Ethical Beatings

In my ethics class, we've been doing presentations on different areas of ethics, such as religion, prostitution, animal cruelty, and the like. I was assigned the topic of how ethics applies to punishment, hence my odd but intriguing title. Contrary to what my title suggests, I didn't talk about parent to child discipline. I aimed at the much broader category of criminal punishment. It's really an interesting topic, so I decided I'd post the one page paper I wrote about it. It's a bit more formal and wordier than my usual stuff because I wrote it for an Honors class, but I hope you'll like it anyway:

This presentation will evaluate the justification for punishing criminals and present three different philosophies concerning how and why criminals should be punished.

1.      Why punish criminals?

Here are two of the most common arguments made against legal punishment. First, inflicting hardship on someone does not benefit anyone, increase happiness, or undo the crime. While it is true that the crime is not retractable, punishing criminals usually does bring peace of mind, security, and a sense of justice to the victim and most of society. Second, our aim should be to restore what was damaged, not punish the damager. This idea is known as restitution. It sounds nice, but it is usually inapplicable and sometimes leads to absurdities. For instance, how should a murderer atone for his crime? Our ideas of restitution are usually subjective, making them difficult to apply to an entire society. There is also the problem of premeditated crime. If you knew that a murder was being planned, you could do nothing about it. Because no crime has been committed, the would-be criminal can’t be arrested.

2.      Utilitarian Justice.

Jeremy Bentham, a proponent of Utilitarianism, proposed the correctional theory of punishment. Since Utilitarianism wants the greatest good for the greatest number of people, Bentham believed that criminals should be separated from society, since this would secure the benefits of security and peace of mind for citizens, but he also advocated reforming prisoners through job training, education, and counseling. Bentham believed that if criminals had the opportunity to make money honestly, then they would.

3.      Retribution.

Directly opposed to Bentham is Immanuel Kant and his Retributionist theory. Simply put, Kant believed that criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. He reasoned that if someone saw fit to harm other people for selfish gain, then we should return their behavior in kind. Kant believed that this was actually a form of respect for the criminal’s human dignity.

4.      Divine Command Theory.

The Christian theory is a complicated one. In Matthew 18:23, Jesus begins to tell a parable about a man who owed a huge debt, but was forgiven by the man he owed. The forgiven man then proceeded to find someone who owed him a small sum and relentlessly demanded to be repaid, ordering him to be thrown into prison until he could pay. When the man who had forgiven him heard about it, he ordered the unforgiving man to be thrown into prison until he could pay the original huge debt. The story illustrates that since God has forgiven our sins, we have a duty to forgive other people as well. However, although we may forgive, there are still earthly consequences criminals must suffer. A life of adultery may lead to STD’s or a sex addiction, for instance. Paul also encourages submission to the law and its punishment by saying in Romans 13:4 that government “does not bear the sword in vain.”

In conclusion, we have looked at different philosophies regarding punishment. Although their motives and methods differ, I have shown that criminal punishment is necessary in a just and secure society.


S.D.G.

My Obituary

One of my classes this semester is an online course which teaches more in-depth journalism techniques than the regular newspaper. In newspaper, the focus is more on experience, and the business of making a paper sometimes pushes back the actual "learning the trade" part of the class. The online course is designed to pick up the slack and is much more focused on techniques and tricks of the trade. Anyway, our first real writing assignment was to write our own obituary. That may sound a little morbid, but our teacher explained that most universities will assign it to us anyway.

Do you know how intensely boring most obituaries are? Usually it's the same words used over and over with different names. Sure, occasionally you might find one that really portrays a person's life, but they're rare. Writing a 200-300 word self death notice was none too interesting to me. So I did what anyone with an artistic license and an imagination would do. I had fun with it. I may have had a little too much fun, in fact. By the time I was finished with it, I decided that I would put it up here for you guys to see as well. Please bear in mind that I have no intention for my actual obituary to look like this. This is just the product of someone desperate to add interest to a potentially dreary project:

The church bell is greeted with jubilant cheers. So ends the funeral for Seth Houston, journalist and respected member of society.

