fabiochiu/medium-articles huggingface dataset:
Our Ambitions Can’t Define Us (Our Values Will)
By: Asif Ali
Tags: Self-awareness, Morality, Personal Development, Values, Ambition

Our Ambitions Can’t Define Us (Our Values Will)

Photo by Greg Rosenke on Unsplash

Many people let their dreams, ambitions, and success (or failures) define them.

It’s a flaw!

Having big ambitions — neither is it unique, nor special.

Everyone dreams big.

You succeed and there would always be that person who’s more successful than you.

Letting these thin threads navigate our lives is a bad idea.

What defines a character isn’t an ambition, dream, or goal.

What defines us are moral values…

Moral values around what we do if we achieve that ambition, dream, or goal.

Moral values around what we do if we fail to achieve that ambition, dream, or goal.

They make us unique.

We are our moral values. This is what separates us from the rest.

Not the dreams and goals… Not the wins and losses.

Yes, having good moral values has become underrated. The conversations on respect, humility, honesty, generosity, integrity, compassion, kindness, and gratitude have taken a corner seat in the hype of superficial success. But let not lack of loud conversation confuse you: our values are everything.

Your ambitions can never define you. Your personal values will — no matter what you do in life, where you go and what you end up with.
One about Ethics
By: Greta Beccarello
Tags: Responsibility, Integrity, Ethics, Morality, Brands

Dance (I) by Henri Matisse — Image taken by myself at Moma, March 2019

And why they are so important for people and brands.

Let’s start with defining what this means:

Ethic or Ethics: a system of accepted beliefs that control behaviour, especially such a system based on morals (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020).

And now you are probably asking yourself: what is considered moral?

Morals can define behaviours, values and actions that have everything to do with the concept of good and bad, honesty and fairness (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). So, for people this means: live a honest life, such as caring about the community, the planet, family and friends; while for brands, it means using honesty, sustainability and responsibility as core values to define their identity, communication strategy and business model.

In my practice as a person and professional in the creative industries, I consider ethics a really important part of the my process and analysis of who I want to work with, because it’s something that is really close to my heart (aligning brands’ values with my own).

In a world where consumerism, fast fashion and even faster consumption are predominant, ethics are often objectified by corporations, brands and even public personalities to represent a better image of themselves, even if practically, this doesn’t relate to their actions. Yes, people like to show they are doing a good job to attract people’s attention. It’s like the classic story of the little guy at school who is trying to look cool in front of his classmates, because he wants him/her to notice him.

Really playing on the fact that some are really easy to be influenced and conditioned.

As a consumer, do we not have the responsibility to fact check and select what we read, buy, eat and interact with in our every day lives? As humans, do we not have a social responsibility to look after one another, to support those in need and to use our voices and platforms to shout about what’s immoral (injustices, minorities and planet — you name it!).

I honestly feel the past few years and most recent circumstances have helped with addressing some of these issues, and as much as I am happy for this conversations to happen and raise right now, I hope it isn’t a justification for some, both as people and as brands, just because it makes a cool square on Instagram or because, as a brand, I need to prove myself.

Don’t be scared to have some morals.
Risk It for The Brisket
By: Jesse Berger
Tags: Law, Morality, Canada, Health, Freedom

Adam Skelly, owner of Adamson Barbecue (Photo by Cole Burston | The Canadian Press)

Risk It for The Brisket

O Canada… For the past year, all levels of government have imposed seemingly indefinite and unnecessarily harsh restrictions on Canadians in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, unjustly violating our Charter of Rights. In the name of public health, they have withdrawn permission for people to pursue economic, social, and physical activities without evidence, without due process, and most importantly, without our consent.

Canadians have generally been compliant with government’s social conditioning efforts (such as masks, distancing, lockdowns, asymptomatic testing, etc.), but weariness is setting in as the façade supporting the need for these oppressive measures melts away. The country has been subject to broken promises from politicians, broken models from public health officials, government staff that shamelessly break the rules, and to top it off, our nation is financially broke thanks to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s debt-fuelled spending spree.

Canadians deserve better, but we won’t get it unless we send a strong message back to government. We need to remind them of the simple truth: they work for us, not the other way around. When public servants cross the line, instituting policies that crush our livelihoods, make us miserable, and harm our health, then it is our duty to push back by holding their feet to the fire.

