thinktoomuch.net

Today we consider a more realistic moral quandary, one that we actually run into quite often in various forms. We’ll discuss but one instance of it right now: Dubai. While this blog post may be short, the article I’m suggesting you read is rather long:

The dark side of Dubai — Johann Hari, published in The Independent on 7 April 2009.

The scenario might as well be sketched hypothetically:

• Consider a society and an economy that is built on the backs of what effectively seems to be slave labour. If an economy is built on something morally reprehensible, to what degree are we culpable, should we choose to have a vacation there? Or just go shopping for a day? Or even just fly the airline? Is contributing money to a morally reprehensible economy an act of aiding and abetting?
• To what extent does knowledge or lack of knowledge of the underlying reprehensible acts influence the ethics of our actions? (To what extent is ignorance a valid defence?)

In the case of Dubai and its airline: I have never even flown Emirates. It seems they are often the cheapest option for Europe-Africa flights and I know many people that fly Emirates. The reason I chose against that airline in the past was probably because the flight time is longer, though I got to feel good about my choice by only making it after checking CheapTickets.ch which claims BA, KLM and SAA are all more ecologically friendly (probably also because those flights are shorter).

BTW, Dubai is also in serious economic trouble. If you would like to visit and are thus looking for some noble reason to rationalise going, that might be of use.

I nearly withdrew the previous post. Actually, I did, for a couple of minutes, then changed my mind while I was writing this one. Why? Because it was supposed to be part of a two-post series, and the second post is just not coming out right. (I’ve already written a thousand words, which seems like way too many, while at the same time it feels like I’m either not saying much of value, or I’m sounding like a stuck record player saying the same things I’ve said before. I think. Maybe it has just become disorganised enough that I no longer know…)

Yesterday was actually this blog’s third birthday. Scary thought that. While I’ve done a lot of grappling on this blog, I have also done a lot of grappling with this blog. I grapple with the vision of what I want it to be, driven by what I would like to express, limited by what I’m actually able to express. I grapple with its sense of value: does it have value, or is a waste of time? Especially when a post just doesn’t come out right.

[Read more →]

There are a number of clichés I just can’t handle. This is especially true in the realm of religion, on both ends of the spectrum, fundie and “new atheist”. Today I’m griping about the “New Atheists’ definition of faith“.

Faith is merely belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking.

That definition is nonsense. Religious people do not believe the things they believe without any evidence. There is scripture, there are millions of believers in the present and the past, there is personal experience, there are observations made throughout life that confirm the religious worldview… If that is the definition of faith, then no-one has it — that kind of “faith” doesn’t exist.

[Read more →]

From wiktionary:

1. (uncountable) Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device.
2. (uncountable) Deliberate exaggeration.
3. (countable) An instance or example of this technique.
4. (countable, obsolete) A hyperbola.

[Read more →]

On 31 December Cobus van Wyngaard tweeted:

What rituals will you be taking part in (privately or in community) to mark the transition period from 2009 to 2010?

I didn’t have much of interest with which to respond, I don’t feel I’ve got much in the line of rituals. Though, I did have some champagne with friends, and I briefly wondered if there are any new year’s resolutions I’d want to make. I found my resolutions aren’t particularly new though, they’ve been with me for quite a while, at best I can attempt to recommit to them.

[Read more →]

Let’s continue with the meaning theme I started with The Pursuit of Meaning and illustrated with an Australian example, Spearing Pay Back: Retribution for Peace?

Some of the providers of the most profound sense of meaning are some cults, providing their members with a very powerful sense of purpose or identity not easily found outside of a cult context. (Finding a strong sense of your own identity is by no means an easy process, is it?) Allow me to use the example of Scientology, and let their poster boy (Tom Cruise) express this in his own words, if you haven’t seen it already: below is the old “Tom Cruise, Scientologist” video (~10mins) which was played on the awards ceremony where they awarded him with their “Freedom Medal of Valor”. Alternatively, look at this shorter news report video clip which gives extracts with explanations. (For explanations of the uncut version, I include the jargon mini-dictionary below.)

[Read more →]

Yesterday I had another of those “Should I import into Facebook? Should I not import into Facebook?” moments. I chose “no, don’t import”, as part of the general idea of separating and unlinking the “identities” I have on the ‘net. So I unimported my notes, then promptly, or not so promptly, manually deleted each of several hundred imported notes that didn’t prompt any user interaction. (Deleting posts with comments or “Like”’s would actually lose/delete information, and I find it very hard to do that.)

It was somewhat sad: I saw I had started with the importing right from my very first blog post ever. (I’ve been on Facebook for a bit more than three years.) But much more interesting was the experience of going over all those old posts, looking at titles bring back sufficient memories, but also catching some words here and there, reading a random post every now and then, and noting the responses some of those posts elicited.

[Read more →]

With this post I mean to talk to newcomers to this blog, and in particular, the subset that might hold reasons to not want to read some of the posts or comments here. I’ve tried to generalise as much as I can, but in the end I think I know of only one particular demographic that could have that sentiment. I’ve tried various ways to phrase the warning I mean to write, in the end, I think it’s easiest to write the warning “in the voice of” the target audience of this blog post:

Some Bible Believing Christians, in particular those that are quite new to the “Biblical Christian” way of life, or those that are currently struggling with doubts, should rather not expose themselves to ideas that seek to challenge their beliefs. Such ideas could possibly undermine your faith and cause you to loose your way. It is very noble of you to want to engage in conversation with unbelievers and others that have lost their way, but you should rather leave it to those that are stronger in their faith, or come back later once you have grown stronger. This blog is one of those places that can be dangerous. Some posts are interesting and safe to read, but every now and then there are posts that sow the seeds of doubt. Some of those that leave comments have the explicit goal to try to deconvert you, and Hugo isn’t even a Christian, even if he sometimes sounds like one or states that he considers himself to be “following Jesus”. Be warned, and rather read your Bibles than this blog.

Those are not my opinions, which you can deduce from the fact that I write and run this blog. Let me express some thoughts in a “progressive voice” in defense of reading and engaging in this blog:

[Read more →]

In previous discussions contemplating evil and sin (the equality/inequality of) and “not-good-behaviour”, we explored to some degree the kinds of differences of opinion to be had on such matters. While further exploration of the diversity is possible, I thought I’d cut to the chase by directly asking the question with regards to this blog:

Is this blog evil?

I know there are differences of opinion on this question. Anyone, feel free to speak your mind (when staying on-topic) — I distinguish between the blog, its contents and role, and myself the author, so I will not take it personally. (If speaking your mind involves calling me evil too, I have no problem with that. I’m just mentioning I won’t make that connection unless you do it for me.)

[Read more →]

From Australia’s ABC News, Indigenous leaders urge recognition of traditional punishments:

Senior Indigenous people in the Northern Territory have called on the Prime Minister to officially recognise their customary laws including traditional punishments such as spearing.

Apparently our Western culture’s methods of punishment, namely jail time, is insufficient — relative to traditions, it seems unsatisfactory for implementing deterrence or retributive justice. An idea behind retributive justice is that it can provide satisfaction and psychological benefits to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society. We have the same reactions in Western culture, we are just more satisfied or accepting of prison terms.

So what’s the difference in this instance? Are prison terms quantitatively less than public shaming or getting speared in the leg, as explained in the above article? (Please read it.) No! Apples and oranges! The difference is found in the meaning Western culture and those communities’ traditional culture place in these punishments.

[Read more →]