Seth Houston was born and raised in the small town of Laurel, Mississippi. After graduating from Jones County Junior College, Houston moved out of the state for legal reasons. He soon began travelling the country on a journey to gain experience in his chosen profession, journalism. “He moved around a lot to hide from the law,” Sheriff Ted E. Bear said. “It’s a good thing he died when he did, because he was running out of places to go.” The entire police force attended the funeral to pay their respects. “I had to make sure he was really dead,” said Bear after respectfully spitting on the coffin.

Houston was preceded in death by his mother and father, who died of natural causes after reading a newspaper article celebrating their son’s community-centered activities.

Houston leaves behind two brothers and four sisters, as well as a loving wife, Caroline. “The scoundrel left after the first month,” she said, the tender emotion evident in her voice. “Nobody could find him, so I couldn’t even get a proper divorce.”

Houston was found in a warehouse, the victim of a tragic gang shooting. He was 35. “It just goes to show that even common thugs have a sense of decency,” said Bear. 

Houston’s grieving wife also had words to affirm his strong character. “He’s lucky the gang got to him before I did,” she said.

Many friends of the deceased from across the country turned out for Houston’s funeral, escorted by their local prison guards. Other than a small cheering section, it was evident that Houston will be missed by many.
S.D.G.

My Fifth Dimension Theory

     College is useful for all kinds of things, like knowing how to categorize the theories you have come up with over the years. I recently learned about metaphysics in philosophy, and realized, "Hey, one of my theories is about metaphysics!"
     The theory itself is about the structure of reality, and occurred to me when I learned about the different dimensions. It isn't original by any means, I just sort of re-invented the wheel. C.S. Lewis wrote about it in his book, Mere Christianity (one of my favorites), long before it ever entered my head. It goes something like this: There are four dimensions of reality. The first dimension is a straight line which can only go in one direction, right to left. The second is made of straight lines which can go in several directions; right to left, forward and backward, and all the degrees in between. A square is possible in this dimension, and wasn't in the first. The third dimension is made of lines which can go in all the directions of the second, as well as up and down and all the degrees in between. The concepts of depth and volume are introduced in this dimension. A cube is also possible here, which is made of six squares. I'm a little fuzzy on the fourth dimension. I'm no physicist, but I think that space and time are what makes it unique. Anyway, the theory asks the question: What if there were a dimension beyond ours? What if there was a higher level of reality that our reality was a part of, just like the squares from the second dimension were a part of the cube of the third dimension? If this were true, there are two things we can deduce from it.
     1. We could not know anything about this dimension other than that it might exist. Imagine that someone was born and lived in the second dimension and somehow was able to visit the third dimension and learn about it. If he went back to the second, how would he explain to his friends the concepts which make the third dimension unique? He could draw a representation of a cube, but to someone who had never seen depth or volume for himself, it would have absolutely no meaning. In the same way, if it were possible to somehow experience the fifth dimension, no one would be able to explain it to us because it involves concepts which we have never seen or felt for ourselves. This leads us to the second point.
     2. We cannot imagine anything that does not already exist in our dimension. All of our "original" ideas are just things which already exist, rearranged in a new way. Take the idea of dragons, for example. A dragon is just a compilation of ideas which already exist, such as scales, wings, feet, teeth, animals, and certain shapes. Even the fire-breathing thing is a combination of the existing things breathing and fire put together. All we mean by original ideas is to combine existing things in ways that don't occur naturally.
     Another point, but this is purely speculation, is that the fifth dimension could be what we refer to as the spiritual world. In that sense, spirituality would be more real than the material things around us. The possibilities for this theory are limitless. What if, instead of just one other dimension, there were an infinite string of them? Of course, the obvious drawback to this theory is that even if it were true, it could never be proven.
     In all probability, someone else has already written in a lot more depth about this than I have. In any case, I thought it was a neat idea, and I hope it keeps your minds busy until my next post.

Becoming Faust

This is the article I wrote for the last edition of our newspaper this semester. I think it's one of my best yet. Please tell me what you think.

We live in a unique generation. Never before have so many people had so much access to entertainment and information. For the first time in history, almost anyone can learn about current global and local events, as well as other information on any topic imaginable. While the benefits of such power are vast and undeniable, there are also drawbacks which are far harder to recognize at first glance.