As an experienced pitmaster, Adam Skelly, the owner of Adamson Barbecue, is no stranger to working with hot coals. Prior to the pandemic he spent his days grilling delicious meats for his customers, but now his attention has shifted towards roasting the turkeys occupying our public offices. For those unfamiliar with his story, here are some of the highlights:

The Adamson Barbecue Rebellion is about a lot more than a license to grill. It’s about avoiding the moral decay plaguing our society. It’s about demonstrating the incompetence of our public servants. It’s about exposing a complicit media that is failing to hold those same authorities to account. It’s about the fundamental human rights of all Canadians. By engaging in civil disobedience (nonviolent protest against unjust laws), Skelly has taken a stand for the principles that make Canada strong and free, defending them so we can get back to creating a brighter future… together.
Teaching A Machine Moral Values
By: Soumya Talwar
Tags: Machine Learning, Philosophy, Ethics, Morality, Neural Networks

The Moral Framework

The 5 scenarios all use different combinations of four kinds of moral variables: number, desire, intent and duty. For a detailed explanation on each variable, read this article.

action [(number), (desire), (intent), (duty)] where,

Number is the number of lives saved by that action. Desire is the kind of desire that’s fulfilled by that action. Intent is our intention behind the action. Duty is the kind of obligation we’re adhering to.

In the case of the trolley driver, both the parties- the 5 workers and the 1 worker, possess the desire to live which is a crucial desire. You also do not directly intend any person’s death. Even by steering the trolley towards the 1 worker, your intention is merely to steer away from the other 5, hence it is an oblique intent. Lastly, your obligation in both of those actions is of a negative kind- to not cause harm to either the 5 workers or the 1 worker.

The framework, then, looks like this:

kill 1 [(five), (crucial), (oblique), (negative)]

kill 5 [(one), (crucial), (oblique), (negative)],

In the second case, where you’re a transplant surgeon, both the parties possess the crucial desire to live. However, when you use the 1 patient’s organs, their death is the key factor in saving the other 5. It is a direct intent. Lastly, we see a clash of positive duty against negative duty. Saving the 5 patients counts as a positive duty to aid, and not killing the 1 patient counts as a negative duty. In this case, the moral variables look like this:

kill 1 [(five), (crucial), (direct), (positive)]

kill 5 [(one), (crucial), (oblique), (negative)]

In the third scenario, the activists’ desire is not a crucial desire. They wish to see the death of another individual, which is not a crucial desire, but a corrupt one. There is again a clash of direct versus oblique intent. The execution of the innocent individual is necessary to save the lives of the other 5, hence the intent is direct. There is a clash of positive and negative duty as well, the obligation to save 5 versus the obligation to not kill 1. The framework here, would look like:

kill 1 [(five), (corrupt), (direct), (positive)]

kill 5 [(one), (crucial), (oblique), (negative)]

In the fourth scenario, both the parties possess the crucial desire to live. The intention behind killing either of them is oblique, and the obligation is a positive duty- to either aid 5 patients or to aid 1 patient.

kill 1 [(five), (crucial), (oblique), (positive)]

kill 5 [(one), (crucial), (oblique), (positive)]

In the final scenario, you’re a doctor, and both the sides’ desires are crucial. Your intent in either option is oblique. But you face a clash between the positive duty to aid 5 patients and the negative duty to not cause harm to the 1 patient.

kill 1 [(five), (crucial), (oblique), (positive)]

kill 5 [(one), (crucial), (oblique), (negative)]
Leadership Lessons from Confucius: a strong moral compass
By: Richard Brown
Tags: Philosophy, Ethics, Morality, Confucius, China

Confucius said: “In dealing with the world, a leader has no prejudice or bias: he goes with what is right.”

Approach your day with an open mind. There will inevitably be problems that you need to address and differences of opinion that you have to resolve.

Don’t let your preconceptions cloud your judgment when you’re faced with such issues. Don’t allow your relationships with the people involved influence your deliberations either. Remain calm and detached. Reach your conclusions based on the objective realities of the situation at hand. Have the courage to do the right thing even if other people will question your motives and criticize you for it.

Doing the right thing requires a strong moral compass to guide your actions, but that doesn’t mean you should dogmatically adhere to narrow rules and regulations in reaching a decision. Quite the reverse in fact, because every situation is different and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Note

This article features a translation of Chapter 10 of Book 4 of the Analects of Confucius. You can read my full translation of Book 4 here.

I took this image at the Taipei Confucius Temple.
Mandatory Tribes
By: Noam Siegel
Tags: Wisdom, Morality, Politics, Free, Echo Chamber

Mandatory Tribes

Photo by Wil Stewart

In a world where it seems like everyone is increasingly more comfortable in their own echo chambers, mandatory tribes might be a potential fix.

The idea is simple: For your chosen preferred news, media, and information sources, you need to match each one with a source you disagree with.

For me, that would be listening, reading, and watching more people with viewpoints I generally oppose. A few of the ones that I have included are Breitbart, Fox & Friends, and Ben Shapiro.

And, most importantly, if you want to remove one of your opposing sources for whatever reason, you need to also remove a source that you generally agree with.

For me that would mean if I want to unsubscribe from Ben Shapiro on YouTube, I must also unsubscribe from Sam Harris. Since I never want to unsubscribe from Harris’ show I, therefore, will never unsubscribe from Shapiro’s show.

