Of Philosophy, Theology and Serious Musings

[Alcyone]

Seeing as Conversations began turning serious and it's supposed to be light-hearted, here's a thread for serious topics.

As this is for serious discussion, we need a few ground rules.

1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is to attack another's beliefs. Keep your eye on the ball not the player. This does not mean that you can express your opinion by going "I'm right and you're wrong so just deal!" Be very careful in the phrasing of your thoughts. A single word can drastically change the meaning or tone so bear that in mind.

2. You are welcome to post about any topic as it's an off-topic board but if there is one currently going, wait until it dies down before introducing another. Likewise, just because we've covered a topic before doesn't mean we can't go back to it.

3. Once again, this is for serious discussion. Some comments may be humorous but the thread isn't for jokes. Try Conversations instead. This isn't the place for random chatter.

I may add more later if there is need but those are basic to get us through.

Our first topic comes from LiquidTopaz and Lon Dubh

Here is something to think about: if we did not exist, then there would be none of the problems that plauge the world right now....

But, if we did not exist, then there would be nothing to know the world in itself, or even what plagued it. Or, would we exist if the world did not exist?

Respond to the topic below. BE RESPECTFUL and have fun!

[LiquidTopaz]

If we did not exist, there would be no suffering and pain and hurt. But you are correct in saying what would exist if we didn't.

In Christianity, it is said that God made the world. He created animals and man. In in the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis, it is told how man fell into sin. Do we blame Eve for not resisting temptation? For our sinful natures? Man is selfish. We live for ourselves, to survive. If you do not believe in an afterlife, in redemption, to follow moral principals of a certain faith, what is the use of moral behavior? Would you live a life of helping your fellow man and abiding the laws? For what reason would you do this if there is no reward for good deeds? Would it not be easier to do what you wanted all the time and know there is no punishment for your crimes? Would your conscience not plague you?

How do we make this world a better place? People need to change their mindsets, but how? Not everyone is willing to change their ways....

[Lon-Dubh]

I don't know if I blame Eve for taking the apple and submitting to temptation. Obviously, it was wrong, and everything's pretty much gone downhill from there. But if she hadn't given in to temptation, I believe someone else would have. It was only a matter of time.

Human's very nature is self-centered, dishonest, and opportunistic, with a few exceptions. Would we live a life of purity, striving to better ourselves and our surroundings if there was no promise of an afterlife? It's an interesting question. But perhaps the question is the answer. I think those who would be moral, disregarding any promises of eternal life are those who truly deserve it, those who will recieve any reward there is. It seems like it is a mixture of consciousness, but also Faith. You have the Faith to believe your action will have consequences.

Changing the world and people's mindsets is one of those things that you wish to do, want to accomplish. But it is, sadly, one of those things you have to admitt is near enough impossible. We don't like to admit something is beyond our reach and control, it seems like submission, but little as we wish, I think there is truth in that statement. Evil will always exist. In each person there is both darkness and light. The thing that matters is which side of their nature the individual allows to control them.

Shadows of the human nature will always slip into the light. Even if a person tries to live the best life they can, they'll always slip up, at least once or twice. What it comes down to is the individual's choices, their desire.

Which brings up another question. Are people who are "evil" contain something inside of them, or some kind of genetic prompting to be that way? Or is it alll dependent on what influenced them? Would Hitler not have been evil if he had grown up in a different family? Would Bin Laden not be so bloodthirsty had his childhood been different?

Nature vs. Nurture?

[LiquidTopaz]

No one in this world is perfect. We, humans, all make mistakes. We sin. Christians believe that only Jesus lead a pure life. He committed no wrongdoings, no sins. It is part of the human nature to sin. Conscience, unconsciously, intentional, unintentional, we all sin. We do, as you say have a choice, but we will still sin, regardless.

On the note of faith: Religious people live by their religions. Whether they are Jewish, Buddhist, Islam or Christian etc., they follow very moral principles. They commit themselves to it and do much good in the world. Would it not help if all people in the world believed in something? Then again, how do any of us know which religion is the true one? Is their even such a thing? And what about science and evidence and evolution?

Nature vs. Nurture ?

I personally think it is some of both. We are shaped by our environment, upbringing, beliefs etc. If we are constantly surrounded by negativity, our outlook on the world will be negative. Everything we experience influences us in some way.
We are born with certain...traits, abilities and personalities, to an extent. Some people are natural extroverts. Some are natural introverts. Our genes determine us.

Maybe Hitler and Bin Laden would have been different if they experienced a different upbringing. Maybe not. They still had a choice....

