Metapost: another quarter of blogging

This second quarter my blogging has improved upon the weaknesses of my first quarter's posts, while still leaving room for improvement in arguing for my points of view. Last quarter I criticized the slow development of my blogs to provide a clear thesis concerning my view on the subject matter. This quarter, from the outset, my first blog "Freedom's boundaries" makes my position clear on the management of civil liberties in wartime: "I do not believe anyone should be allowed to preach violence against fellow americans in the name of a supposedly 'greater cause', religious or not." This articulation of my thesis is present in each of my blogs this second quarter.

Improving on my first quarter's blogging, I have made sure to include source links more frequently in my posts. Posts which address current affairs, such as "Virtual Worlds", give reference to an article in order to factually support my arguments. Posts which address theoretical discussions e.g. "Adolescence, adulthood and the in between" do not. While such posts address theoretical questions, such as the definition of adulthood, the issues discussed still apply to modern day society and so reference to news articles could have still helped strengthened my argument in showing its relevance today, e.g. how the behavior of today's adolescence affects the way we ought to define adulthood.

Since the start of the quarter my blogs have progressed in the elaboration of my arguments. In one of my earlier blogs, "The enemy", I state my opinion without truly showing the thought process behind it, "While this was my initial reaction, my thoughts changed quickly. While wars are a clash of force between two countries to settle a conflict, how we conduct wars determines our moral status." I describe my thoughts, without the reasoning that led me to them. In my final post, "Right and Wrong", I provide the reasoning behind my opinion: "If others held opposing viewpoints, by which infidelity was perfectly acceptable, there would be no apparent logical process by which I could prove them wrong. The issue would come down to a clash of viewpoints..." In this post I show the reasoning behind my viewpoint that an absolute standard for morals is undefinable. The argument is developed in greater depth further on in the post.

Although my development of argument has progressed, this coming semester I should take greater care to address the opposing side of the argument, something I have for the most part failed to do, and which can only lend stronger credibility to my own argument.

My best post: "Right and wrong"

Right and wrong

This week in class we examined Kohlberg's stages of development in a human being, which examine human motivations to follow rules and laws at different stages of life. The motivations begin with fear of punishment, progressing to individual gain, then to good relationships with others, later to maintaining social order, then to viewing laws as a social contract enabling individual rights, and finally to the recognition of universal principles. Indeed not all individuals necessarily reach the final stage or stages, but Kohlberg maps out the moral development most people undergo from infancy to old age. The varied motivations to act justly, progressing from individual, to societal to universally moral perspectives raised an issue in my mind: the ability or inability to justify any set of morals.

How do we define right from wrong? Most of us are raised with a cultural viewpoint on the definition of moral behavior, but is it possible to justify our morals beyond mere individual or cultural perspective? For instance, if two people debate the moral status of adultery, how can the correct view point be determined? I myself am undoubtedly against it, but if asked to justify my view, I struggle to think what I could say beyond the obvious statement (to me) that cheating on a marital partner is wrong. If others held opposing viewpoints, by which infidelity was perfectly acceptable, there would be no apparent logical process by which I could prove them wrong. The issue would come down to a clash of viewpoints, both of which were likely determined in our cultural upbringing, in my case a western one which supports the concept of fidelity. Other cultures around the world see no problem with polygamy though.

If morals are all defined by perspective, how can standards for moral behavior be set and imposed on others? An article in the BBC caught my attention not long ago concerning the issue of stoning in Iran, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10956520. The article described the case of a woman sentenced to death by stoning (though the sentence may have been changed to hanging) for adultery. This provoked understandable outrage amongst human rights groups. The issue that arose in my mind, though, was that if Iranian culture sees the stoning of unfaithful women as morally acceptable, what higher authority if any can such human rights groups appeal to in order to prove the moral error of this Iranian practice (which I certainly consider outrageous, in case I am misunderstood)? Many may turn to God and religion as the source for their morals, but for those who lack such beliefs, a vacuum is left in which an absolute standard for morals is seemingly undefinable and arguably unjustified. One can no more argue for the morality of human equality than for the immorality of a monarchy beyond their own personal conviction that one is right and the other is wrong (which is my moral conviction nonetheless). Whilst one might believe in equal rights for all, the other might believe in the divine right of kings to rule, which was the common belief in mediaeval Europe and still is in some countries.

In the absence of a certain method by which to define human morals, it would appear all we can do is define our own country's morals as the majority sees fit. As soon as we start trying to impose our own definitions of right and wrong elsewhere, we have entered into murky waters in which no issue or debate can be resolved with certainty.

Adulthood, adolescence, and the in between

This week we examined the theme of transition from childhood to adulthood, seeking to find a definition for the transition. Is it an arbitrary age dictated by the law i.e. 18? Is it a state of mind? Or is it financial security? In examining each of these propositions none of them seemed the right one to me. The age of 18 has nothing special about it, at least not in my eyes. Most are far from emotional maturity. Two years have passed since education was mandatory, and 16 is certainly too early an age to be considered adulthood. One does receive most of their rights at eighteen, however the validity of this legally chosen age must be questioned, as the issue in my mind is what ought to constitute adulthood, not what is legally considered adulthood.

