The Easy Road

As of late I find myself questioning decisions that have been made.... It seems like this is a war of attrition. I wish I could go into detail but seeing as this is a public forum and there are certain people I do not wish to find out.... silence is key... for a little while any ways. As of late there have also been people that I thought I could count on that I'm not so sure about any more. They (and this obviously isn't everyone) have suggested that I give up and take the easy road. For those that have known me for a long time have you ever known me to take the easy road simply because it was easy?

I'm not going to lie and say that it is easy. I'm also not going to say that it's not lonely. No one else can fight this battle for me. It's not just about me though. If it can happen to me it can happen to others. It's a fight for truth, justice and integrity. At the end of it all I have no idea what will happen. I would like to think that the truth will prevail.

I also had someone tell me that my conscious wouldn't let me give up and walk away. They seemed to believe that I would not be able to sleep at night. Let me tell you I would sleep just fine. I have done everything in my power thus far. It's not really up to me any more. Even if I did give up I would still be at peace with the decision. It's gone this far I am not about to just walk away.

Quote: It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.
Author: A. A. Hodge

Conspiracy Theories

What do you do when the conspiracy turns out to be true? I am left with that dilemma at the moment. It was much nicer to be in denial and to think it was all in my head. I am having trouble wrapping my head around this. Maybe this is because I have integrity and want to believe that other people have ethics and are honest. I am definitely learning that isn't the case. Sorry I can't really explain at the moment... just a difficult situation all the way around and I am venting.

Taking After Switzerland

Quote: If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Author: Bishop Desmond Tutu

That's a pretty strong statement. After all the natural inclination is to not be in the middle and to want to be neutral. But there is also a great deal of truth in that statement. If we are neutral then we are just washing our hands of it and refusing to get our hands dirty to help out.

I can't count how many people have said that I got a raw deal and that it shouldn't have happened and then turn around and say that they don't have an issue with this person. So does that mean that what they did to me was right?

I completely understand the response though... I did the same thing for a long time. I sat on the sidelines and watched and basically said, "It's not me and it's not my war." And now look at where I am. I chose to be neutral and not do anything. Then suddenly I was in the cross hairs and wishing that I had taken a stand in the past and not taken on the role of Switzerland in the past. So remember that the next time you stand on the sidelines and watch a poor, little mouse get crushed by an elephant.

Closing Thoughts

Now back to the question I asked at the beginning... "Is equality a noble ideal and something we should strive for or should we simply acknowledge the inequalities in society and continue on with the hierarchy of power?" The second question was, "If we do believe that equality is a worthwhile goal, does it have to be absolute? Can it be a reduction of inequality.. or equality only in certain areas?

If it had to be black or white, an all or nothing situation then I would have to argue against equality. In a capitalist society there can never be a true equality. It is not my political views that would have me argue against equality. In terms of equality in regards to income my issue is not that everyone be equalized... but that the poor have enough to make a decent life.

There are three equalities from a political standpoint.

1. Equal rights
2. Equal opportunities
3. Equality before the law

I do, however, believe in these three equalities. I believe that citizenship in a country should give us equal rights. We have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have the ability to vote in a democratic matter.

In terms of equal opportunities I do not believe in affirmative action. I do believe that we should have equal access to health, education, employment and social welfare. On that note it would be good if education was sponsored by the government. But that is just my thought.

Equality of law means that when a law is created every person is to be treated equally under the law.

I guess the only one I have a problem with is the idea of equal income distribution. I do not believe that socialism is the answer and I enjoy having the individual freedoms. But any attempt to create equality will undoubtedly challenge those freedoms. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the individual for the good of the whole.

Culture, religion, lifestyle, feelings – these are all aspects of our private lives and should be of no concern to the state or other public authorities. Yet governments in the West pour public money into what should be private, to separate and divide people even more. A truly plural society would be one in which citizens have full freedom to pursue their different values or practices in private, while in the public sphere all citizens would be treated as equals whatever the differences in their private lives. Today, however, pluralism has come to mean the very opposite. The right to practise a particular religion, speak a particular language, follow a particular cultural practice is seen as a public good rather than a private freedom. Different interest groups demand to have their ‘differences’ institutionalised in the public sphere.

If culture, religion and lifestyle were private and were part of individual rights there would likely be more equality in society. The problem is that all of these issues have now been on display in the public arena with each group wanting more rights. How about each group be treated equally so that we do not need special interest groups, all talking of the injustices they face?

