So, its been pointed out to me that since two of my Rules are dedicated to the idea of That Guy (and the rest can at least also apply to That Guy situations) I should probably make an attempt to clarify the term. In the original post I linked to Shane from the Walking Dead, I did this because Shane exhibits every single That Guy behavior right up until he gets his proper That Guy comeuppance. Not every TG is going to be as bad as Shane and hell, a good many of them will be significantly less fictional, so its important to note the signs. Unfortunately, the nastiest indicator of this tragic condition isn't apparent until its too late, That Guy is prone to casual betrayal.
The betrayal will always be something more major than you would have thought them capable of, it will always be a surprise (at least to you) and it will always be something you could have seen coming if you were paying attention. Meaningful looks when they think you aren't looking, occasional spikes in passive aggressive behavior in regard to a specific thing, that sort of thing. When the hurt does finally come it will be accompanied by either an attempt to shift blame or play the "you would have done the same" card. Eddie Norton in The Italian Job is a great example of the latter. I know I use a lot of cinematic references, but the real people send me into a rage spiral so fiction it is. After whatever bullshit justification That Guy attempts there will usually be some conciliatory effort or apology as That Guy seeks to avoid the alienation that would deprive them of their resources, i.e. you. This is usually the point at which to abscond with whatever you have left or kill the fucker (in an appropriately dire apocalyptic scenario).
If you'd like to spot TG before they fuck up your shit, there is an earlier indicator; negotiation. Specifically, TG doesn't. Everything is either a straight up acquiescence or petulant insistence on their own way. I'm not talking about your friend who doesn't care where you go out to dinner, just as long as it isn't any one of a dozen places they don't like. I'm talking about your "friend" who decides you are all going out to that Ethiopian place and then gets pissy when someone asks about going somewhere else.
There's more to it than this, because of course there is; people are complex, but these are the big ones. Now, I don't want it to seem like I'm speaking from atop an ivory tower or anything here. I don't come by my loathing of this sort of person artificially, I am one. I know how fucking terrible That Guy is because I spent most of my life fucking over the people around me for fun and profit, until I started getting fucked over by the people around me. It took a while, but eventually I worked out what the shape of the problem was and took my own advice. I cut ties with that part of myself. As much as possible anyway. I'm proof that That Guy can change his ways, I hope, but don't ever doubt for a moment that the first step to changing is admitting to yourself how wrong you are, and That Guy is allergic to change and terrified of being wrong.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
We Can't Get Ahead if We Keep Stepping on Each Other's Necks
I swear I'm not dead. The last couple of weeks have just been weird, I'm back now. So I'm going to celebrate my return by beating a dead horse. It was brought to my attention over my little sabbatical how fucking badly our society handles the gender discussion. We're not even bothering with the basics in this one; if the general tenor of modern gender politics eludes you this post can wait for you to get educated, or you could not read this one. I truly wouldn't blame you at this point. No, today we're talking about why the whole conversation is probably fucked.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Eating 20 Chicken McNuggets isn't normal, but on McDonalds it is.
The world is a fucked up place. Its not fair, there are unreasonable expectations placed on people, jobs are almost universally fucking terrible, and the world doesn't often give people breaks (I mean the metaphorical world, not the planet). To make this weight a little lighter people indulge in a vice.
When I say vice I am sure most people think of drugs, sex, and alcohol. These are the traditional vices that oppose "virtues" but the idea that an action is inherently good or bad is stupid, so for my purposes I am hijacking the word. I would argue that this can be used to describe anything that people use to comfort themselves in the face of reality. I would include as vices food, video games, playing sports, watching sports, movies, and anything that takes away stress. Everyone indulges in something, which is why I find it fucked up that people judge others on that shit.
I am not a fan of sports, but I don't judge people negatively for being a fan of a team. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care. As long as your vice doesn't effect others, people shouldn't care. Porn made with people who didn't consent, that's fucked up and shouldn't be supported. Porn made with consenting adults who weren't coerced into consent? That's fine. Smoke weed? Don't drive and I have no problems with it. People who try to legislate against any kind of vice because of its misuse also legislate against proper use. This is a problem.
