Charlie's commentary

http://www.beingbadlectureblog.blogspot.com/

So here we can see my good friend Charlie's blog. On there one post caught my eye especially. That was her post on infidelity. She is firmly of the opinion this is indeed 'being bad'. And I must say on reflection I agree with her. She points out the emotional pain it can cause, and what acts actually constitute cheating on your partner. She does raise an interesting point however:

'The desire to want someone else other than your partner, I don't think this is so much being bad'

This poses some problems; for if she is wrong then we very often find we are being bad and unable to alter this, as much as we may try. If she is right, however, then this implies 'being bad' is in actions rather than thoughts. I must say I go with the former option, that she is not right on this one. I say this for one reason... that we cannot be pragmatic, to judge the truth of a cause by an effect. Rather, given that the cause - in this cause thoughts - are what lead to the effects, they are themselves 'being bad', for to have to cause is to have no effect. I'm sure Charlie will disagree, but that's worth considering.

Body modification

As I sit here typing I currently have no body modification. I've always meant to get round to a tattoo, but never have, and while I do have piercings, none of them are currently in. But, it will be known, many people consider these such things to be 'being bad', mostly as they are perceived to be unhealthy. For sure, they can be, if for example unclear needles are used. But, assuming that a tattoo or piercing has been conducted properly, and that no infection arises as a result of it, I ask, whom do people with these modification harms with them? Of course, many people consider them unpleasant to look at, but this is such a weak arguments it does not deserve any commentary. These items in a way tend to become accompanied with the image of a rebel - a biker covered in tattoo, or the 'emo' kids of nowadays - which may or may not themselves be good or bad, but one must recall that body modifications do not cause such natures. Rather, despite me racking my brains, I cannot see any rational argument against these things, and thus that they are acts of 'being bad'. For as with so many social trends, after all, who do they hurt?

Unemployment

This topic is a little different to the other ones that I have posted. Here I speak of those who are unemployed through choice, not of the unfortunate millions who are unemployed through no choice of their own. I got the idea for this blog after seeing a Conservative election campaign poster. On it, alongside a picture of David Cameron, in big bold letters the poster pronounces 'stop benefits for those who refuse to work'. I think the key point here is to play on the animosity many feel towards those who are able to work - with no medical condition or other valid reasons not to do so - given that, after all, those who do work are eventually the ones who pay for those who don't work. This perhaps falls into another type of 'being bad' than do other subjects, for this is one that has many social ramifications as well as political. I could easily spend far much more time on this blog than I have, so I will jot down just a few thoughts relating to it, as after all, those who do not wok through choice will argue most vehemently, I'm sure, that they are not 'being bad'. On this though, however, I must disagree. I am employed, and do pay such taxes as that warrants. However I speak entirely detached from this fact, but observe the detrimental affects that this condition has on other people. This condition is unhealthy, not to the individual, but to the society that they are in. This is especially true if one has children who end up in the same condition as their parents, a underlying social trend one can observe in the less prosperous areas of towns and cities. We see a lot of crime in these areas, violent and otherwise, petty and large. That is not to say that only the unemployed commit crimes, of course the employed do. But no one can deny the link between prosperity and general lawful behaviour. So we see that not only do those who are unemployed cost money from the state; can set bad examples, but also subtly ensure that future generations are like them. These are only a few fleeting thoughts, but on the whole for those who are not employed through choice - I again emphasise the difference between those not in work through force - do indeed commit actions that are 'being bad'.

Infidelity

This topic is somewhat different to the previous blogs I have posted, namely as the subject is a little different. I think that there can be little doubting that he or she who commits this action is indeed 'being bad'. I say this as infidelity is an action that does indeed hurt other people, which is something that almost unequivocally is being very bad. Most often of course this is emotional pain, and can be very severe. Here we should adapt a pragmatic approach, as if infidelity is bad or in itself does not alter the effect that it produces upon the innocent party. I hold in high regard the beliefs espoused in On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, and expound on them here. Although Mill does not say this, largley as it is outside the scope of this work, anyone who harms another individual by their action can be considered 'being bad'. For unlike other issues, an individual does not posses sovereignty over other people, as they do themself. It i9s the very action of intruding upon someone else's liberty, and the ensuing pain it inflicts, that makes this action being bad.

Homosexuality

Ah yes, that constant in the world of ethics, and sadly politics. I have to point out, here, though, that I post this blog in relation to being bad only for how other people see it. And not myself. This topic does hold resonance to me, not as I am gay, but I am well aware of the horrific actions that ave - and to this day - befall people for such a trivial matter. But anyway, enough sentiment. Why is it, exactly, that some people consider homosexuality, or anything other than heterosexuality I should say, 'being bad'? Yes, of course, most base this belief upon religious beliefs, by why is it that these beliefs themself postulate that it is bad... apart from the theology and so on? The most natural argument I've come across, is, literally one based on nature. They say, of course, that such actions are not natural. I do always love to point out that so too are the clothes they were, but I digress. There really isn't time here to systematically refute such arguments, except that to point out that as with frequent sex, prostitution and so on... none heterosexual sex doesn't harm anyone. It may be observed that this is an undercurrent measurement my thought employs. That that which does not harm anyone is not bad, or at least it meets one requirement to 'not be bad', as it were. But given that this act is one with consent, or I speak of such acts that are with consent, between adults of sound mind... how can this be 'being bad' anymore than one putting on clothes? I digress, I know very well the arguments that can be use against this, but frankly after objective consideration, none of them carry any credence at all.

Pornography

Here I speak of the use of pornography, and the people who take part if the formation of pornography. I think we do need to establish a difference between creators and consumers here, as they do what they do for different reasons. I confess, I have used pornography, as I'm sure the vast majority of people have. There is hardly a shortage of it. I do here 25% of the entire web is porn based, although the truth of that or not I do not know. What I do know however is that it is often seen, as creator or consumer, to be an act of 'being bad'. But why? Again, I feel that this act in either case is is not 'being bad', for the same reasons as say cannabis use. Whom do the creators and consumers harm? Of course I do not speak of people who are forced into porn, but of the mainstream industry. I can think of no one they harm. And in the case of the consumers, they do no more than that which nature, frankly, requires us to do. I personally consider chastity to be immoral, and masturbation not for that very reason. Given that creators of porn, and users of it, do not harm anyone... and that they do perform an act of nature in using it, how can this be seen as being immoral? Even if, probably, a little embarrassing.

Drug abuse

Here I concern myself with drug abuse. I speak of any drug, from what in the UK is classed as C upwards. Cannabis falls into this spectrum, as does cocaine, heroin and all others. I think there can be little doubt that the class A drugs are 'being bad', if only for the extremely bad health side effects they produce, often more quickly and severe than smoking. But what of cannabis, cough medicine, glue and all the others used to 'get high'? Are they 'being bad'? I must confess, that while I do not approve of such things, I object not on moral grounds but health ones. Quite often we see people who have gone insane, died, committed crimes and so on, a a result of such drugs. But we must keep in mind that while this happens, numerically such drug abuse leading to such affects is much less often than say heroin abuse. I do here divorce health from morality, as I do not consider health to be a foundation reference point to discover if an action is moral or not, but only an incidental one. And thus, much the same as frequent sex, I can't consider such drug abuse to be 'being bad'... at least not as long as those who use such drugs do so in moderation and while under the influence do not harm other people or commit crimes, which surely most people who use such drugs do not. For, after all, they do what they do wilfully, and in these circumstances do not hurt anyone. So why are they 'being bad'? Perhaps they are not being good either, but not bad as a result.