I try my best to follow the same guidelines for Twitter, YouTube, and other media sources.

For any issues that arise, there are a few caveats that I put in place:

I can switch out a source that I disagree with to another source that I equally disagree with. This is so that I am not stuck with sources that are no longer relevant. As there seem to be more people that I agree with usually, I am only allowed to follow a max of 30% more people I agree with over my disagreeable sources.

Doing this for the last year or so has broadened my view of the world and the complexity of topics within it more than any other practice I hold. And, while I generally still agree with my native sources, there are constantly times when my opposing sources point out something that caused me to think and reflect.

As I look back at this past year, the action of placing myself in mandatory tribes has influenced me more than all the difficult conversations, challenging classes, and even debates that I have had in the past three years combined.

For the first time in my life, I truly empathize with the people I disagree with. I understand their points, feelings, beliefs, and life stories. And while on most topics I stand with my previous convictions, their thoughts and ideas have caused me to shift my strong position over on a few key issues.

For me, my mandatory tribes have become just as crucial to me as my sleep, diet, exercise, and meditation practice.

For those of you who also choose to join a few opposing tribes, I hope that they become just as important to you too.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
By: Alanna Mcleod
Tags: Still Life, Art, Morality, Death, Mortality

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Still Life with Turkey Pie (Pieter Claesz, 1627)

Our first stop in Rotterdam — the largest port in Europe (fun trivia!) — was more of a logistical port to pick up additional passengers than an itinerary highlight for most. But, I’ve loved The Netherlands since my first trip to Europe with a friend’s family, so I was eager to explore this real, working city. And it brought back a distinct memory…

I can still hear collective groan from the from the class. Unfortunately, it wasn’t in response to an assignment or pop quiz from our professor. It was emitted after I announced that my project would be on still life paintings. Already feeling self-conscious being the only non-art history major in a senior seminar, apparently I had just chosen the least popular subject imaginable to the group. Super!

The rest of my classmates studied Dutch Golden Age landscapes, portraits, and genre pieces; nevertheless, I persisted (such a feminist) with the still lifes. We traveled to The Netherlands over our winter break, and at the museums, I was alone entranced in front of the laid tables full of convincingly painted fruit, bread rolls, cheese, savory pies, lobsters, butter, oysters, glassware, silver, foul, and flowers…

Other paintings also featured timepieces, recently blown-out candles, broken glasses, and skulls. Most critical readings of any type of still life propose that at the time (c. 1600s Holland), the works were meant to keep people’s religious morals in check — warning against greed, gluttony, and over-consumption, even as the secular culture and economy flourished. A painting of decaying flowers or a skull hanging over the mantle was a not-so-subtle reminder of the homeowners’ mortality. Be good while you’re still here, or you know where you’re headed!

My unimpressed art history class couldn’t snuff my enthusiasm, and I still love a still life from any period in any medium. At the museum, you can find me standing in front Cezanne’s fruits or Thiebaud’s pies. It turned out that the main art museum in Rotterdam is under construction for the next seven years, and currently, all of their glorious Golden Age still lifes are in storage. While a disappointment, it served as a nice reminder that life itself doesn’t sit still. Like my favorite paintings said: your life is temporary; be nice; capture the moment while you can.

[You probably don’t, but if you do want to read my college-aged interpretation of these still lifes, I found my old paper and would be happy to send it your way if technology cooperates, or via carrier pigeon.]
Saga of Tanya the Evil on Fascism, God, and War
By: The Danime Times
Tags: Analysis, Morality, Movies, Anime, Crunchyroll

At military academy, Tanya is smart and uses her knowledge of her world to advance her position. She meets a general and suspects that the war currently being waged will turn into a wold war. Impressed, he asks for her to write a report which is then passed along to the higher ranks within the military.

Later, she is able to emotionally manipulate another soldier into dropping out of the university in exchange for a safer position. At this point, she seems to have finally found a good path to comfort. She’s doing well in her studies and is on her way to a cushy job.

Once she graduates, she can gain an elite position in the rear echelons.

So unfortunately for Being X, there won’t be any need for that awesome power she just gained an episode before.

Except that report she made earlier leads to a discussion. Turns out the military is very impressed with her knowledge and wants to put her to more work!

Realizing her big mouth has caused her some problems.

Later, at a dinner, turns out they want to give Tanya her own battalion! And they want her fighting in a position even more dangerous than the front lines!

This image here is great because of how it shows Tanya’s inner thoughts and her torment. Reflections are always used to express the inner thoughts and feelings of characters. She’s clearly irritated at her superiors for her new position but she’s also upside down. Her plans have been completely turned on their head. This again blurs the line between Tanya as sympathetic and Tanya as a joke. If Carlo Zen wants us to laugh at her, the creators are going to great lengths to make us identify with her through visual techniques like this first.

