the man with the Moses beard

there was a question in class in regard to this murderer's sanity. Some may say that any person who kills another human being is insane, but this is not necessarily true in my eyes. Sure he was deluded, but it was his personal belief that he was helping the world. Maybe he was simply misguided in this notion. Maybe it was one of those errrs where we try to put our best foot forward with the best of intentions and instead, we make the situation worse. It happens on different scales but is it not possible that this is one of those instances? where politicians and preachers of all sorts stand up against the communist and they tell you that they're the reason everything in the world is as bad as it is and that it's your responsibility to flush out the comunists... they may not mean killing your neighbor, but it's not far off. this man may have been crazy or he may have been trying to do his part to make the world a better place, like he was told to do. we shouldn't brush aside either end of the argument just because it doesn't make sense to us.

cruelty to humans

torture and human rights. we watched a video on these things. It wasn't quite as graphic as the one on crualty to animals but i think it was supposed to stir your mrality and boost your awareness rather than gross you out.
There was a question as to how much the media affects the way we feel about violence. It was about the use of propaganda to twist the human mind so that killing and torture would be seen as a good deed rather than an unforgivable sin. i think that after watching the first half of the movie i held the same belief as before, that within each human is the seed of corruption, that it only requires a little nurturing and the blood lust can flourish, sustained by ignorant beliefs and a weak mind. To be honest, the only thing that i found affective about the movie was the "marching" sound in the background. As for te rest, especially the use of the rodent in propaganda, should be common enough not to stir us. it's pretty obvious.

torture... is it unforgiveable?

On the subject of torture, i find that it is something that i find myself reluctant to talk about. My own beliefs on the basis of torture are somewhat scattered and possibly controversial.
Torture in the past has been used for many things. If we consider the "all powerful" Roman Empire, we see that torture was a very popular form of public entertainment. I believe that this is partially because of the innate bloodlust which resides within most humans, though today e consider ourselves more "civilized" than that and so we have either eolved past that animalistic state or we are hiding it from ourselves. I'll continue on the subject of the Roman Empire and say that even though that part of their culture we see as vulgar, they were still among one of the greatest civilizations of the world. They were intelligent in politics and warfare, they knew how to change their world and how to influence the people under them and for this, we admire them. They were a force against the "barbaric" tribes and yet the fact that they tortured innocent for pleasure is in and of itself barbaric... and the reason for it is even more so. The grand arena was a place where the common people of Ancient Rome could gather and watch slaves kill eachother and be killed y animals, etc. These events were held to keep the common people happy and to satisfy their blood lust so that they wouldn't turn against the emperor.
A similar event still takes place today in Spain, a country which we consider highly civilized - i'm talking about the bull fighting. This satisfies the people's blood lust and then the meat from the dead bull is distributed to the hungry.
What is the difference between these examples of satisfying blood lust and human torture which is supposedly used to gleen information from the victim? I think there is a huge difference. I don't believe it is right and i certainly don't believe that it should be common practice. I do believe that it is sometimes necessary. i believe that as humans we have certain rights, and yet at the same time, we have certain responsibilities. To betray our obligation to the rest of our species is to relinquish some of those rights. We should all be above torture. We should be enlightened enough to be good enough to eachother to make torture obsolete, and yet most of us are far from this state. And so, it is under the most dire situations that torture should be practiced. Sometimes, we must allow a lesser evil to achieve a greater good.

Animals

In some cultures, the animal is considered sacred. In india, the cow is not to be killed because i is seen as a physical manifestation of one f their gods. In some other cultures it is considered a saced act to "sacrifice" an animal the the gods or to nature. This was particularly a common practice in the polytheistic or pagan religions of the past, yet it does still occur in the modern world on a small scale. Things, however, have changed over the centuries. Not everyone in the world depends on their own crops and cattle for food because these things can be procured easily in markets, especially in "civilized" cultures. however, people do still throw goats out of windows. Is this simply done to satisfy an animalistic blood lust? or is it truy a sacred act? and if sacrifice is s sacred, why do these people make a sacrifice of their wn bodies?
Personally, i believe that the act is barbaric and ignorant, yet i find that it is important to take into consideration the positions of these people who commit these heinous acts. Though we may be moral agents, we are imperfect beings. Though science is widely accepted, not all can find comfort in the idea of closed in cities and cold metal gadgets. These people yearn toward the traditions that seemed to help their people survive throughout the centuries, and if this is what give them comfort, is it their right to do such? I don't believe that this is a question that i can say that i have the correct answer to. I believe that it is up to personal discretion and that even though some of us see this for the disgusting act that it is, we still have to consider that the people doing this are aware of what they are doing and most of them are most likely sane. It is a difference in our worlds that if we do not look at the positions of these people, then we will become as closeminded and ignorant as we see them to be.

can animals have morals?

So, from what we've learned, morality and those influenced by it are divided into two categories. There are moral agents, and then there are moral patients. Moral agents are also moral patients but not all moral patients are moral agents... am i getting this straight?


From what i heard i believe i am. So the real thought that's been hovering in the back of my mind for the last few days is why this idea in't more widespread. Most humans beieve that their mental capacity is beyond that of animals and so the morals that stem from conscious decision-making should also be taken into account. All of our decisions affect the world around us. Perhaps animals are moral creatures, because pets in particular seem to be attentive and caring. Yet, even if they don't have morals, we are aware of our own ability to make conscious moral choices, and so whether they can or not as well doesn't matter because they would still be moral patients. This is a theory that i see as acceptable and whether or not it is completely correct, it is still something that all people should take into consideration because it could be an idea to better our world and our relationship with that world.

naturalism and morality

if there is no god; if there is no afterlife, does this mean there will be no need for morals. though many, maybe even most, people are naturally good and do no evil just because of their love for community, there are those who only resist temptation to do evil for fear of punishment. even though law exists to prevent crime, religion does a better job of it because the afterlife goes on eternally for some yet law can only touch you while you're alive. So, when we remove religion from the moral equation and remove fear of eternal damnation, do we oen the door to crime and sin?
to at least some extent i believe we do. if people were to believe that the here and now is really all that exists, not much would stop anarchy. there are those who only restrain for religion and without religion, there is no restraint.
on the other hand, there would be no religious wars, no need for hatred between sects of people but who's to say that humans wouldn't just find something else to bicker about? the spread of the naturalist view could have catastrophic effects on our world, or it culd heal a great many wounds. we cannot part the veils of time and so the question may be irrelevent. however, the notion is somewhat terrifying.