I know what some people will say about addiction, that's its a bad thing. I agree, but treating it like a crime, and not a health issue is a problem. I would bet money that people who get addicted and know they need help won't look for it because they are afraid of judgement about what they are addicted to. I am not saying that we should legalize all drugs (though if you want to end the illegal drug trade it would hurt them spectacularly) but at least don't stigmatize addiction and try to make a way for people to get treated without worrying about going to jail or facing charges related to it.
That's a topic that deserves its own post, so I will try to get back to my original point. Judging people for doing something that makes them feel better in general is fucked up. Everyone does something, the people who try to moralize it just like to feel superior about their chosen vice, be it God, the NFL, or McDonald's. We are all in the shit together, maybe stop trying to judge people for how they cope. It's only hurting people.
When I say vice I am sure most people think of drugs, sex, and alcohol. These are the traditional vices that oppose "virtues" but the idea that an action is inherently good or bad is stupid, so for my purposes I am hijacking the word. I would argue that this can be used to describe anything that people use to comfort themselves in the face of reality. I would include as vices food, video games, playing sports, watching sports, movies, and anything that takes away stress. Everyone indulges in something, which is why I find it fucked up that people judge others on that shit.
I am not a fan of sports, but I don't judge people negatively for being a fan of a team. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care. As long as your vice doesn't effect others, people shouldn't care. Porn made with people who didn't consent, that's fucked up and shouldn't be supported. Porn made with consenting adults who weren't coerced into consent? That's fine. Smoke weed? Don't drive and I have no problems with it. People who try to legislate against any kind of vice because of its misuse also legislate against proper use. This is a problem.
I know what some people will say about addiction, that's its a bad thing. I agree, but treating it like a crime, and not a health issue is a problem. I would bet money that people who get addicted and know they need help won't look for it because they are afraid of judgement about what they are addicted to. I am not saying that we should legalize all drugs (though if you want to end the illegal drug trade it would hurt them spectacularly) but at least don't stigmatize addiction and try to make a way for people to get treated without worrying about going to jail or facing charges related to it.
That's a topic that deserves its own post, so I will try to get back to my original point. Judging people for doing something that makes them feel better in general is fucked up. Everyone does something, the people who try to moralize it just like to feel superior about their chosen vice, be it God, the NFL, or McDonald's. We are all in the shit together, maybe stop trying to judge people for how they cope. It's only hurting people.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Blame Society
Lately I've been feeling like a man divided. On one hand, as regular readers will attest to, I am all about society. Cultural, technological and scientific progress is just tits, and derives directly from the fact that we've banded together in such unreasonably large and cumbersome groups. On the other hand Civilization has always been based on, shall we say, coercive conscription and that is pretty fucking evil.
There is much to be said concerning the wonderful things a large group can accomplish, but all of those things are only possible because of the most basic action of a group. Bullying. While many groups function by accumulating like-minded people, those like-minded people then have the odious duty to enforce their common beliefs upon those in their vicinity. Now this isn't always violent, and it certainly isn't always bad, but it is always oppressive. And the larger the group gets the more power they have to enforce those beliefs and the more territory they need, and so the more people come under their authority, willing or not. Now this is fucked up enough when people are being forced from their homes, but what happens when there isn't anywhere to flee?
We've talked about this before, Brian had a very insightful post about the lack of unclaimed land and what that means, but that's only part of it. It is definitely fucked up that you can't opt out of society, but it is so much more fucked up that you can't opt out of civilization. Say I don't want to be a U.S. citizen anymore. My option is to go to another country that I find more tolerable. What about people who don't find any country tolerable, and just want to strike out on their own. First you would have to go somewhere that isn't already claimed by some group or another, which as previously discussed is a troublesome prospect at best. Then you'd have to make sure whatever magical land you landed on doesn't have any resources someone would want, because then they'd come and take it, and you'd have no claim to stop them. Now sure, this has always been true to some extent, but its a relatively recent phenomena that the people coming and forcing you off your land can do so exclusively from another fucking continent. Assuming you've managed to survive in this probably barren, distant and unlikely new home, you then have to hope you didn't leave behind any reason for someone to come looking for you, lest you draw the wrong kind of attention and someone buys your land out from under you to put up a factory or a landfill or something. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite clear that everyone has the right to a nationality, but gives no mention of those who would rather not involve themselves in such an endeavor as a nation. The entire document is framed entirely as a means of protecting the individual within the framework of the State.