For those who are unfamiliar with Faust, he is the main character of an old story that tells about a man who sold his soul to the devil. In exchange, he received 24 years of unlimited knowledge and the service of a demon with magical abilities called Mephistopheles. As one might expect, Faust gained the power to experience all the pleasures the world had to offer. Usually, this was at the expense of someone else's wellbeing. However, at the end of the play, the devil showed up just as promised and dragged Faust to hell.

The first thing that popped into my head when I heard the story of Faust was, "That guy was not very bright. Who would sell their soul to burn in hell for a measly 24 years of pleasure?" Then I remembered an assignment I needed to work on, but I decided to check Facebook instead. I knew I would regret it later, but I tried not to think about that as I traded away valuable study time for nothing more than temporary enjoyment.

Education is becoming increasingly important in today's world. A college degree is expected of anyone who does not plan on becoming a manual laborer, and sometimes even for those who do. Fortunately, a college education is easier to attain now than it has ever been. Unfortunately, the college drop-out rate is also higher than it has ever been. A 2010 estimate stated that only 56% of college students will earn a bachelor's degree.

What caused this incredible increase in failure? Ask the students who spend almost 24 hours a month on Facebook. According to the site’s own statistics, that is how much time the average person spends on their website. Remember, that is only the average. That is taking into account all those people who made a profile but never use it. Take those people out of the equation, and the numbers you get could be astronomical. The statistics for YouTube viewing are hardly any better. The average person spends almost two hours a week watching YouTube videos. Think about these numbers for a minute. This is the amount of time some people spend working part-time jobs.

So what does all this have to do with that Faust guy I mentioned earlier? Much more than one might think. Today’s students have made a deal with the devil. Unlike Faust, however, we do not get a magic demon to cater to our every whim or unlimited knowledge. What we get is mind-numbing oblivion in the form of Facebook games, YouTube videos, and other online distractions that serve no purpose beyond providing a temporary diversion from unpleasant tasks like essays or studying for a test. Just like Faust, many students will meet with tragic consequences. Of course, I am not saying that Facebook and YouTube are responsible for the 44% college dropout rate, but I would not doubt that they are a contributing factor.

We live in the entertainment age. Our lives are centered on our own enjoyment. While students from countries such as China and India are making incredible strides toward advancement and progress, we barely even know what our class assignments are. The bad news is that our contract with the devil will not last forever. One day, the amount of time we lost to cyberspace will catch up with us. If we are not careful, we could find ourselves out of college with no degree and a bleak-looking future.

So what can we do? Repent. It is time we chose the hard road of doing what we need to do. Try setting a weekly limit to your Facebook visits. Try to limit yourself to one or two YouTube videos a week. Whatever your time-consuming pitfall is, put some type of limit on it. Remember, this is your future we are talking about. It is about time we started ripping up the devil’s contracts.

Pirates: Old and New

     I decided to take a break from all the heavy philosophy and write about pirates. Pirates have been around for a long time, I'm not sure how long, maybe ever since there were ships. They're famous for stealing things from ships using swords, pistols, brute force, or anything else at their disposal. Legends revolve around their skill in battle and the huge amounts of treasure that they supposedly accumulated throughout their plundering years. Blackbeard was one of the fiercest and toughest pirates ever to sail the seas. One story says that he once tested his men's mettle by literally creating an artificial hell below decks, complete with burning brimstone, and holding a contest to see who could endure the intense heat and blinding smoke the longest. The story says that before long, every one of his crew members had given up and fled the torturous prison, while Blackbeard's maniacal laughter reverberated from the smoke and ebbing red glow. Those were the pirates of old.

    
     Pirates are still around today, but they've changed drastically. The most common pirates today don't sail the seven seas, but instead surf the World Wide Web. They wouldn't know what to do with a sword or a pistol, and as far as fighting ability goes, they usually rank around the "zilch" level. Instead of stealing priceless gems or gold and silver, they pillage movies, music, and video games. The closest they come to obtaining riches is to download an illegal copy of the Gold and Silver versions of Pokemon games. Compared to their predecessors, these sorry excuses for pirates are nothing more than an ill-told joke. They would probably faint at the mere mention of enduring fire and brimstone. Blackbeard would hang his head in shame.

