Middle Ground Morals

(first written: 9-15-08)

Whenever possible, I try to think critically and realistically. Because of this, I have found that some of the conclusions I come to are not the beliefs I held previously due to moral beliefs. This has led me to what I call “middle ground morals”.

I’m not a strong defender of the death penalty. I really don’t have a problem with the ‘eye for an eye’ thought process of it. I just think there is far too much bureaucracy behind it that it takes to long to get the message across. If people were being electrocuted every other day, I’d stop to take notice so I can have a stronger opinion about it (Since 1977, there have been 1115 government sanctioned executions 1).

But even though I don’t have an opinion about the necessity of a death penalty, I do care strongly about euthanasia. I’m a firm believer that people have the right to take their own life. I’m a firm believer of this because I’ve got a list of things that make it a responsible action. Under my conditions, it would be legal to kill yourself if:
1. you were terminal.
2. you were experiencing immense pain.
3. while, you were not drugged, you had express the wish to not live in pain.
This is the big one. You have to make up your mind well in advance that if you are to go through this experience, that you have a game plan set in motion.

I praise the state of Oregon for having a death law that is similar to this. Because of this, and other similar laws Oregon has in place, I believe Oregon is the founders of “middle ground morals”.


The other thing I’d like to get on record about is sweatshops. I’ve gone back and forth on this issue several times. I really don’t have a problem with the actual concept of young people working for very little money. That’s what has been happening in third world countries and first world countries for centuries. The great argument I have heard time and time again advocating for sweatshops is that these people would have no money without these jobs. That at least there is something.

Now, on the other hand, I am strongly against the conditions these people are in. I’m pretty sure an air conditioner wouldn’t cost too much money. Hell, it will probably increase productivity of the workers in the long run. In short, I’m not against paying these people like indentured servants; I’m just against treating them like slaves. It’s a fine line, and in truth, it wouldn’t take much to fix it.

Morals are always tricky, and I encourage everyone to revise them once in a while. Without an occasional update, we are forced to be stuck in linear thinking. And history has shown that linear thinking can and does get us in trouble.


-SDG


1. http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/victims.html

I Pity the Perfect

(first written 6-02-08)

I really do. Perfection is not only boring, it’s really limited. I’ll explain what a perfect person can and mainly what they can’t do.

To be perfect means never making any decisions. If you make a decision, it can be wrong and wrong is not perfection.

A perfect person cannot be married. To be married is a commitment to accept things and concede other. Not a possibility for the perfect; it’s either one or the other.

A perfect couple cannot cook dinner. If they could that means they both have to want the exact same thing cooked the exact same way; everyday for every meal, from now until death.

A perfect couple cannot solve the above problem by going out to eat. A perfect person cannot decide what to order because that involves making a decision. See 1.

A perfect couple cannot have sex more than once. If they do, one of them will have to be better or worse than the other and that defies the rules of perfection.

A perfect person’s job is quality control.

The physical appearance of a perfect person is not as beautiful as you’d expect. There are no blemishes, but nor is there anything of interest. Think mannequin head.

A perfect person’s nickname is mannequin head.


This argument isn’t perfect. It’s mine.
-SDG