[Lon-Dubh]

Maybe that is part of the problem of the world, though. Like LiquidTopaz, I believe that human is both Nature vs. Nuture. Though everyone is imperfect and has the capability for evil, not so many take it, perhaps becuase of their upbringing and enviornment. Becuase of this, it is the generation beforehand that determines the fate of the generation following. And endless circle.

As previously stated, I agree with the fact that all humans imperfect, have flaws, and make mistakes. Maybe that's what makes us human. So here's a new question: If we didn't make mistales and have faults, would we be human? Or would we be something else entirely?

[LiquidTopaz]

I think the statement "To err is human" applies here.


I am sure we would still be human. We were human when we were perfect before Eve took that first bite from the apple .... What would the perfect human be like? Smart, sense of humor, good looking? Every person will no doubt have their own opinions and views. We all have our own vision of a perfect human being.

The other day, I was wondering about the death penalty. It is quite a debated subject in South Africa. Is it really a solution to violet and evil criminals? Do we even have the right to take another humans life? What is the alternative to the death penalty? Isolation for life? What type of life would that be?

(P.S Sorry I that take a while to answer. I have been drowning in homework these past couple of days, plus it's exams for us this term!)

[Lon-Dubh]

The death penalty is also a highly debated subject in the United States as well. Some states have the death penalty, while others don't. The state of Texas puts to death nearly twice as many criminals as the other states combined. In the meanwhile, the United States is one of the only countries in the United Nations that sanctions the death penalty.

So is it right?

Its a very interesting, and very controversial question. It was also the topic of a Lincoln-Douglas debate the other day (Lincoln-Douglas is a form of debate centralized around philosophy and morality rather than statistsics). What the interesting thing was as a LD debater, I had to research and write both sides of the case.

On the Affirmative side (promoting the death penalty) there were a lot more numbers and statistics. The United States pays millions of dollars every year for upkeep, healthcare, and safety for felons convicted of multiple murders; people who will be in jail for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole. So why should tax payers and contributing members of society have to pay for people who are murderers? The average homocide convict recieves better, and free, health care than many Amercians who barely have so much as a parking ticket. How is that right? Also, it is an arguable case that the potential of a death penalty deters crime and homocides, becuase it is a possible outcome of a crime.

On the Negating side, however, you get more into morals and such. Who are we to sentence another to death? The question often infringes upon religious beliefs as well. You also get into the question of what if the person is found innocent, after it's too late? The scenario isn't unheard of. What if an innocent person was convicted of death, whereas if they had been imprisoned, they could be released?

Also, there are several statistics that show a large sum of money is spent to try and execute the criminals. Not to mention you get into the issue of what is considered a humane way to kill people?

There are merits on both sides of the argument, certainly. It is extremely unfair to the public to leave murderers not only alive, but cared for for the rest of their lives. But then again, you have to consider religion.

I'm not sure about the answer to the question, myself. I think certainly that the jailing system in Amercia should change, not allow homocidal people to live off their taxes.

But then you have the question of "Would you, with a clear consience, commit someone to death?"

[Miranda Marlowe]

I think that convicts usually sentenced to death should have a choice. Kind of like euthanasia, if that makes sense. If they do not want to be in a jail cell forever then why should they have to? If they didn't want to die, then why should they have to? I know that would bring up the issue of letting evil people get what they want, but it would be better for the community and morals, and would probably reduce the amount of jail-cell suicides.

Is that a good point??? (I'm not a debater, and am incredibly politically-incorrect... but not in a bad way! I just hate the phrase "humankind")

[Absolution]

I think that point the of being in jail is that you get your rights taken away. So I disagree about giving convicts a choice between the death penalty and life sentence. But in Canada, we don't have the death penalty. From my perspective that would be like teaching someone a lesson for killing someone by killing them. It doesn't really make sense, and its just as immoral to be slaughtering convicts.

But I'm pretty sure that if you get a life sentence, you don't actually stay in jail for life... Maybe twenty or thirty years? At least where I live, anyway.

[Lon-Dubh]

First degree manslaughter, in America, is punishable by life in jail. For America, that really does mean life.

On one hand, Absolution has a point. How is a killing for a killing a justifiable cause? But then again, you have to consider the statistics behind it. It's estimated that twenty billion dollars is spent in the healthcare and upkeep of convicts in America, anually. This money comes directly from the People's tax money. So instead of contributing to the cause of childrens' education and medical research, money is being spent on convicted killers. They take a toll on society, even when out of society. More than a little ironic.