    Needless to say, piracy has lost a lot of the appeal it used to have to adventurous souls. Perhaps this is a good thing. Maybe the way to fight piracy isn't to go after the pirates themselves, but to make internet plundering seem so uncool that people can't stand to be associated with it.
     Those are my thoughts, anyway. Next week it's back to serious stuff. I've had an entire week off of school, so my brain is kind of lazy right now. Until next time.

Where Do You Belong in the Hundred Acre Wood?

For English, we're writing a "Division/Classification" essay. That's an essay where you break people, processes, or other things into different groups and label them. For my essay, I chose to write about personalities, and for the different categories, I chose characters from the Hundred Acre Wood. I had a lot of fun writing it, and I was pleased with the way it turned out, so I decided to share it with you. Enjoy.

Personalities from the Hundred Acre Wood

            People have always had their own ways of looking at things. It’s generally referred to as personality, and it’s the sort of thing that determines whether someone would rather play a game or a read a good book. There are all sorts of people in the world, and therefore all sorts of personalities. Generally, though, personalities can be classified under four distinct categories: Pooh Bears, Rabbits, Tiggers, and Christopher Robins.

            The first of these categories consists of Pooh Bears. Everyone loves Pooh, which is mostly because he loves everyone as well. Pooh is simple in everything. He likes to eat honey, and spends much of his time either eating it or looking for some to eat. Similarly, Pooh-people like to simplify everything. Sometimes they have difficulty understanding complicated ideas and the people who think of them. Although Pooh doesn’t always understand exactly what’s going on, he doesn’t really mind and continues to do the best he can. Pooh’s greatest quality is his kindness and concern for his friends. When Pooh is not eating or looking for honey, he likes to visit his friends and say hello. He never has anything but kind intentions, and is therefore loved by everyone in the Hundred Acre Wood. Although Pooh may not understand the plans that Rabbit continually devises, he is happy to perform whatever role is assigned to him. This makes him somewhat gullible and sometimes places him in undesirable and even dangerous circumstances. Despite this, he continues to have a positive outlook on everything and never holds a grudge afterwards. Although Pooh’s simple nature can sometimes get him into trouble, his continuous kindness ensures that there is always a helping hand to get him back to stable ground.

            The second category is the Rabbit personality. In his own way, Rabbit also cares for his friends and tries to look out for them, although his well-intentioned plans sometimes go astray or end up overlooking the welfare of people he doesn’t consider to be his friends. Rabbit is known for always having a plan. Although he is skilled at thinking of solutions, he usually needs the support of others to carry them out. He is the most intellectual of the four, relying on his wits to help him solve problems. Rabbit feels lost when he can’t think of what to do. Rabbit is a hard worker and likes to be organized, and becomes easily frustrated when someone disrupts or destroys his handiwork. Rabbit’s detail-oriented mind can sometimes lead him to over-examine problems and split hairs. Although his reasoning ability is top-notch, he has a hard time understanding other people’s feelings and perspectives. Even though Rabbit can sometimes become insensitive and frustrated, he is loyal to his friends and is usually the first one to pitch in and offer a solution.

            The third personality category is Tigger. Tigger is all about having fun. He’s always full of energy and likes to be around people he can have fun with. Tigger enjoys playful pranks, and is the most mischievous personality of the four. In addition to his playful nature, Tigger is also known for his endless optimism. He loves adventure because of the potential for thrills and fun. He leads a carefree life with little thought for the next step. Tigger’s no-worry philosophy severely hampers his foresight, which often leads to him being stuck in a problem he can’t seem to get out of. Fortunately, Tigger is a magnetic personality, so his friends are always there to help him out of his latest pickle. People are attracted to Tigger because of his positive view of every situation and his fun-loving nature. Ironically, those same qualities usually put him at odds with Rabbit, whose insistence on order and realistic assessment are aggravated by Tigger’s antics. Tigger isn’t interested in improving the situation. Instead, he irritates Rabbit even more by making him the recipient of his practical jokes. Although Tigger’s lifestyle is somewhat self-centered, his boundless energy and positive outlook make him an invaluable friend during life’s tough times.