Many may consider adulthood to be the reaching of some mindset or maturity level. However, the problem with this is that one then has the trouble of defining the required mindset. Is it intellectual? Is it ambitious or spiritual? It seems impossible to me to define the adult mindset when all adults have different mindsets and often different opinions on what constitutes maturity. One might define adulthood as the mindset of considering oneself an adult, however this suggests that one can never be mistaken in considering themselves an adult too early. I think adolescents often consider themselves fully grownup before they actually are. They often, for example, consume drugs without readiness or desire to fully consider the implications of their decision. They make rash decisions in an attempt to establish their independence, while being unwilling to accept the consequences.

In my view, accepting full consequences for one's actions defines adulthood. Those still supported by their parents financially cannot be considered as adults, as their college fees are paid for by their parents shielding them from the financial consequences of unpaid college tuition. To attain adulthood, one must take full legal and moral responsibility for all their actions, without protection from such consequences by the law or their parents. Legal adulthood is therefore only the first step in adulthood, representing full legal accountability for their actions. The next stage is cessation of any form of reliance on their parents to help them deal with consequences. A true adult is responsible in all ways for himself and the state of his life. Only when one receives the full blow of his or her decisions can he or she be considered an adult.

Virtual worlds

This vacation I saw the movie Tron: Legacy, a sequel to the original movie depicting the story of a computer scientist who accomplishes his dream of inserting himself physically into the world of the computer and creating a virtual world inside it. He considers this virtual world perfection, and the future of the human race, until the programs start creating themselves and turning against him. While the movie is fun science fiction, it sends a message about the increasing time today's generation spends immersed in the world of computers and the internet.

Today it seems adolescents spend almost as much time online as they do communicating verbally with each other. The online world is a key a component in the lives of users of facebook, twitter, myspace, and other social networking sites. Such sights are perhaps almost as important to them as interactions in the real world. http://mashable.com/2010/08/02/stats-time-spent-online/ Social networking has gradually increased its time slot in users' days, until it now dominates almost all other forms of communication. Perhaps future generations will slowly replace personal interactions with online activity.

Gradually we may find ourselves living in a virtual world if we let our fascination with the internet and its countless vaults of information dominate our time. And perhaps, as in Tron: Legacy, we will find ourselves living in a world seemingly desirable to begin with, but ultimately unpleasant.

Presenting and listening

This past week we have been presenting in groups before the class lectures about wars the united states has waged, and the restrictions of civil liberties exercised by the government during those wars. Through watching these presentations, I learned several things about the nature of a good presentation versus a poor one, and the kinds of presentations which elicit positive reactions from the audience.

The biggest key to success in presenting, it seems to me, is keeping the audience's attention. This appears obvious, but is easier said than done. Long descriptions of wars and treaties delivered without break to an audience will lose their attention quickly. It seems to me as if the surest way to keep an audience's attention is to open up lecture's to discussion with them. If the audience is involved, they cannot lose focus, or likely won't at least, as they have the opportunity to voice their own opinions, and most of us enjoy being heard alone with other people's undivided attention.

In addition to audience involvement, creativity is important in an attention keeping presentation. Diverging from the normal ways of delivering information, i.e. handouts and speaking, and including items such as skits allows the audience to learn information on the time period while simultaneously being amused by the antics and actions of the presenters. If one is amused, one is also more likely to retain the information being given. It seems as though teachers would benefit from occasionally switching up the regular class format if they do not do so already.

The enemy

This past week in american studies we have examined the issue of civil liberties and their appropriate restrictions by a nation's government in times of war. This got me thinking as to the required treatment of the opposing side, as opposed to one's own, during a war. Are their manners of conduct and rights that ought to be given to the enemy? Should war follow rules?

The Geneva conventions, signed in Switzerland, were official agreements among several participating countries as to the humane conduct of warfare http://www.reference.com/browse/Geneva+Conventions. Terms included the forbidding of the targeting of enemy medical facilities, and the humane treatment of prisoners of war. My initial reaction to this idea was puzzlement. In a time of conflict where two nations seek to destroy and overpower the over, how it is possible to adhere to a set of rules? Isn't the objective of war victory at all costs?

While this was my initial reaction, my thoughts changed quickly. While wars are a clash of force between two countries to settle a conflict, how we conduct wars determines our moral status. In fighting the war against terrorism today, if it may be called so, the USA places limits on the allowed practices for interrogating captives of the other side. We do not permit torture, as used to be common practice several hundred years ago, despite the enemy's intent to destroy us by any means possible. In war, while treatment of our own side must clearly be managed appropriately, so must treatment of the other side.

Freedom's boundaries

Concepts such as the right to free speech and equal treatment for all are relatively modern ideas which have no doubt taken great importance in the minds of american citizens and other western first world nations. However, the necessary limits to such rights are less often questioned, and attempts to restrict them are often met with high opposition as people fear the loss of their freedom. Sometimes, though, I believe liberties such as freedom of speech must be restricted in dangerous time periods for the safety of a nation's people.

Today the west has come under threat from terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, which attempt to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on free countries via terror tactics. The danger of the terrorist threat is so great as it comes not only from external nations but from within. Bombs sent by Al Qaeda recently came close to entering several Chicago synagogues, and so american citizens must be wary of the terrorist danger in their own land. In such times, I cannot support the permitting of freedom of speech if it encourages hateful and violent behavior against others in the name of a faction's cause. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to preach violence against fellow americans in the name of a supposedly "greater cause", religious or not. As it is, the dangers to national and individual security are great enough already.