riding, they reached a vast plain over which the tower loomed. Above it flew a mighty dragon, scales black as night, eyes red as blood. It was large enough to cover small towns in its shadow. His attendants trembled in their boots.
But instead of pulling out a sword, the prince pulled out a horn and blew it loud enough to wake the dead. The dragon stared downwards. Was this challenger foolish enough to fight it bare-handed? Alone? It would make him regret. Steadily it flew down towards him.
Yet as it got near, it paused. The prince's attendants had laid out pigs and cows on the ground, all without hair and cooked to a crispy perfection. The smell was heavenly. The dragon landed before the small party and their offerings.
"You do realize we dragons are immune to poison, don't you," the dragon smirked.
"Of course, Mighty One," the prince smiled. "These animals have been cooked with spices by the best chefs in my kingdom. Please enjoy".
The dragon chomped down. It was truly a feast fit for a dragon. It tore through the tender flesh with teeth as sharp as daggers. When it had finished, it let out a mighty burp.
"That was pretty good. Thanks. Now let's fight and get it over with". The dragon said, thinking it would finish it quickly and mercifully in thanks for the food.
"Wait. If you kill me, you aren't going to get any more of this food." That made the dragon pause. The lunch it had just taken was much much better than any of the tough, stringy knights it had eaten before. Indeed that was all the food it got, and fewer and fewer of them came nowadays.
"You suggest we not fight?" This was somewhat out of the norm.
"How about you follow me back to my kingdom? Help me burn some enemies occasionally and I will make sure you dine like this forever. My servants will help you clean your scales too"
The dragon considered the offer for a moment. It sounded much better than guarding a silly tower and killing knights once in awhile.
"But I am bound by a magical contract to guard this tower."
"What does the contract state?" The prince asked.
"I must not harm the princess, and I must kill anyone who attempts to rescue her." The dragon replied.
"We can get around that easy. Let me in the tower."
"That would be against the terms"
"I'll go in and kill the princess. That way you can let me in because I'm not trying to rescue her. After she's dead you are free from the silly contract and can follow me back home."
The dragon scratched its head, then looked at the prince.
"Deal."
Thus House Targaryen was born.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)