I awoke this morning to find that the world had not turned into a giant, juicy, luscious orange. Unfortunately, that thought didn’t give me enough solace to welcome the almost unpalatable mixture of edible nothings that awaited me in the kitchen. Every single day, life reminds you that existence is much more than breathing and walking around doing the things that living things do in between moments of sleep while breathing.
Life is about food.
A Letter to My Left Pinky Toe.
Dear Left Pinky Toe,
The corporation of organs that constitute the being known as Francis thanks you for your service. We wish to compensate your service during the Great Toe Stubbing of Yesterday with a good foot massage and a torrent of cursing from the mouth department. Once again, your actions in the line of duty, especially that of not falling off is one that will be remembered for more than a day.
Yours truly,
The Brain
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
What is Morally Justifiable?
The issue of good versus evil, right versus wrong, and moral versus immoral has become more prevalent in today’s financially and materially inclined society, simply because our understanding of the debate has taken a turn for the worse, mainly the radical. As another card in the fragile house of cards that society is building itself, the notion that some actions that one can commit in the world can be deemed as morally justifiable compared to other actions is extremely vague in foundation. In essence, the argument that one’s action could be good versus an action that is evil is based entirely on social stigmas and regulations.
For example, in the past, society thought it morally justifiable to kill in the name of the Lord. In fact, today the very thought of killing in the name of a higher cause is one to be rewarded. Although the prevalence of such beliefs can be constrained to a minority of the populous, the action of killing, if the reason is “appropriate” is one that could be argued as morally correct, if not morally necessary. Let us take this argument to a level of more stunning simplicity. The ancient Aztecs and various other ancient cultures thought it a grand act to sacrifice animals and people for the sake of replenishing the love of their gods. At that time, the act of vandalizing another village in search of human sacrifice was one that not only became socially acceptable, but one that became morally necessary. In more simple terms, killing others for one’s own gods was a good thing. Today, sacrifices that resemble that of the ancient world are recognized as murder and an example of the barbarity of the past. However, this view is only correct if translated through the context of age-old religions. A varying idea can be seen in some of today’s religious factions, where members of our “modern” society could still view killing as a source of love of a higher power as “right” or “correct”.
Our notion of what is right and wrong is based entirely on the whole of society’s ability to create simple rules of maintaining stability and order. There is no higher power directing what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect, and if there is, the rules dictated by that of a higher power is not only menacing, but extremely cruel. However, I am not arguing for the basic moral rules to be dismantled, but instead, to be examined more thoroughly; to use logic and reason, coupled with the understanding of a more global society to lay out certain ethical standards that respect all nationalities. The rejection, or the failure to understand, our neighbors and fellow human beings, will lead inevitably to war and strife. Such is the reason to appreciate more fully the basic belief that one should live in a society regulated by justifiable laws respecting all, rather than a system of "moral" regulations where right and wrong is laid out without comprehending the exact nature of what is right and what is wrong.
I do not know entirely, if at all, what can be correct and what can be incorrect in today's society. But as long as a I live a life of continued respect for my peers, a broad understanding of the social stigmas that govern each nationality, and the belief that the lives of others are just as valuable as my own, I will at least try to contribute to the peace of society.
For example, in the past, society thought it morally justifiable to kill in the name of the Lord. In fact, today the very thought of killing in the name of a higher cause is one to be rewarded. Although the prevalence of such beliefs can be constrained to a minority of the populous, the action of killing, if the reason is “appropriate” is one that could be argued as morally correct, if not morally necessary. Let us take this argument to a level of more stunning simplicity. The ancient Aztecs and various other ancient cultures thought it a grand act to sacrifice animals and people for the sake of replenishing the love of their gods. At that time, the act of vandalizing another village in search of human sacrifice was one that not only became socially acceptable, but one that became morally necessary. In more simple terms, killing others for one’s own gods was a good thing. Today, sacrifices that resemble that of the ancient world are recognized as murder and an example of the barbarity of the past. However, this view is only correct if translated through the context of age-old religions. A varying idea can be seen in some of today’s religious factions, where members of our “modern” society could still view killing as a source of love of a higher power as “right” or “correct”.