Her line, though, is interesting. These last few instances have led us to believe that Tanya’s own inability to control her actions is what’s causing her misery. But she’s asking genuinely here, and that might be because Being X is looming in the shadows. He’s always watching, and it’s not unusual to assume he’s pulling some strings, creating meetings between Tanya and her superiors for them to be impressed by her and therefore give her more work.
A Summary on the Immortality of Racism
By: The Paradox Of Value
Tags: Ethics, Morality, Philosophy

Racism is a vile belief that poisons the mind of those with whom it resides. It is an irrational, immoral and unintelligent ideology. It seeks to destroy the humanity of those for which it takes aim.

Racism is practiced by those who were taught it, sheltered from the realities of life, and weak enough to continue practicing it upon adulthood. It is the ideology of the uneducated, irrational and the individual with a propensity toward hate. Racism is immoral at its very core because it aims to deny the human that which both God and nature bestowed upon them; the sovereignty of individual choice.

Humans, by the laws of God and nature, have the right to make their own choices, as long as those choices don’t infringe on the rights of others. Humans are the sovereign of their own selves. Among other things, this includes both the content of the mind and ability to make choices. Racism, however, claims that a human is not the sovereign of their own self. That, instead, a collective of their ancestors predetermined their future choices, capacity for reason, and even the very content of their mind.

As Ayn Rand said, racism is a primitive form of collectivism. It denies the human their inherent individual characteristics, and replaces it with a predetermined (and often wrong) assumption of the characteristics of a collective. Racism refuses to accept an individual’s humanity by denying them that which separates humans from animals, the capacity for reason. Racism is an immoral and unintelligent ideology.
The Philosophy of Pornography
Tags: Pornography Addiction, Morality, Pornography, Porn, Photography

Introduction

When we download and watch pornography, we generally do not ask 3 critical questions: who uploaded the movie, who is running the torrent website, and who the cameraman was — who filmed the videos.

The Pleasure of a Male Cameraman, Who Films Lesbian Porn Videos

The excitement, pleasure, delight, etc that we witness in two/multiple lesbians — is the excitement they have for the cameraman who is filming the video (i.e., the sex they will have as soon as the filming is complete).

The Core Philosophy

The power of lesbian porn is unlimited — because both the father and the son re getting their vital organ activated — just by reading the above passages. In reality, lesbian porn — however bad or hideous they may be for for the mother-son relationship — indicates towards a freer world where this kind of act can be filmed — with the cameraman in front of the camera — and not behind it — …a world that is to come in the incoming centuries — where sex will become more woman-friendly.

“Masks beneath masks until suddenly the bare bloodless skull. The world, somebody wrote, is the place we prove real by dying in it. Language is courage: the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so to make it true. A book is a product of a pact with the Devil that inverts the Faustian contract.” — Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses

Who is the Cameraman?

The success of a great lesbian porn movie — rests not on the performers — but on the cameraman. The more he can excite the girls — by his mere presence — the greater the success of the lesbian porn movie.

This cameraman needs to have a lot of respect for the womankind. If he has not the respect — he can not excite the girls.

Are Lesbian Porn Movies Immoral?

These movies indeed harm mother-son and father-daughter relationships in the world, and are therefore a threat for these relationships. But they dialectically oppose the various social, religious, etc hypocrisies that go on in the world — a world that can not tolerate the fact that women may also enjoy sex — just as much as a man does.

What Does Islam Say about Lesbian Porn?

Islam does not have much to say much — because it is a ‘loveless religion’. It advocates a man-to-man love (viz. the love of Brokeback Mountain) — and not the real spectrum of All-LOVE — which includes intergender love as well.

What Parents should Do, If They Find out that Their Son Watches Lesbian Porn?

Arrange their son’s matrimony as quickly as possible, and get them married away. That is the only cure.



In case their son is still a minor — the parents ought to lock the computer, TV, and all other electronic devices in the home — and install a very good antivirus software.

Conclusion

Given the complex matrix of the world — lesbian porn has its place. What I personally do not like is when they intrude into my privacy — without my permission.
Indirect Deaths — the Invisible Cost of COVID-19
By: Steven Underwood
Tags: Nhs, Healthcare, Covid 19, Morality, UK Politics

Whilst lockdown restrictions are saving many lives, is there a point at which the number of lives being saved starts to be outweighed by the number of indirect deaths caused by those lockdown restrictions?

During the UK’s recent daily government COVID-19 briefings, I’ve heard England’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, refer to ‘indirect’ deaths caused by the UK’s COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Thank goodness Whitty attends these government briefings, his thinking about the bigger picture and long-term consequences is important.

A fuller discussion of indirect deaths is provided at the end of this article, but for now, we can think of indirect deaths as being those deaths occurring as a consequence of lockdown restrictions.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published data on 21 April that we can use to start to develop an understanding of indirect deaths.