            The fourth and final category belongs to none other than the Christopher Robins. Christophers are natural leaders, because they care deeply about their friends and have enough understanding to help them with their problems. They can connect with almost anyone because they possess a more or less balanced mix of all the other personalities. Christophers, like Tiggers, love adventure, but for a different reason. Christophers like to set out on expeditions to accomplish ambitious goals, like being the first person to discover the North Pole. Their goal-oriented nature and level-headed approach also allows them to identify with Rabbits. Their most special bond, however, is with Pooh Bears. Both personalities operate on a love for people, so these two latch on to each other immediately. In addition, Christophers always take their friends’ problems upon themselves, in order to understand and help them. This makes the Pooh personality even more special to Christophers, because of their innocence and light personal load.

            We can learn a lot from these four friends from the Hundred Acre Wood.   Each of them is very different from the others, but they manage to work together while always putting their friendships first.  It is difficult to understand someone whose personality is different from our own, simply because they don’t look at the world the same way we do.  But what we have to realize is that beyond the difficulties, there is great richness to be found when we can appreciate and enjoy the perspectives and talents of our differently oriented friends.  When we learn to focus on the synergy rather than the conflict, our own horizons are broadened and we discover much joy.

Deafening Silence

The "Day of Silence" happened October 19. People walked around wearing red tape over their mouths with the word "Life" on it. That takes a lot of courage, especially considering how easy it would be to make fun of someone with tape over their mouths, regardless of what was written on it. I'm sure there are a lot of pro-life people here on campus, this being the bible belt and all. There was, however, a sort of retaliation by a few people. One student walked around with a poster-board vest that listed all of the monsters throughout history who weren't aborted. This is where I get on my soapbox. I know I said that I wouldn't talk about politics much, but to me this isn't really a political issue. It falls into the category of right and wrong, which is my area of interest. First of all, the potential of the babies being aborted doesn't really factor into whether it's right or wrong. Sure, there's potential for great good and great evil, just like with the rest of the human race. I've heard supporters of both sides make that kind of argument, but it doesn't really touch on the moral side of the issue.
If abortion were nothing more than a women's rights thing, it wouldn't be controversial. My beef is that you're affecting someone else, not just yourself, so there's more to be considered than just what's convenient or what makes the mother happy. Really, the whole issue depends on whether or not the unborn can be considered human. If they're not, then it really doesn't matter what we do to them, but if they are, then abortion is murder, and there is absolutely no way to justify it. If you were to ask a pro-choicer, they would probably say that a fetus isn't human because it's attached to the mother, therefore making it her property. That's bogus. If merely being attached brings ownership rights, then what does that mean for siamese twins (twins joined together at birth)? Does one have ownership over the other? Of course not. I think what pro-choicers really mean when they say that is that the baby is totally dependent on the mother, and therefore doesn't meet the criteria for being human. Here's somthing to ponder: What about the baby as a newborn, or an infant, or a toddler? They are totally dependent on others for their survival. Should they have rights? Another argument against the unborn's humanity is that they lack the ability to think and act like other humans do; essentially, they're not as developed and capable as the rest of us. If that's the case, what does that mean for the mentally ill and those with birth defects or disabilities? Do they qualify for the right to live?
Abortion is nothing short of murder. I think that one day, people are going to wake up and realize the truth. Just like the other injustices over the past, such as slavery. Abortion can be likened to racism. You have a group of people denying the humanity of another group, for the purpose of convenience or because they actually believe it. I think that when people come around, they'll say "abortionist" a lot like people say "racist" today.
Okay, I'm through ranting, so I'll get on to regular life. I met with my new advisor yesterday, and it turns out I have to take 12 hours of Spanish to be a journalist. Short of Mexico taking over America, I can't see how this will help me deliver the news. Oh well. College Algebra is really the only class giving me trouble. I'll be glad when it's over and I won't have to take any more math classes. I might be writing a series of dental articles for the ReView soon. Yeah. My dentist, who happens to be a family friend, is going to give me his ideas today while he works on my teeth. I guess you could say he's going to "fill me in." I'll let you know how that goes. See ya.