So to answer my own question... yes I do believe in equality. However, I do not believe in absolute equality. I believe that equality should be promoted in certain areas, such as equal access but not in terms of income.

As a side note.... this whole debate isn't even really mine. So Adam... this one's for you. Wanted to give you something to think about. :o) In a philosophical debate I would rather discuss morality, ethics or logic. So the debate I had about absolute truth was more my style.

Truth: An Absolute or Just Relative?

I know I am deviating at the moment from the debate of equality/diversity and inequality.... but in almost any philosophical debate the question of truth arises.

Truth is definied as:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.
   2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

For centuries truth was seen to be the underpinning of philosophy. Truth was an automtic assumption... It was only with the writings of Kant, Nietzsche, and Marx, among others that this belief has been challenged. Can we automatically assume that truth exists? Is there such a thing as abosulute truth?

If truth is relative does that mean that the debate over equality/diversity is reduced to the political and social arena? Or does it even matter? Do we need some idea of truth as the basis for everything else?

Say there is no such thing as truth. Truth is just a construct and it is all relative. Then what I believe to be true someone else may believe is false. Take the statement "There is inequality in the world today." Is that statement true or false? Depends on whether or not truth is an absolute or is relative. If it's relative then the validity of that statement depends on politics, society, even time. We assume that equality is the ideal but that inequality is unavoidable. Without some absolute standard the reverse could also be true.

Take the statement, "There is no such thing as truth." If you assume that a statement is either true or false then there are two conclusions. 1. It is true and there is no such thing as truth (which would actually make it an absolute truth) or 2. It is false and truth exists. Believers in absolute truth use theis example as a proof that truth is absolute. But... it is possible that this is the only absolute truth. Is there anything else that we can unequivocally say is true? Everything we believe to be true is based on our value system and our beliefs. Try and think of something that is absolutely true. Yes there are things we take for granted but that does not necessarily make them true. Most people that argue for the absoluteness of truth use it as a proof that God exists. But there is no way to prove the existence of God. God is about beliefs, faith, and a religious doctrine... and not about truth. But you likewise cannot disprove the existence of God with that logic.

If you strip away truth and determine that it is in fact relative then you are left with an undeniable fact. That morality is also relative. It is dependant on our own world view and our culture. Equality is a human construct and as such, it is up to the society to determine which is more important, the rights of the society or the rights of the individual.

Going back to the idea of truth, Nietzsche believed that truth was in the eye of the beholder. He argued that society has certain "values" which it calls truth. It is also how we establish the norm and establish right and wrong. "There is an old illusion, it's called good and evil."

Nietzsche is most famous for saying that "God is dead" comment that has sparked religious debates and outrage. But here is the actual quote:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

Nietzsche's point was that in the hearts of modern (wo)men God is dead, having been killed by rationalism and science. Prior to his death, however, he defined cultural beliefs and our system of morality. If God is dead and we accept his death then our standards of morality go with it.

With moral relativism what is considered moral can change and there is no absolute standard of right/wrong. Take murder for example. We assume that it is an absolute and cannot fathom that it could ever be considered acceptable. Now we make exceptions to this rule: Self-Defense, Insanity, War, Martyrdom, Accidental deaths, etc. But even if you ignore that murder has been considered acceptable in certain cultures. At one point Eskimoes engaged in infanticide and would kill off elders since they were no longer able to contribute but were still consuming resources. Who are we to judge these societies?

Now back to the question of equality and diversity. If there is no absolute truth and no moral standard then how can I possibly judge something to be equal or even inequal? That's all assuming, of course, that truth is not absolute and therefore, neither is morality. If there are absolutes and this is what we are governed by then the notion of equality is fair and desirable.

Since the debate between absoulte truth and relativism is a heated debate and the topic of much discussion I am going to leave it alone and focus on the debate as to whether or not we should be aiming for equality.

Take a Look in the Mirror

So what do you see when you look in the mirror? Do you see yourself for who you really are... or do you see what other people see? I guess the real test is whether you see lies... or the truth. Maybe not as easy a question to answer. I try to avoid the mirror.. that way I don't have to see the reflection and answer that question. I was watching CSI and will end it with Horatio's quote, "At the end of the day the truth is all you have."

Heather