The ONS data captures deaths in England and Wales for the week ending 10 April 2020. It splits the total deaths into COVID-19 deaths and other deaths. COVID-19 deaths are those deaths registered where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate. A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings — a positive test result is not required. But most of the COVID-19 deaths occur in hospital, and have previously received a positive test result.

For the week to 10 April 2020, the ONS statistics show (for England and Wales):

· Total deaths of 18,516.

· COVID-19 deaths of 6,213.

· The implied non COVID-19 deaths are then 12,303.

· The average deaths for the corresponding week over the last 5 years is 10,520.

From the above, we can see that total deaths for the week were 7,996 above an average week (for the time of year). If we take off the 6,213 COVID-19 deaths, this leaves an ‘unexplained’ difference of 1,783 deaths, compared to the number of deaths that we would ordinarily expect.

Of course, there will be some random fluctuation in weekly deaths versus the average, but for the purpose of this analysis and discussion, I will classify the unexplained difference in deaths as being 1,783 indirect deaths as a consequence of lockdown restrictions. That’s a big number, and equates to an uplift in weekly deaths (versus average) of almost 17%.

Put another way, indirect deaths are almost 30% of the reported COVID-19 deaths. So why is there virtually no media coverage regarding indirect deaths?
Productivity
By: Ranjith Somasundaram
Tags: Ethics, Morality, Productivity, Self Improvement

Productivity is 50% science and 90% art.

Let’s define what productivity is before we dig deeper and rip it apart. Productivity is a state of being. Although by technical terms, productivity is the amount of work you accomplish for your unit time, we humans also care about the total work outcome of our day, week, or whatever quantum of time we are interested in.

At the end of the day, for us, it is just a feeling. We access it by asking ourselves the following questions: did I accomplish enough? did I do enough work today? have I fulfilled my own and others’ expectations on me?

Why be Productive at all? Let me just be. Alright!

No. Let me make a case for you my brother. One philosophical viewpoint is that our existence is a huge gift to us!. Imagine this - we exist! and we are conscious! and we have the ability to create, change, or just do something with it. Don’t you think you owe this Universe a little gratitude? Do something with your abilities? Make your own life or other people’s life a little bit better than what it was yesterday?

Somebody has to lift the rock! why not you?

Let’s not fly way above our heads and forget the tangible benefits of being productive. The more you work, the more money you earn. You don’t just earn money, you also earn the status and respect of others. Do note that this comes as a direct result of your quality and quantity of work and not as a secondary effect via the money you earn! The most straight forward way to get high status is by adding value. At that point, it is given to you, without you asking for it. I strongly believe that there is nobility in this means of achieving respect. In my opinion, you can achieve this only by caring for the people to whom you are adding value.

I welcome you all to the journey with me where every day I’ll be exploring a productivity technique and the strategies to put that in practice which will eventually make us the superhuman we all envision us to be. Cheers!!!
Development Sequences
By: Sanjka Mandakh
Tags: Society, Morality

There are three stages in life (According to A Brief History of Everything by Ken Willber).

Preconventional — Stage when a person is not yet socialized into any sort of moral system.

Conventional — Stage when a person learns a general moral scheme that represents the basic values of the society.

Postconventional — Stage when the individual comes to reflect on his or her society and gains some modest distance from it and a capacity to criticize it or reform it.

This is a general scheme that humans have been following from the beginning.

Question: Do people follow this stages by its order?

In many cases, people jump to the third stage, postconventional from the first stage, preconventional. Without learning a general moral scheme, the basic values of the society, people tend to criticize its society with none sense reasons and useless results. Learning general moral scheme and basic human value is necessary. Society would develop when the cultivated individuals criticize with meaningful reasons and reform with good results that benefit the society.
Darryl,
By: Michael F Schundler
Tags: Capitalism, Morality, Nature Of Man, Corrupt, Socialism

Darryl,

People act in their own self interest. My point was simple: capitalism is an economic system that harnesses the energy of people to produce goods and services by appealing to people’s self interest. It will always exist and it will be restrained by shared social values according to the level each society chooses.

But when a society “secularizes” and it no longer feels bound by a set of shared values, can government moderate capitalism or does it become an extension of capitalism?

Is a socialist form of government any better? or does socialism just become another form of corruption without the benefits of capitalism which at least continues to maximize a society’s production of goods and services?

Why do all socialistic economies collapse? Is it because the “concept of socialism” simply is not based on the nature of man? And if capitalism succeeds because it is based on the nature of man, what does that say about the nature of man?

As an intellectual you need to examine the nature of man and then ask yourself how do we moderate that nature in a way that really works? I initially majored in college studying the religions of the world in a liberal college setting. It is interesting that every society in history felt a need to codify its values in its religion. What did those societies understand, that you don’t.

