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.

Frequent sex

Here I speak of those people, male, female or otherwise who have sex with many people wilfully, and who charge no fee for their services. Many people do this of course, and many of the same arguments for prostitution apply here; possible bad heath, for example. But can we, as a result, consider the 'sluts' (of any gender) to be immoral, that is, 'being bad'? Setting aside those who are, perhaps, addicted to sex, there are those who for whatever reason - perhaps nothing more than pleasure - who have sex often, much more often the average Joe. But here it is best to take a consequentialist approach. After all, do these people really hurt anyone? They may of course if they cheat on a partner, but for those who are single, and who have sex that often, lets face it, they don't hurt anyone. Bertrand Russell once said that it is the independence of will that is seen as as immoral. I agree with him on that, among other things, but appearances and reality may differ in more than an epistemological sense. I cannot see the 'sluts' of the world immoral for that very reason, that they do not hurt anyone. It is an accepted rule, thoughout most Western culture, that if one hurts someone they are bad. Of course, it does not follow that as frequent sexually active people are thus not immoral, as they could be breaking other general rules, but again the religious aside, they are wilful people not massively harming their health who derive pleasure from their antics. So how can they be 'being bad'? I don't know, although of course the cynics among us may just point out that I'm bound to this conclusion, I am male after all.

Prostitution

Now who among as has used the services of a lady (or man or otherwise, perhaps) of the night? I'm sure that we all know at least one person who has, if we know they have or not. Here I will focus more on the provider of such services, rather than the client. Are they 'being bad'? I must admit, Socratic nature here falls from me, as I think not. There are of course many different reasons why people rent their body out - some do it for fun, others wilfully for money, and others as lack of money necessitates - but the actual act itself, so far as we can judge away from causation, cannot really be all that bad. While yes, it can be unhealthy (although much of the health conditions that can arise from sex with many people can be somewhat reduced with protections, a key point of consideration), it is at least for most not an addiction. But, while it may to the common eye seem dishonourable, and is in the UK illegal, who are we really to deprive someone of sovereignty of their body? Of course this in itself would be an act of being bad, but it does not follow that prostitution is thus good.

There are many religious implications towards prostitution, it goes without saying, but in a secular age I think it is better to ignore these objections, especially as they inevitably rest upon highly debatable foundations. However, try as I might, I just cannot find what prostitutes do to be immoral, probably as I recall (against my maxim earlier) that they do what they do either from choice, or from necessity. In the former case, they do what they do to earn money. This is a marked difference from drinking or smoking, as after all... their profession may be illegal, but we all need money. In which case, they are only from choice accepting a means to the end (of making money) that is quite likley the best for their nature. As for those who do what they do against their will for necessity, they aren't so different from their wilful companions. I do not speak of those physically forced into the action, or children, as that can be seen as beyond the present scope of 'being bad'. But of those runaways, those without homes or hope, who try to earn just a little bit for food. At the end of the day, if wilful or not (although for those who with to do something else but who do still consent, with regret, consent is at least a form of will) they are doing so from compulsion, the need we all have... that for money. Perhaps then, if one does object that prostitution is immoral, they need consider the morality of money. But that is another matter.

Drinking

Now unlike smoking, I don't drink... well, very hardly ever. But is drinking something that is 'being bad'? I think, on reflection, many of the same arguments applicable to smoking are to drinking as well. It is expensive, although perhaps not as much as smoking; it is bad for one's health, at least in excess it is. And it can have bad effects on the people around you. But there are also other arguments to drinking, mostly as drinking and smoking are not the same. While smoking does effect one's health in many of the same ways that drinking does, smoking (most often) does not also effect an individual's mind as excessive drinking does. I should make it clear here that I am speaking only of excessive drinking, setting aside what level makes drinking excessive and not, I do not speak of drinking in moderation. This is another difference between smoking and drinking of course, that drinking in moderation is not addictive, or at least half as much so, as smoking. But excessive drinking, as we all know, can make someone so consumed with feeding their addiction that they will happily steal, isolate themselves, and commit illegal actions while drunk. These are of course some of the effects of the terrible affliction, but I think we can call drinking an act of being bad for the simple reason alone that it destroys one's life as an individual, as well as their health. Lost jobs; homes; families and friends are but some examples of how drinking can do this. Obviously, alcoholism is bad, there can be little argument against this. But what of the medium? That point between excessive drinking and moderate drinking? I avoid the cut of level earlier, but here I think is a question worth posing: what about those people who are not addicted to drinking as alcoholics, but who drunk far more often than they medically should. I must admit, since I started typing along this line of thought I conjured up an image of those young ladies and gents who go out every weekend - at least - and get 'hammered' in pubs and clubs. We've all seen them, spilling out onto street corners being sick, abusing passers by, getting into fights and generally commitng unlawful actions. But the arguments for alcoholism do not really apply to these people, unless they cross over from this into alcoholism, which sadly many do in later life. They do not alienate close ones, they do break laws, but normally only when drunk (as opposed to while being dunk and sober as many alcoholics do in order to get alcohol or money for it). As unhealthy as this may be, it cannot be as unhealthy as prolonged drinking. But, on reflection, perhaps there can be differing degrees of 'being bad' as there can be alcohol consumption. These people who frequent the red light districts of the town, and the more upmarket social meeting places perhaps a little too much may not be as bad as their alcoholic cousins, but are certainly far worse off than those who do not. Although, they do at least have two rectifying reasons for doing what they do; the pleasure it gives them and that most, if they tried, can stop doing what they do, much more easily than can a cocaine addict.