My Musings

     Sorry about the wait between this and last post, but I hope the content makes it worth it. This originally started out as an essay for my English class, but I ended up deciding it was worth a blog post. This post is dedicated to Lauren Taggart, sort of my mental sparring partner for a week at USM. We talked about the things that inspired me to write this in the first place. Now, without further ado, I present A Comparison of Idealistic and Darwinian Societies.

    

            Either idealistic or Darwinian principles can be used to govern society, and both claim to benefit the human race if applied.  However, they differ widely when it comes to human interactions, moral beliefs, and core values.

            The defining principles of both societies are stark in contrast.  Darwin’s principle of evolution, “survival of the fittest”, is the foundation for a Darwinian society.  This principle comes from Darwin’s belief that nature improved itself by allowing animal species to better themselves by competing for supremacy. This belief came from his observations of weak species being preyed upon and eliminated by stronger ones in a continual struggle for survival and dominance. An idealistic society, however, is driven by a search for truth, and the idea that truth will improve humanity more than anything else. Comparing these two societies will give further insight into understanding them.

            Idealistic society promotes the idea that all humanity deserves to live and pursue happiness. This idea is supported by the Bible, demonstrated by the instruction of Jesus to care for the poor, widows, and orphans. Idealism believes in the concept of morality. Although some cultures disagree on specific points, it is generally acknowledged that some things are right and some things are wrong. The acts of betraying your country, stealing others’ property, and killing without cause are some of the many things that are almost universally agreed to be wrong.

            One example of a Darwinian society was Hitler’s Germany.  Hitler believed that genetics determined a human being’s worth.  As a result, he doomed what he believed to be inferior humans to extermination, bringing about the worst genocide in history.  His ultimate goal was to create a genetically superior race he called the Aryans.  This illustrates the Darwinian principle well.  Hitler eliminated what he deemed were “unfit” humans for the benefit of “the fittest.”

            If this principle were to be applied to an idealistic society, many of the same sorts of changes would occur.  First, laws prohibiting immoral behavior would be thrown out the window.  A Darwinian society does not believe in right and wrong.  In fact, it believes morality is counter-productive to the successful improvement of humanity.  The Constitution of the United States would be considered especially dangerous.  It is filled with ideals like, “all men are created equal,” which Darwinists consider false.  Secondly, because “the fittest” are the ones that are valued most in such a society, those not in this category would be considered “the unfit”.  Individuals with mental or physical illnesses, those highly likely to develop disease, and people who use resources without contributing to society, would be sterilized or exterminated.  This, according to Darwinian thinking, would streamline the gene pool, free our resources, and improve humanity’s chance for continued dominance.

            After examining both societies’ beliefs and effects on human interaction, it is time to look at what really drives these two models, and what they value the most.  Idealism revolves around morality.  There is the underlying idea that truth is more important than personal happiness.  Jesus summed up morality in a single sentence when He said, “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.”  All moral behaviors follow this rule.  In essence, idealism values others’ benefit the most.

            Darwinism is much different.  No one can deny that the Darwinian principle is effective at improvement, but the reason it is so effective is because it relies on humanity’s selfish nature to operate.  Darwin’s principle can only work if everyone involved is looking out for themselves.  Even cooperation is only a means for personal gain or survival.  The individuals within a business cooperate for the purpose of making a profit.  If a worker believes they are not being sufficiently benefited, they will leave the company.  In other words, Darwinism values self the most.  

            The differences between a Darwinistic and an Idealistic society are like night and day.  Idealism promotes mutually beneficial human interactions, strong moral beliefs, and the worth of the human soul. Darwinism brings self-serving interactions, nonexistent moral beliefs, and human survival.  The comparison of these two societal models gives the needed information to identify which model a society follows, Darwinian or Idealistic.  In the end, a society must ask itself whether it wants to merely survive or truly matter.

So that's my essay. Kinda long, I suppose, but I could have gone longer. It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Hope you enjoyed it, leave feedback if you wish.