We can have a separate argument over the existence and nature of God, but my point was simple, without a set of shared morale values, it is unlikely that any institution be it government or business will control corruption. Corruption is not limited to the wealthy, it is value shared by everyone to a greater or lesser degree.
Relationships Won’t Survive
By: John Moyle
Tags: Reality Check, Friendship, Morality, Society, Pandemic

Nor should they.

…

There are folks working hard to advocate for understanding and reconciling differences to protect relationships by not allowing politics and the like to come between friends and family. I generally agree with this, but there are some things that should never be political in the first place. Are we really expected to compromise morals or common sense for the sake of relationships now? I don’t think so, and I won’t. There are issues I simply cannot look past any longer.

For example, I choose to no longer maintain relationships with people who ignore health experts and scientists in favor to whatever wingnuttery they might have found on YouTube that supports their foolish desire to oppose any and all public health orders. Their refusal to take even the most reasonable measures to protect our communities from this viral outbreak is a deal breaker for me. We might reasonably debate whether or not an economic shutdown is warranted, or even beneficial, but if you oppose simply wearing a mask when in the company of others during an outbreak, as far as I’m concerned that’s an irreconcilable difference. Actual medical conditions paired with actual medical professional advice to not wear masks is of course an exception to this. However, professional medical advice like that also usually advises them to isolate themselves to avoid this virus that they are at a particularly high risk of dying from, as well as preventing them from spreading it, so it really shouldn’t be an issue (I will insist on that isolation when it comes to my family regardless of your beliefs on the subject).

My son is not yet 12 years old. As a result he can not be vaccinated yet and in my opinion these folks are quite literally advocating for something that can potentially take his life and that I can't fully protect him from while expecting me to respect their opinions on this. These same people also completely disregard, and even laugh at, my own opinions on this issue, expecting me to give in and allow them to visit my family and the like. I'm sorry but that's not happening, I don't care who you are.

No we cannot remain friends. When they’re willing to put my family’s lives at risk because they think something as simple as wearing a cloth mask somehow makes them a communist sympathizers or the equivalent of a holocaust survivors our relationship cannot survive. If they will not even respect my family’s most basic safety requests when wanting to visit or meet up they clearly do not value us, nor our relationship, and I see no reason to continue it. Since their selfishness appears to know no bounds I can not, and will not, look past it for the sake of a relationship of any kind. It’s simply not worth it.

There are other issues that similarly cross the line for me. If you’re a racist, homophobe, misogynist, pedophile, sociopath, anti-semite, raging conspiracy theorist, etc., please see your way out because you are not welcome here either. Some issues are simply beyond reconciliation and social niceties.
Child Soldiers of Washington, DC
By: Joel B. Levine Md
Tags: Morality, Crime, Race, Washington DC, News

Child Soldiers of Washington, DC

The wanton and violent death of Mohammad Anwar is both fact and parable. The facts are derivatives of failings. The failings have created our own child soldiers ; teens of the inner city suckled by false narratives and recruited into a new urban army. This is not an army that fights for but against. Inculcated to be victims of “ race “, persuaded by a musical culture of anger and celebrity, its sentries roam the streets unfazed by “ rules” and disdainful of consequence.

Mohammad Anwar was the essential and true definition of victim. A Pakistani immigrant , entering legally, working diligently, he was carjacked and killed. Children killed him as he held on to the door of his car, his livelihood, his life in America. They smashed him and his family , pure and simple. And when they crashed his car and clambered out , they casually walked away until one shouted her concern. Concern not for him, not for us who bore witness, but because she left her phone in the car. That is the part of the video that is the most compelling and fearful.

Indifference destroys societies. The common threads of humanity have to be unwoven, ethical and religious tenets disassembled. What must happen in a city for the barely adolescent to have lost all semblance of childhood? If you poison the root, as this reveals so painfully, the tree will die. It really does not get worse than this story.

Race has become a poison pill to this society. A whole generation has been bred to act on the sense of “ victimhood” and feel justified. You take what is rightfully yours. You take from those who do not deserve. Anger has become a trademark. It is leveraged as a threat or expressed as a “ reason”. There was a reason that Martin Luther King extolled non-violence in pursuit of the right. He understood that when you justify harm to others, you are lost to conscience.

What is wrong with us is less the question. The reasons just need voice. So many are simply afraid now. Mohammed Anwar was canceled by a culture we do not have the grit to address. Progressives cancel with a self justified smile. These child soldiers, themselves casualties of the more manipulative, cancelled Anwar but just in a more street level way. Pulling one end of the thread gets you to the other.