Our notion of what is right and wrong is based entirely on the whole of society’s ability to create simple rules of maintaining stability and order. There is no higher power directing what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect, and if there is, the rules dictated by that of a higher power is not only menacing, but extremely cruel. However, I am not arguing for the basic moral rules to be dismantled, but instead, to be examined more thoroughly; to use logic and reason, coupled with the understanding of a more global society to lay out certain ethical standards that respect all nationalities. The rejection, or the failure to understand, our neighbors and fellow human beings, will lead inevitably to war and strife. Such is the reason to appreciate more fully the basic belief that one should live in a society regulated by justifiable laws respecting all, rather than a system of "moral" regulations where right and wrong is laid out without comprehending the exact nature of what is right and what is wrong.
I do not know entirely, if at all, what can be correct and what can be incorrect in today's society. But as long as a I live a life of continued respect for my peers, a broad understanding of the social stigmas that govern each nationality, and the belief that the lives of others are just as valuable as my own, I will at least try to contribute to the peace of society.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Rachmaninoff's 3rd Concerto
Does this blog have anything to do with Rachmaninoff's 3rd Concerto? NO. So why exactly is the title Rachmaninoff's 3rd Concerto? Does there have to be a reason?
As we proceed into the 21st century amidst a setting of strife, suffering, hidden fees, and other so called lies such as the notion that Iraq isn't in a civil war...........
I'm sorry. Iraq is not in a civil war. It is in what I would like to call "political in-fighting with the use of armaments". That way we can look at all the killings on the street of Baghdad as nothing more than political parties/religious factions trying to make themselves be heard in the young democracy with the use of guns and bombs.
Come on!!! If the country is not in a civil war, than I don't know what the hell its in. Come to think of it, yes, the people living in the country are living in a earthly hell. Let me go look up civil war on Wikipedia and see what it says so we can clarify. I understand that Wikipedia may not be the greatest source for information, but counting that I don't believe that I have to pay for educational information, I'm sticking with Wikipedia.
The first sentence on Wikipedia states:
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area."
Go figure.
As we proceed into the 21st century amidst a setting of strife, suffering, hidden fees, and other so called lies such as the notion that Iraq isn't in a civil war...........
I'm sorry. Iraq is not in a civil war. It is in what I would like to call "political in-fighting with the use of armaments". That way we can look at all the killings on the street of Baghdad as nothing more than political parties/religious factions trying to make themselves be heard in the young democracy with the use of guns and bombs.
Come on!!! If the country is not in a civil war, than I don't know what the hell its in. Come to think of it, yes, the people living in the country are living in a earthly hell. Let me go look up civil war on Wikipedia and see what it says so we can clarify. I understand that Wikipedia may not be the greatest source for information, but counting that I don't believe that I have to pay for educational information, I'm sticking with Wikipedia.
The first sentence on Wikipedia states:
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area."
Go figure.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Begging for Change
A disheveled man came up to me asking for change.
I told him I couldn't.
He asked me why.
I said, "I ain't no politician!"
The disheveled man was absolutely clueless. Can you believe him asking for change? Impossible. The only way change could ever happen is if enough people wanted change. Enough being the majority and not the minority, and even if you are the majority, you have to be careful. If there happens to be a couple of real nasty assholes in government who go against the majority with their dainty filibusters, than you might as well quit and go to a country where change could happen. Like where? Well, countries that seem to have a lot of change seem to be young countries. You know, the kind of country that just started, and they have a whole pack of factions vying for power. I hear Iraq is a place of constant change. I don't remember if its a change of blood or course, but what do we care? Its not as if we're over there trying to help them.
OH...that's not good.
I told him I couldn't.
He asked me why.
I said, "I ain't no politician!"
The disheveled man was absolutely clueless. Can you believe him asking for change? Impossible. The only way change could ever happen is if enough people wanted change. Enough being the majority and not the minority, and even if you are the majority, you have to be careful. If there happens to be a couple of real nasty assholes in government who go against the majority with their dainty filibusters, than you might as well quit and go to a country where change could happen. Like where? Well, countries that seem to have a lot of change seem to be young countries. You know, the kind of country that just started, and they have a whole pack of factions vying for power. I hear Iraq is a place of constant change. I don't remember if its a change of blood or course, but what do we care? Its not as if we're over there trying to help them.
OH...that's not good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)