I once read a case about a man, convicted of five manslaughters in the first degree, all of college women. This convict was sent to prison for life. A few years later, he needed a new liver. His name was put on the top priority list, above applicants that had already been waiting for donors. He ended up recieving the transplant, just so he could spend the rest of his life in jail, above a thirty-nine year old woman that happened to be one of the relatives the convict had killed. That woman died. That's more than a lot ironic. And a lot more than a little horrible.

I believe that if the death penalty is not to be enforced, than there should be a change in the system of the jails. It's ludicrous to the extreme that people who are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail recieve life-saving trandsplants before citizens that never even got a ticket for running a traffic light.

[LiquidTopaz]

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. " Luke 6:37

We do not have the right to take another's life. Lon-Dubh, you have a valid point about the state of the jails and the financial problems. I propose prisoners should be worked to earn themselves food and privileges in the jails. They could contribute to society this way.

What are the statistics surrounding rehabilitated criminals? Attention should be given to rehabilitating prisoners. They will then be part of society again and be a meaningful contribution.

I think the question should be asked as to why there are so many criminals. Is it because of a lack of moral principles? In my opinion, yes. Children should be taught from an early age that the world does not center around them. They should be taught manners, to respect others and the difference between right and wrong. This is clearly not being done.

[Lon-Dubh]

I agree with LiquidTopaz in that something needs to be done about morality at an early age. What we learn and grow up with when we are young stays with us, and consiously or not, governs our actions through the rest of our life. Children who have bad parents never learn to the extent that they should that some things are wrong or bad, and never fully develope on a moral level. I think it's an awful, but true statement, to say that we are ruining our futute by not dealing with our present.

Statistics have shown that children who are abused are more than three times more likely to abuse their own children, or resort to violence in a situation. I myself have known someone who's parents were abusing them, though it's obviously against the law, it's becoming a major problem in America.

What happens to a person at a young age almost predetermines the rest of their life. Some children can choose a different path, and mature on their own, but those situations are rare.

You have to wonder how the mind of a child-abuser works. How can they stand to know that they are killing their own children, either mentally or physically? Can their thought processes really be so different than our own?

[Miranda Marlowe]

The child-morality thing is a pretty bad problem in Scotland too. I don't know if it's recognised by statistics or whatever, but I, a Scottish teenager, notice it greatly. So do a lot of the people I know. However, I have seen people with good parents who are hard-working, good people, end up like this too. It happens under the influences of their friends, too. These people often become young parents, and so the cycle begins again. They made my life a misery, almost to the point of suicide, so I cannot really judge, since it would be extremely biased. Also, I cannot really say much about the death penalty, since it was abolished in Britain a long time ago. But I know a lot about morality from a personal view.

[LiquidTopaz]

I too am friends with someone who is abused. Her mother doesn't want her and uses the welfare money she obtains to buy alcohol. My friend now sees a psychologist and lives with her aunt, but she often speaks about how depressed she is, suicide even.

It seems the youth of today have no respect for anything. There is a lack of positive role models for people. Monkey see, monkey do. I believe everything starts with manners, whether just saying "please" or "thank you". Respect is key.

South Africa has some of the highest crime rates in the world. Almost every house has walls and gates and alarm systems. People will kill you for a cell phone. Why? There are no moral principles.

Children are not taught correctly by their parents and then, in turn, they don't teach their children. This is a vicious cycle. We need to break this cycle, but how? How do we enforce morals upon people that have already learned otherwise?

Miranda Marlowe, I can empathize with you. I try to do the right things and for that I am viewed as different, to be avoided, to be picked on. It's not easy. Why is good seen as bad by most today? Everything has been warped.

[Lon-Dubh]

One of my father's favorite sayings is "Nothing influences you more than the friends you keep and the literature you read." In a way, it's true. Not all kids who turn out to be messed up had bad parents. I know a few peers whose parents are some of the kindest people I've ever met. But they hang with the wrong crowd.

Literature, too, is a larger influence than I believe some people realize. If children grow up intaking seriously violent, or sexual, or just twisted writing, I think it will affect them.

It's funny how drastically times seemed to have changed, even within the last thirty years or so. Fifty years ago, in America at least, no one would have thought twice about not locking their door at night (except in cities like New York and Las Vegas.) Stalkers, drugs, child abuse, and so many other things just weren't such a problem. When my father was young, he could tell his mother that he was going out to play with some friends. Her response would be, "be home by dinner". But today, if I simply walked in and told my parents that I was going out, they'd immediately ask where I was going, who I was going with, when I would be back, and whether I'd have parent supervision or not.

What caused such a major change, in so short a time? And what can we do to change back?