We fail these children , they fail us and we then fail Anwar. No candlelight demonstrations, no Presidential anger, ( he might have heard the crash from his window), nothing but a plea deal. Child soldiers , born to the war, soon returned to it.
Is it normal?
By: Людмила Советкина
Tags: Quotes, Questions, Tesla, Morality, Science

If genius doesn’t follow the rules of morality, we are in danger of scientific progress

When I saw this statement, I first thought of the great scientist Nicola Tesla. We’ll talk about him a bit later.

This quote raises many questions. What is its meaning? How do people feel about scientists? Are they scared? What is morality? Are moralility and progress not comparable? Is progress a danger?

In all centuries, science has bordered on magic, because it revealed to people the secrets of the universe, told all the secrets of their origin. Obviously, the sciences were scary and they are scary now, while a lot of scientists used to be perceived as crazy or even possessed by the devil.

Morality — is accepted in society ideas about good and bad. And the rules of morality always limit the creator, making him observe the rules of society. He won’t create anything new, because, as I already said, any novelty in society is accepted very negatively. The moral is controversial, somewhere people eat people and consider it quite normal …

I believe that progress and morality can exist together. It does no harm to anyone. But people are selfish, they want to get ahead of their enemies, “have a trump card in the sleeve”, to be the best. Therefore, science can become immoral, and scientists are not to blame in it.

Let’s go back to Nicola Tesla. For me, he is the greatest scientist of all time. He discovered alternating amperage, an electronic motor, and many other things, thanks to which the industrial revolution took place in the 19th century. It is very important to note that his experiments were insane and dangerous. He sat in the room and watched the current that literally was everywhere around him, but he was not afraid of him.

Tesla invented more than 600 things, but destroyed half of them, because he was afraid that humanity would use them for personal gain.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that I fully agree with the statement, but the problem is not in scientists, it is in people.
Ditch the stereotypes — get to REALLY know people
By: Guy Erez
Tags: People, Morality, Stereotypes, Psychology, Humanism

Stereotypes. They evolved through evolution and culture to provide our brains with a cognitive “shortcut”, a way to discern between friend and foe as quickly as possible. It proved useful, otherwise, it wouldn’t be so prevalent in society.

However, in the 21st century, we find ourselves in a sticky situation.

On the one hand, our primal brains are afraid of those different from us. We are quick to tag individuals by their clothing, ethnicity, certain behaviors, looks, etc. Sometimes we are right, and our brain is biased to remember those instances. But more often than not, they are very misleading.

One could take a short look at a person, and judge their whole personality based on some external features. However natural this tendency might be, it must reach your conscious awareness. You must know that as a human being, your fallible, we all are. It’s completely natural to feel those feelings, to feel threatened or otherwise to put people in specific tags. But it is not moral to act on it. What you should do, is notice those feelings, and act according to your higher moral compass. That is, remember that in front of you stands a human being. As complicated just as yourself. Just as you cannot be summarized using a few prevalent features, so it is for everyone else you meet.

One should make a conscious effort to engage in thoughtful conversation. As each person is unique, and each person has a unique story that makes him/her who he/she is.

So next time you find yourself thinking you know a person without really engaging in thoughtful conversation, challenge yourself to make the move and get to know that person better. Even if you have an “excellent eye” for people, more often than not, you’d be pleasantly surprised to find out you were wrong.
“Marveling” at moral confusion
By: James Sweeney
Tags: Doctor Aphra, Evil, Morality, Marvel, Comics

I’ve committed myself to finish reading the first Star Wars: Doctor Aphra series from Marvel Comics. Now I’m quite behind in my comic book reading in general, which explains why I’m about to comment on an older issue. I am making good progress in my attempt to catch up, but todays progress was abruptly halted when I read this panel in Doctor Aphra issue 33.

From a Christian perspective, the spirit of this age of the world is all about personal autonomy. Making ones own choices about anything and everything is seen as the ultimate good, especially over and above what traditional morality would see as duties to a higher authority. Popular culture including fictional media is filled with characters who take this philosophy as manifestly true and lecture the “unenlightened” about the “evils” of allowing one’s choices to be limited. Here, in a flashback sequence to her childhood, Doctor Aphra’s mother is instructing her on the meaning of evil. Predictably, she defines evil as anything that limits another’s choices. Then in a surprising, if momentary hiccup of intellectual honesty on the part of the writer, Chelli destroys her mother’s argument by pointing out the potential benefit of allowing a greater authority to limit personal autonomy in service to a greater good. Then the mother ends the discussion with the bewildering conclusion that the concept of evil is “stupid” because she personally has a demonstrably and dangerously-wrong notion of what evil is.

The Christian worldview tells us that God alone is good and that any external manifestation of goodness is actually just a reflection of God’s own nature. Evil, then, can rightfully be defined as anything that opposes or subverts the goodness and truth of God that He has revealed both in nature and in holy scripture. In fact, the first example of this is described in Genesis 3 with the declaration that we can be “like God”, deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil. This declaration has never been more blindly accepted than it is now in our morally confused society.

