UTT - Blog Post 9

Due Monday, November 28th at midnight.  How would you respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone?

        Aw, this is an easy one, but can really lead to a lot of arguments if you’re not careful. But really, let’s break it down: What does the statement, “There are no moral absolutes that apply to everyone,” have in common with the statement, “There are moral absolutes that apply to everyone?”  All that’s missing is a negative, but the statement remains the same—they’re both still moral absolute statements, declaring something to be true or untrue. So, really, saying that there are no moral standards that apply to everyone contradicts itself and a self-contradicting statement, by the rules of logic, can’t be treated as valid because there isn’t any truth in it.

        Then there’s the legal aspect of it: why do we have courts and laws and such if there weren’t moral rules that we need to keep them to? There are things every culture agrees is wrong, be it murder or child torture or any number of grotesque things. Ours is no different, and we enforce it with the legal system we have set in place, to make us a better society by following some absolute moral rules. The basic existence of the words “right” and “wrong” mean that there are rules—to do something “good” means there is a counter, or a “bad” that can be done by reversing the “good” option. So we have moral rules just in basic societal theory and in our vocabulary.

        But hey, if you have any other questions, feel free to hand me one of them. I like these kind. xD

UTT - Blog Post 8

What’s wrong with Karma?

        Well, that’s an interesting question, but let’s take it as the video presents it, since we need a working definition of Karma first. According to the Youtube clip, the word Karma means “Action,” and it says that “Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind.” So, basically, we reap what we sow. Action to reaction, that kind of thing.

        So, first of all, let’s look at logical problems with Karma. If every action has a consequence, like the video says, then why do we do bad things in the first place? Do we not learn over time that there is no point to doing “evil” things because it will hurt us down the road? I would think so. After all, we learn from history all the time. Of course, then there’s the logical conclusion of Karma—that if we do something bad, it leads to a bad thing happening to us. But, the video says that bad things happening to us will result in good karma down the road. So, logically, doing bad things would mean we would get good karma later on. A + B = C, right? I don’t think that’s a good idea to be showing around, and it kinda goes against the idea of karma in the first place.

        Then, there’s the future aspects of Karma—what we do about it and what we can expect from it. Really, we can’t expect anything. It leaves a ton to be desired in the “answers” department because we can’t actually know anything about Karma or its results in the first place. No idea how that goes, since we all really want answers about our pressing questions. Also, since we don’t’ know how Karma really works, then we won’t want to do anything about it because it would “Mess things up.” So, therefore, we wouldn’t be allowed to interfere and change a person’s Karma, so all charity, goodwill, and contributions to others, even while charitably kind on the surface, actually will hurt the recipient’s Karma down the road and thus be unwelcome. Ergo, no good deed would go unpunished, as the old saying goes.

        Really, I don’t want to go any farther than this—I don’t believe I need to. I mean, if Karma is already this socially destructive, what’s so good about it? I’m not really sure, honestly. Sorry Nate, but you better get a different view.