The idea that someone wouldn't want to participate in society is alien to us, which kind of makes sense when you account for the fact that civilization has historically been highly interested in justifying itself as the best or only way to live, even and especially when opposed by another civilization. Everyone likes to think that they have a monopoly on awesome, and the more like-minded people you get together the more certain they become of that monopoly. All they have to do is convince the unenlightened, or show the reticent, or kill the barbarians. And those that feel lost or broken under the yoke of the Group, well these days they can either wither away in depression and obscurity, wondering why they always feel so oppressed, or they can slowly work themselves to death trying to numb themselves against a world with no regard for their personhood. I can't fault that we're not all "forced" to participate, but its pretty fucked up that they make us watch.
There is much to be said concerning the wonderful things a large group can accomplish, but all of those things are only possible because of the most basic action of a group. Bullying. While many groups function by accumulating like-minded people, those like-minded people then have the odious duty to enforce their common beliefs upon those in their vicinity. Now this isn't always violent, and it certainly isn't always bad, but it is always oppressive. And the larger the group gets the more power they have to enforce those beliefs and the more territory they need, and so the more people come under their authority, willing or not. Now this is fucked up enough when people are being forced from their homes, but what happens when there isn't anywhere to flee?
We've talked about this before, Brian had a very insightful post about the lack of unclaimed land and what that means, but that's only part of it. It is definitely fucked up that you can't opt out of society, but it is so much more fucked up that you can't opt out of civilization. Say I don't want to be a U.S. citizen anymore. My option is to go to another country that I find more tolerable. What about people who don't find any country tolerable, and just want to strike out on their own. First you would have to go somewhere that isn't already claimed by some group or another, which as previously discussed is a troublesome prospect at best. Then you'd have to make sure whatever magical land you landed on doesn't have any resources someone would want, because then they'd come and take it, and you'd have no claim to stop them. Now sure, this has always been true to some extent, but its a relatively recent phenomena that the people coming and forcing you off your land can do so exclusively from another fucking continent. Assuming you've managed to survive in this probably barren, distant and unlikely new home, you then have to hope you didn't leave behind any reason for someone to come looking for you, lest you draw the wrong kind of attention and someone buys your land out from under you to put up a factory or a landfill or something. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite clear that everyone has the right to a nationality, but gives no mention of those who would rather not involve themselves in such an endeavor as a nation. The entire document is framed entirely as a means of protecting the individual within the framework of the State.
The idea that someone wouldn't want to participate in society is alien to us, which kind of makes sense when you account for the fact that civilization has historically been highly interested in justifying itself as the best or only way to live, even and especially when opposed by another civilization. Everyone likes to think that they have a monopoly on awesome, and the more like-minded people you get together the more certain they become of that monopoly. All they have to do is convince the unenlightened, or show the reticent, or kill the barbarians. And those that feel lost or broken under the yoke of the Group, well these days they can either wither away in depression and obscurity, wondering why they always feel so oppressed, or they can slowly work themselves to death trying to numb themselves against a world with no regard for their personhood. I can't fault that we're not all "forced" to participate, but its pretty fucked up that they make us watch.
Monday, April 20, 2015
The Rules
I've been thinking a lot lately about practical morality. I know normally I'm more an ethics guy, and I stand by my prioritizing ethics over morality. But the rules people live by are important and I think we can all benefit from discussing them. So here are mine, this list can and probably will grow as shit happens and points are inevitably made. Feel free to comment with your list or rules you find important that you think I missed. (Disclaimer: These rules are discussed in a metaphorical tone, Kinda Whatevs does not condone or support the doing of harm (no matter how appropriate) to people (no matter how deserving). Neither Kinda Whatevs or its representatives espouse the breaking of laws or the destructive flouting of social conventions.)
1. Confirm Your Kill: This rule is just as true of violence as it is of chores. If you start something, don't just finish it, make fucking sure its done. Any number of problems is prevented by just making sure that the task you set out to do really is a done deal. This particular rule grows from the old "anything worth doing is worth doing well" maxim, only focused more directly on the solving of problems.