Sometimes one just has to stop and point out some of the philosophical nonsense that pops up even in comic book panels, if only to inoculate ourselves against the notion that a medium like comics is always harmless entertainment. I hope the remaining issues of Doctor Aphra don’t force me to interrupt my reading like this too often, because I really have a lot of other comics to get through!
“Marveling” At Moral Confusion
By: James Sweeney
Tags: Doctor Aphra, Evil, Morality, Marvel, Comics

I’ve committed myself to finish reading the first Star Wars: Doctor Aphra series from Marvel Comics. I read a lot of comics and I’ve gotten seriously behind in my comic book reading, which explains why I’m about to comment on an older issue. I‘ve been making good progress in my attempt to catch up, but todays progress came to a screeching halt when I read this panel in Doctor Aphra issue 33.

I’ve read thousands of comic book issues, and so far, I’ve never been compelled to put one down in the middle of a page and start a blog. So what’s going on here? From a Christian perspective, the spirit of this age of the world is all about personal autonomy. Making ones own choices about anything and everything is seen as the ultimate good, especially over and above what traditional morality would see as duties to a higher authority. Popular culture including fictional media is filled with characters who take this philosophy as manifestly true and lecture the “unenlightened” about the “evils” of allowing one’s choices to be limited. Here, in a flashback sequence to her childhood, Doctor Aphra’s mother is instructing her on the meaning of evil. Predictably, she defines evil as anything that limits another’s choices. Then in a surprising, if momentary hiccup of intellectual honesty on the part of the writer, Chelli destroys her mother’s argument by pointing out the potential benefit of allowing a greater authority to limit personal autonomy in service to a greater good. Then the mother ends the discussion with the bewildering conclusion that the concept of evil is “stupid” because she personally has a demonstrably and dangerously-wrong notion of what evil is.

The Christian worldview tells us that God alone is good and that any external manifestation of goodness is actually just a reflection of God’s own nature. Evil, then, can rightfully be defined as anything that opposes or subverts the goodness and truth of God that He has revealed both in nature and in holy scripture. In fact, the first example of this is described in Genesis 3 with the declaration that we can be “like God”, deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil. This declaration has never been more blindly accepted than it is now in our morally confused society.

Sometimes one just has to stop and point out some of the philosophical nonsense that pops up even in comic book panels, if only to inoculate ourselves against the notion that a medium like comics is always harmless entertainment. I hope the remaining issues of Doctor Aphra don’t force me to interrupt my reading like this too often, because I really have a lot of other comics to get through!
Them
By: Andrew Rodwin
Tags: Ethics, Neuroscience, Morality, Mindfulness, Psychology

From the 1954 sci-fi movie “Them!”

We all have a Them.

According to an old Arab Bedouin saying:

I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world.

Whether it’s “my brother”, “my cousins”, “the world”, there is inevitably a Them.

We build worlds of Us and Them.

Robert Sapolsky, in his book Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, examines the biopsychology and culture driving our relentless bisection of the world into Us and Them. From cultural world-views to neural transmitters, evolution has programmed us humans to sort the world into Us and Them.

Take oxytocin, the darling hormone of pop psychology. Oxytocin has been hyped by some as the joy juice of bonding. Evidence supports this. A 2003 study showed that oxytocin levels correlate with human-dog bonding. Correlation is not causality, but there is widespread evidence of associations between oxytocin and pro-social behavior.

Cortisol, by contrast, has been popularized, accurately, as a hormone that (among many other things) controls fear, and governs fight-or-flight. Some pop psychology has turned Oxytocin into an Us and Cortisol into a Them.

There’s a catch. Oxytocin does correlate with pro-social behavior … within your group. It drives you to favor everyone and everything you associate with “Us”, over everyone and everything you regard as “Them”. Oxytocin is conditional.

Consider some random real world examples of Us and Them, taken to extremes:

The 116th United States Congress

The Crusades

Slavery and Jim Crow

The Holocaust

The Trail of Tears

Pain and suffering directly resulting from human addiction to Us and Them in a single day, in an hour, maybe a single second, is beyond measure.

One can think of a bell curve describing the degree to which people suffer from their addiction to Us and Them. At the tapered extremes:

Dividers: Adolph Hitler, Elijah Muhammad, Fred Phelps.

Unifiers: Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Buddha.

The rest of us fall somewhere in the middle, depending perhaps on our level of consciousness.

It’s fascinating that we live in a world that was for a time shared by Fred Phelps and Martin Luther King. Why do some people live wholly in a world of Us and Them, leaving a wake of destruction, and others manage to transcend the drive to bisect, striving to clean up the mess?

As you wrestle with your own predilection for Us and Them (as I do with mine, 24x7x365, plus Leap Days), some things to consider.