Your personal Tumblr journey starts here
Morals - Blog Posts
forgot to pack my moral compass with my luggage again! oops!
“The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed—he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy, a good copy at best—the measure of his value lies outside him. I assess a man by the quantum of power and abundance of his will: not by its enfeeblement and extinction; I regard a philosophy which teaches denial of the will as a teaching of defamation and slander— I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
mrsatticusfinch:
OMG. I NEED THESE.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_9Ay-vi4PyFrkraVKL0yLBFaGGllgoU3
Sexual inclination talks total playlist for those looking to become "groomed" & "brainwashed"
This is unethical you shouldnt teach the children forbidden techniques. theyre forbidden
im starting a foundation to introduce underprivileged children to forbidden techniques
Well, bravo. I'm a huge fan of capitalism myself. It's great to see well thought out arguments like yours.
There's only one major issue that I've identified: This isn't about capitalism--it's about libertarianism. I'm not sure if you've read Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia but that's the thing for you.
Robert Nozick talked a lot about the minimal state, a concept that celebrates economic and moral freedom of the individuals and gives only limited role to the state: creating a legal system that protects people's property and guarantees the validity of contracts. This is very similar to your reasoning but it's libertarian philosophy and not directly the theory of capitalism.
Capitalism and libertarianism seem infinitely intertwined. Even so, if you look up the definition of capitalism and study the main ideas of libertarianism, you will find yourself wondering if the two are separate at all. They actually are. The U.S. didn't cease to have a capitalist system under Obama's presidency, though he's definitely not a libertarian.
In today's world, after Keynes and his successors, we have a mixed economic system, that's not laissez faire but it's also clearly not communist economy. The state does this and the state says that, courts rule this and that way and many complain why we don't have the original capitalist freedom. So why is this? Is this something good?
I could bring economic arguments but I'm sure I'd be making mistakes but more importantly the reason for having the current system can be found in political considerations:
#1: The market might always find balance eventually but, in the meantime, individual lives, which' survival are dependent on economic safety, can be hurt. So the economy of the country may find balance after a year or two of necessary fluctuation but in those years a family may go bankrupt, people can become desperate and not all of them are good-enough economists to be able to avoid undergoing serious losses. You said that these are inevitable casualties but politicians found it otherwise. More on this later.
#2: In a competition the strong/smart prevails and the weak/feeble-minded stays behind. You understood this as the order of nature. But nature isn't fair. We can say it's random and random doesn't equal fair but receiving in proper proportion in accordance with one's desert is. Being born strong or weak clearly has no relation to our desert.
According to Weber, capitalism was an unavoidable consequence of the emergence of Protestantism: People experienced a new freedom and the sensation of equality and autonomy spread very fast. And of course capitalism was a much better system than feudalism that preceded it in Europe. But it seems today that capitalism is and has been evolving.
You found morality in rewarding the productive and by the promise of these rewards motivating new members of society to become productive. It is, in fact, very moral, however, this can mean in a way rewarding the capable and ignoring the incapable and that is immoral. Why? Because no one made themselves capable. You might think hard work is your own merit, though if you can work hard it means that you have sufficient concentration and the sufficient abilities. These depend on genes and other external variables, so they do not originate from your own doing, ergo it isn't moral to reward you for something that you just happened to have.
I have introduced some political and moral arguments against laissez faire libertarianism but what are ideas for corrections--you may ask--nobody asks this, of course, but it's good to think that I'm not writing to myself...
One of the most famous political philosophers of the 20th century, John Rawls, recognized how libertarianism is unfair and so he said that a system should be formulated from behind the veil of ignorance: We decide without knowing what will be the most profitable environment for us, only considering what will surely be beneficial for everyone, since we can be successful salespersons or Hispanic cleaning ladies. Of course the veil of ignorance is an abstract thing, not something real, but it is a fair concept. Or is it?
Even Rawls came to realize that even though capabilities are contingent, the able should not be withheld their reward because they used well what was given to them. So he created the difference principle: Inequalities may exist as long as they are profitable to the whole community.
Politicians seem to have adopted Rawls' ideas, though in a very weakened way (for which I am grateful by the way). What we see today is capitalism but fixed with the tools of fairness. Politicians understood and admitted that capitalism is a clever system, working very well most of the time, but they also said that people should be protected and aided because not everyone can stand their ground in an economic competition. They decided to help the weak because politicians can't settle with inevitable casualties of any standing economic system but they ought to bring welfare to the whole community. In the other hand, politicians can never ignore what is owed to the productive and able.
At the end of the day, though, I still root for capitalism because so far it's been working nicely. What must be observed in this question is that this system has been based on morals and values, not on figures and balances. We should be critical and be critical with the eyes of the idealist and not the pragmatist.
Is capitalism working?
I believe that people should be left alone and allowed to succeed or fail. People need liberty and a system that guards their liberty.
I love capitalism. Capitalism is good but it has a bad name. It’s not primarily about capital and investing. It is about property. As the legal thinker William Blackstone wrote:
There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. [Note: By “despotic,” Blackstone means “absolute.”]
