Curate, connect, and discover
Morality - Blog Posts
A Question of Morality
Do we do things because they are the moral things to do or do we do them to achieve certain ends? I faced this question in a debate I had with my church's youth group's sort of leader. It was of course a peaceful debate--diplomatically ignoring my views eventually--but this question has been living inside me ever since.
I took a Kantian standpoint and argued in favor of the categorical imperative, whereas my opponent said that, the moral thing is to act to earn God's divine gifts in Heaven. And even though it seemed pretty obvious to me, in the past one week ambiguity has begun to cloud my confidence on this matter.
The heavenly gifts we earn for living a righteous life are quite naturally stimulating and indeed worth living that life for but I thought, that it is not the highest we can get. In my opinion--the one which I had then--acting out completely because of wanting to do the right thing is the most moral way of thinking. Only for the rightness of that action, not for avoiding guilt, or actually finding pleasure in it, or anything of sort.
Using Kant's reasoning however, would actually mean embracing the opposing view, not mine. Kant actually found God in morals this way. His categorical imperative suggests a certain joy felt over the moral act, properly proportionate to how moral the act was. Although he found a problem in this: say--and this is my example--you commit a crime but you have cleaned up after yourself well enough. Still, a clever detective somehow gets to you and you are persecuted. However, when being tried, you find a way to get away by adding just one more lie, that could clearly undo the validity of any evidence they have against you. Now you are faced wih the dilemma, that either you add just one more lie and get away, or act morally and confess. It is problematic to imagine a situation, where a criminal in the midst of trial starts to think about morality but let's accept it for the sake of the thought experiment. Now before moving any further, I add another crucial detail: because of the severety of your crime and the local laws, if you testify guilty, you will be executed on the scene without any delay. So now, acting immorally will just get you life, in which you can try to make up for the wrongs you've done and do probably some even more moral things, than confessing now. On the contrary, in the present state, the only justifiable action is testifying guilty. But this morality, thinking in earthly matters, is completely vain. It earns you nothing, neither for the community, and though everyone will agree, that at least you did the right thing when you confessed of your crime, you will still be marked as overall immoral, and above these, you will not have a chance to feel any joy over your moral act. Impending death, brought forth only by a moral act, which serves only the abstract morality itself, can take away this kind of joy...
In the case above, according to Kant, the only acceptable choice is the moral one. But without a sort of moral joy felt over it and any service implemented through this, it certainly becomes difficult to find any point in it. On the contrary, no matter the contingencies, such as one's lack of time for joy, you should still choose the moral decision.
Now this is a place, where Kant found God. After your moral act, you can have joy over it even after you are dead, in case there is life after death. In case there is Heaven, and it is accessible to you--well, anyone can say a prayer a be saved even right before death--this final moral act of yours, will prove to be not in vain and you will have a chance to have that sort of moral joy in the proper proportion.
No, no one has to agree with Kant. I know, I haven't seen into the depths he has or the depths there are to this question. But--without solidly stating, that this is the right way to think about this question--this is a possible answer, that put some things into new light for me. It's good to get it off my chest :)
why don't people understand that even though drawings of children being sexualized or DRAWINGS of lolicon and other nasty stuff is still bad? yeah I know fiction free speech blah blah blah but if you don't have the moral compass to say "no man that's weird wtf" then I doubt you're very high functioning and can be.... like...... trusted? I guess? and yeah I know that real life CP is way worse and an actual problem, but since I can address the lesser problem which people think is totally cool then I will
For people who may not know; Florida plants are very oily, and catch fire easily. The foliage is also very dense, a lot of plants trying to choke each other out for a chance at sunlight and other resources. The ground is mostly sand and doesn't hold nutrients very well. Wildfires are a part of the ecological cycle, the ash rejuvenating the ground and allowing plants to grow.
When the Everglades became a national park, Florida started putting out fires before they spread too far.
Throughout the 1900s, one man took a boat out to the swamp and started setting fire to the everglades. He was a wanted arsonist.
Back in 2015, about 20 years after he died, Florida regarded him as a dedicated naturalist. The national park service now does controlled burns of the everglades to maintain its natural cycle.
That man was my great grandfather. A man i think of a lot recently, and how yesterday's criminals are tomorrow's heroes, and that not everything that's right is legal, and not everything legal is right.
A side by side of my only two art modes
1. Cute and simple. 2. Extremely extra
Tried drawing Patton in my new style, and then proceeded to play around with brushes, textures, hues, and blending modes for an hour lol. I like the outcome though!
Genderbent patton! Because the name is technically gender neutral, it can say the same, otherwise Id echange to paiton(if that's the female spelling)
Movies that make you think--if you let them
There are many movies that with a final scene turn the whole show on its head, make you try to figure things out as you go along, or fit so well together –these movies aren’t for the night at the end of the week where you’re tired or trying to relax, these are movies that make you think, keep your heart pounding not with action or violence but just suspense and intrigue (yeah, some of them also have those but that’s not what keeps people talking)
Gone Girl (2014)
Gone Girl was mentioned to me by one of my best friends whose really into movies and is a pretty smart guy all around. Knowing me, he also knew I’d like the question of the relationship between the married couple and the truth. While it was on my list, his recommendation pushed me to get to it sooner.
While the movie is good and has you thinking from the start, along with growing sympathy, the true story shoots up halfway thru with the wife’s reveal—something that could have but should not have been slipped in earlier (obviously). Here we delve further into the gray area, who is right, who is wrong, is there absolution for the husband and how can he get out of all this and how guilty is he really in everything that occurs.
There were many things I didn’t like about the movie, especially the character of the wife, but while it’s a movie I can’t bring myself to see again, I may one day as I still think about it.
Gattaca (1997)
Gattaca was a movie, that due to personal circumstances, I saw many, many time. Focused on how genetics shape our lives, this movie becomes more realistic every day and jumped back into my head late last year with the Chinese scientist who (may) have genetically engineered twins to be HIV resistant. A simple plot, lightly explained how genetics impact everything and how much of our DNA is everywhere—but more so it brought out the core questions related to humanity and the many levels of how our genetics should be used as decisions about our lives. The main character has been able to lead a superior life, regardless of his inferior genetic makeup, but also exceed beyond the identity his has assumed. Forget heart and effort, will and perseverance—he promotes the idea that he the genetics test provides nothing but statistical probabilities, not absolute facts (in how they are used in this film, there obviously very clear cut yes and no things with genetics).
On another level, which you may choose to explore, is the reminder that the law hardly ever is equal with society—it is always behind, and how while genetics may allow for a “higher chance” of success for the human race, it will not rid people of their human qualities. But again, the work is on you
Good morning! I'd just like to point out:
[Patton]: First, we'll need someone to practice on...
[Logan]: But who?
[Patton]: Each other?
(After they all swear to tell the truth during the trial scene and Janus takes the bibles/misc objects back away)
[Patton]: Okay, so, we kiss now? Or...?
Bonus:
[Patton]: Aww, there's so much cool stuff they've done for us online, kiddos!
[Roman]: Oh yeah?
[Patton]: There's some really neato artwork of us all AND some writing as well! Say, what is a "ship"?
[Logan]: Seriously, Morality, you don't know what that is? It is a craft designed for water travel.
[Virgil]: Even Prince knew that.
[Roman]: Yeah, even I knew that.
[Patton]: Oh, ok! It does not look like that, but ok.
I just want to point out those all happened in canon. That is all.
Was trying out some new effects, I love how this turned out ngl 😌👌🏻
(Click for better quality)