2. Be a Person: I've always found it vitally important to define personhood. Even more so for the individual than for society. A civilization has to on some level acquiesce to the least possible definition of personhood but I feel like one should hold themselves to a higher standard than the bare minimum of what society can call a person. In that vein, I think everyone should at some point sit down and define for themselves what it means to be a person, not just a human. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce this definition on others, but you should absolutely ensure that you live up to it... and probably avoid people who fall short of your definition to avoid the inevitable preventable conflict.
3. Don't Be That Guy: We all know That Guy. Sex, gender, creed, color, there is no category of human designation that is immune to That Guy. That Guy can come from anywhere, be anyone, but they are always a dick, they're Machiavellian, they're shitty, they lack loyalty, compassion and any sense of comradery. Fuck That Guy, its not even enough to not be That Guy, you should do everything you can to not seem like That Guy just to avoid confusion, at least partially because of Rule 4.
4. Kill That Guy: You probably don't have to actually kill this fucker, but definitely cut them out of your life. Nothing good ever comes from dealing with That Guy. Ever. Avoid whenever possible and do whatever you can be comfortable with to keep them out of your shit.
5. We Kill Monsters: Evil prevails because the Good fail to act or whatever. If you see someone being hurt and you do nothing then you are culpable. Not as fully as the one doing harm, but if you can do something and you don't then fuck you, you fail at society. Once again, you don't have to hurt anybody, but we have a responsibility as members of a society to help each other, that is the entire reason behind civilization.
1. Confirm Your Kill: This rule is just as true of violence as it is of chores. If you start something, don't just finish it, make fucking sure its done. Any number of problems is prevented by just making sure that the task you set out to do really is a done deal. This particular rule grows from the old "anything worth doing is worth doing well" maxim, only focused more directly on the solving of problems.
2. Be a Person: I've always found it vitally important to define personhood. Even more so for the individual than for society. A civilization has to on some level acquiesce to the least possible definition of personhood but I feel like one should hold themselves to a higher standard than the bare minimum of what society can call a person. In that vein, I think everyone should at some point sit down and define for themselves what it means to be a person, not just a human. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce this definition on others, but you should absolutely ensure that you live up to it... and probably avoid people who fall short of your definition to avoid the inevitable preventable conflict.
3. Don't Be That Guy: We all know That Guy. Sex, gender, creed, color, there is no category of human designation that is immune to That Guy. That Guy can come from anywhere, be anyone, but they are always a dick, they're Machiavellian, they're shitty, they lack loyalty, compassion and any sense of comradery. Fuck That Guy, its not even enough to not be That Guy, you should do everything you can to not seem like That Guy just to avoid confusion, at least partially because of Rule 4.
4. Kill That Guy: You probably don't have to actually kill this fucker, but definitely cut them out of your life. Nothing good ever comes from dealing with That Guy. Ever. Avoid whenever possible and do whatever you can be comfortable with to keep them out of your shit.
5. We Kill Monsters: Evil prevails because the Good fail to act or whatever. If you see someone being hurt and you do nothing then you are culpable. Not as fully as the one doing harm, but if you can do something and you don't then fuck you, you fail at society. Once again, you don't have to hurt anybody, but we have a responsibility as members of a society to help each other, that is the entire reason behind civilization.
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Importance of Being Earnest
Mythology is a weird thing. It is, at its core, the primary method of instilling values in a society. In some cases, its certainly true that mythology can be taken entirely too seriously, as in the case of biblical literalists. Don't get me wrong, I've no particular interest in the existence, much less characteristics, of anyone's respective deity, but if you feel the need to push science to acquiesce to the demands of your mythology you're a fucking asshole. That's not really the topic of interest today though. My interest lies in the habit of misrepresenting mythology.
First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.
I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.
First, lets establish the difference between mythology and fiction. Mythology is concerned with highlighting the ideal path of action in the more mired and nuanced situations in life. It does this typically by writing that nuance large and hyperbolising factors within that situation. Fiction is only really concerned with entertainment and provide escapism. That's it. Now you might have noticed that that somewhat broadens the standard perceptions of mythology into things that are typically described as fiction. That is intentional.