Read More
Dorian
First, it’s amazing to me that I still don’t remember the TRUE title of this book. I always refer to it just as Dorian, then remember it’s Dorian Gray--completely forgetting it’s actually “The Picture of Dorian Gray”
I love this book so, so much. Forget the ridiculousness of homophobia in general and in the book, for Oscar Wilde to have written this book, have the visual degree he had, the understanding he had--it baffles and bothers me that people really considered anything else except for the pure genius that he was with this story and concerned themselves with other things.
First, for the story, the use of the painting and Dorian as a split between him and his soul is amazing. While he begins his journey with a great lack of understanding, it brings about the idea that without consequences many will go astray--while also pointing out that those who choose to put their value in images or status instead of nature and character are going to be missing the truth about people--warned by Sybil, the painting and Bail’s disbelief of the rumours
Secondly, Dorian’s journey over the 18 years that were inspired by Basil’s painting and Lord Henry’s small chat, along with Dorian’s lack of follow thru to stay with Sybil both before and after her death--what concerns me with this is the reflection that that at that point his fate is sealed. While later true, Dorian and the other characters take the easy way out and similarly to my first point go towards the path of least resistance--in more ways than one, regardless of the logic or lack of behind it.
Finally, and for me, the most awe-striking genius that I continue to be stunned by is the ending where Dorian meets his demise. While I know that our creativity comes from an inspiration within, the ending especially (along with the idea of the painting in general) was so ahead of its time. I am again in awe
Cedric Diggoy
Cedric Diggory was an important character as he embodied all we missed out on, not knowing more Hufflepuff characters closely. Dumbledore’s speech about how he was a fierce friend, chose to do what’s right over what was easy, and was shown to constantly be his biggest opponent, not hating those who bested him but only trying to better himself.
It is these Hufflepuff traits that are one of the two main reasons this character has had such a profound impact. Being the complete opposite of boastful, even before Harry told him about the Dragons he tried to stop people hating on Harry, knowing there was enough Hogwarts pride to go around. This extends to the previous year when he catches the golden snitch just moments after the Dementors come onto the Quidditch field and paralyze Harry. He feels this wasn’t a fair win and as Captain, protests against their win to no prevail. A sentiment he carries even during the Quidditch World Cup when his father brags about how ‘’he beat thee Harry Potter!”
One could go on forever about Cedric, it really is no wonder why Cho loved him, (even thou I got the impression that if given both options she would’ve chosen Harry) but what equally sticks out is Cedric’s impact and representation of the innocent victims of war. While the film overall was horrendously shackled together, the scene in the film and book bring me to tears long before his death and their return to Hogwarts. He was just a good person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The reaction of his classmates and especially his father and the circumstances were meant to highlight how truly ugly and unnecessary war is. There was no reason for his death, and like most wars even the young men and children who survive physically lose their minds to it. Finally, on a small level, Harry’s guilt and other’s reactions for his survival and Cedric’s death reminds me of the understanding how death happens to those left behind; as while Cedric comes back as a ghost momentarily he thinks only of his parents and unknowingly remains as a force in Harry to stop Voldemort.
Draco Malfoy and Sirius Black
First, I know she has come to the understanding that people are more crushing on Tom Felton than Draco Malfoy, but I cannot understand why JK Rowling is so unnerved by it. Yes, Draco Malfoy is a shitty person, but it’s so typical that it really is quite a gift. Be glad we’re wasting our ‘fall for the bad guy’ on a literary character over an actual guy who smokes cigarettes in 2018.
There are a few core things we could learn about from Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter. Two of the main ones being how people change, and that the world isn’t black and white. But the biggest understanding I think can be gained is comparing his life and struggles with Sirius Black. Whether Sirius was sorted into Gryffindor first and then got a deeper understanding of how his beliefs and morals were different from the majority of his family or if he knew he had these beliefs before starting school, Sirius’ showed us the result fighting for what is right and against your family when your family doesn’t have the same moral standing you do. In comparison to when Percy either let himself be blinded or was just obsessed with power, his family continued to try and connect with him and love him, while Sirius’ family disowned him.
Both Draco and Sirius at points were bullies, but there is a huge difference between being a bully and being evil. When it came down to it, neither was evil, and at times I’m sure both were scared in trying to do what was right under extreme pressure and thru their stories we got to see both sides. While Sirius’ story focused on the results of his fight he was abandoned, depressed and obsessed with fighting against the Voldemort and the beliefs of those who abandoned him. During the struggle we see Draco, who once demanded and forced to do the wrong thing, couldn’t handle it as it wasn’t him. As Dumbledore remarked he cowardly tried to kill Dumbledore and even when push came to shove and his life depended on it, still couldn’t. He was frozen and like Sirius he overtime became depressed and alienated himself from all around him. It’s tricky, but I don’t know if Draco would ever had been able to choose either side by himself, he seemed unable to go against his family and what was a burden on him to protect them; only ending up morally okay when his mother realized how the battle would end.
Thru their parallel struggles we see what happens when you are able to go against your family and when you cannot. While Draco was able to live a fuller life and Sirius had a truly supportive family in his friends, both suffered and arguments for both can be made for against when we remember these characters were children at the time of this crossroad. It’s hard, it’s heartbreaking, and there are so many people in the world who while they should be themselves and are accepted by others, we need to be reminded that since your family is supposed to love you unconditionally—you can turn yourself into a Horcrux with the pain and fear of what may happen if they don’t and be more open-minded with those struggles.