I think entirely too often modern mythology is disregarded as just a pretty escape. This feels like a huge mistake to me. Most, if not all, of us were raised on stories where the hero's were earnest and caring; stories of great friendships overcoming implacable forces. Stories strewn with courage and dedication. Now how many people do you know today who you would describe as earnest? Many of us move on from the stories of great heroes doing wonderful things as we were simply setting aside childish things. There's nothing wrong with not caring to keep reading those stories as adults, but I think its tragic that more of us don't hang on to those lessons. I'm not saying we should all be wearing capes and making whoosh noises (though we should, those things are awesome and life is too short to not enjoy them), but I am saying that as cliche as it might sound being honest and good and true is a far more beautiful goal than being rich, we ought to start valuing it more.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
What'd that Horse Ever do to You?
I have a bit of history with philosophy, Brian and I both do, philosophy is fucking awesome. Unfortunately the benefits of thinking deeply tend to only occur to those that have made an effort at it. The primary fields of philosophy considered most relevant to the real world are Ethics and Morality. Ethics is at its core the examination of The Social Good, codifying behavior on a large scale for the benefit of those present in the given society. Morality, on the other hand is an intrinsically subjective consideration of personal constructs of "good" and "bad".
The problem that catches me, and pretty much everyone else (whether they realize it or not), is the tendency to conflate the two. Not just conflating them but doing so with a painfully fucking egotistical preference towards morality. Now, I get it; everyone wants to think they have a monopoly on not being a dick, but it runs us into a shitty, postmodern clusterfuck. Morality is great; have some, by all means, but framing ethics on morality isn't just putting the cart before the horse, its killing the horse and declaring it heresy to move the cart.
Its actually a pretty easy distinction to make between the two. Morality comes down to how you feel about taking an action. If you don't like it, or don't feel like the likely consequences are worth it, don't fucking do it. Simple. Ethics establishes itself upon social good and that's where people tend to get turned around. If an action doesn't result in the direct physical or psychological harm of anyone who isn't an informed, actively consenting participant, ethics; and therefore law, has no right to interfere. Ethics doesn't, and in fact can't, concern itself with that kind of action because if it isn't negatively effecting people who aren't involved it isn't effecting society. My favorite example of this distinction is gay rights. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality as an individual, the simple fact that some people fuck in ways that make you feel ookie has nothing to do with those people. If thinking about homosexuals fucking bugs you, that's your fucking problem, not their's. Stop fucking thinking about it.
Now if a person who happened to be gay engaged in the kind of ridiculous bullshit they tend to be accused of by the idiot fringe, and any of that behavior happened to include someone who was either incapable of or not giving full, informed consent yes; that's fucking unacceptable and we can discuss how law should engage only those who harm others in such a way. That last bit is the key. We can't preemptively legislate against any action that doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those willing to enter into it, and we can't legislate against any group for the actions of one of its constituents. Fucking period.
The problem that catches me, and pretty much everyone else (whether they realize it or not), is the tendency to conflate the two. Not just conflating them but doing so with a painfully fucking egotistical preference towards morality. Now, I get it; everyone wants to think they have a monopoly on not being a dick, but it runs us into a shitty, postmodern clusterfuck. Morality is great; have some, by all means, but framing ethics on morality isn't just putting the cart before the horse, its killing the horse and declaring it heresy to move the cart.
Its actually a pretty easy distinction to make between the two. Morality comes down to how you feel about taking an action. If you don't like it, or don't feel like the likely consequences are worth it, don't fucking do it. Simple. Ethics establishes itself upon social good and that's where people tend to get turned around. If an action doesn't result in the direct physical or psychological harm of anyone who isn't an informed, actively consenting participant, ethics; and therefore law, has no right to interfere. Ethics doesn't, and in fact can't, concern itself with that kind of action because if it isn't negatively effecting people who aren't involved it isn't effecting society. My favorite example of this distinction is gay rights. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality as an individual, the simple fact that some people fuck in ways that make you feel ookie has nothing to do with those people. If thinking about homosexuals fucking bugs you, that's your fucking problem, not their's. Stop fucking thinking about it.
Now if a person who happened to be gay engaged in the kind of ridiculous bullshit they tend to be accused of by the idiot fringe, and any of that behavior happened to include someone who was either incapable of or not giving full, informed consent yes; that's fucking unacceptable and we can discuss how law should engage only those who harm others in such a way. That last bit is the key. We can't preemptively legislate against any action that doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those willing to enter into it, and we can't legislate against any group for the actions of one of its constituents. Fucking period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)