Smoking

So, smoking. Why is that an act of 'being bad'. I must admit at first sight it does seem a rather petty action to be considered being bad, but perhaps that's the idiotic smoker in me. I say idiotic of course because lets face it, everyone knows the detrimental health consequences of smoking, let alone the monetary ones as well. But to be fair, there is one thing - if only one attribute - to smoking in favour of it. Which is of course namely, that is produces pleasure, at least for the majority of people who smoke. I've always said to myself, and I stand by it, that I can stop smoking anytime I wish, I simply don't wish to though... because it gives me pleasure. It's a curious fact that mostly what is goof for one's health is bad for pleasure, and reversed; smoking, drinking; certain foods; drugs. I speak generally of course, for there are exceptions, and that is not true for all people (not all drugs addicts get pleasure from the drugs obviously). But smoking is one that we perhaps are on firme ground as classing as such. For no doubt that it is addictive, and that is why most people smok, but if only for the very pleasure of satisfying the addiction it gives pleasure. I suppose we must weigh up the benefit of pleasure to the bad affects of smoking to see if it is truly 'being bad'. This is an enormous task of course, too much so to be fully elobrate on here. Suffice is it to say that on balance this author does consider smoking to 'being bad', as after all, with few exceptions - and even for those smoking is not the most opportune method to their aim - the near inevitable death or horrendous side effects of smoking in the end outweigh any trivial pleasure that can be derived from the act. By and large people don't want to die, and certainly not have to pay how many thousands or tens of thousands they pay to do so with smoking. Although here we must establish a maxim generally true; we value current pleasures over future effects, which is to say the present over the future, at least most often. But at the heart of 'being' bad is exactly such side effects as become from smoking; loss of health; loss of money; harm to other people. There can be little doubt that all of these crimes are commited by smoking, and thus smokers, so there can be little agument, really, that smoking is 'being bad', even if it is perhaps a lesser crime on balance than say, heroin abuse.

The morality of murder

This is a vast topic. At a first glance it may easily be supposed that murder is an abhorrent act for which there can be - or with very little exception - never be committed, much less admired. However, first glances are equitable to first impressions; they carry great weight but rarely bespeak the truth of a matter. The fact is that murder, for which I here define as the act of taking life, is a common occurrence, with many causes, methods, and outcomes.

It here stands for me to show how this is a topic relevant to morality, or, more specifically, how this act - relatively rare in everyday life to most citizens of The United Kingdom - is one that can be a constituent to 'being bad'. Setting aside the massive subjectivity (perhaps even objectivity) of what it is, exactly, that 'bad' morality is, it can be hardly argued that many people consider murder to be anything other than an act of 'bad'.

However, in the words of the immortal Socrates, can it be the case that 'the majority are always wrong' (albeit that being said in the context of a democratic vote)? To asses this, we must consider some of the very causes that produce this act.

For many, undoubtedly, the first vague idea formulated when the word murder is spoken is that of some unknown individual killing an equally unknown individual, that perhaps they have heard of from the news. Murder is one of those criminal acts that most people will happily not be affected by directly though their lie, but which is always happening somewhere (I see only take a murderer has been sentence of at least 35 years in prison, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8555221.stm). While this true, it is beyond doubt that, in fact, most murders occur not within a well governed (arguably) society such as the UK, but in war zones. The very purpose of, or act of, war is, after all, to kill people. With this I mean war as a general act, and not any specific war. There are those for whom war is never acceptable, not even in self defence, whereas for others war is regrettable, yet necessary warrants it, and for some who consider war to be a noble action. The questions to be addressed here are what can be said both in favour of war as an action, as well as can be used against such arguments. And, further, what draws people to their beliefs.

With very little exception, any war is called a war of defence. The current Iraq War was marketed under such justification. This is a truth, it seems, that remains eternal. Even Julius Caesar claimed his Gallic Conquest was for such reasons. True it is, that due to the nature of war, at least one side is determined by the very aggression against it to be fighting in self defence. But what is it that makes acting in self defence morally excusable for the horrors of war? Indeed, this question can be expanded outwards. In British law, acting in self defence is a legally allowed for causing the death of another (it should be understood here, however, that there are key differences; in British law one can kill only after an offence action has been undertake, and not before. And that further, I here define self defence as that of the person rather than another or his private property, for which it is equally excusable to commit murder, even the liberal John Locke, with which one notorious recent case in British law disagreed with the eminent philosopher in verdict).

Without wishing to discuss the various notions of 'Just War' that have circulated throughout history, it is true that hardly anyone will disagree with war - or murder between individuals - if unless this action is committed the other will harm. The key point here is the exclusion this is attached to. As a general rule, it is human nature to will for self survival, even at the expense of others, and that this principle is only further reinforced with noble concepts such as nationalism. Others however may also be included love for family and friends; religion; greed; civil and personal pride and of course revenge. Setting these all aside, we are left with one key fact. Whereas murder, war and conflict are deemed immoral on behalf of the aggressor, even the aggressor can be seen as justified - if not perhaps admirable - in undertaking to kill in the name of self defence. We have here then, at least one example in which it is possible for murder to be justified, even if only be necessity, and thus not ignoble, which is to say 'bad' in moral terms. This is, assuredly, against the commonly held belief that murder, in principle, is 'bad'. And, I may mention incidentally, as an example contrary to what are disputable the very foundation of Western morality, the 10 Commandments.

Yet perhaps there is another example in which it can be said that murder - again the principle of taking life - is not 'bad'. I speak, of course, of euthanasia. Here the term is to be understood as taking the life of another with their consent, with or without any terminal illness afflicting the recipient. Not contrary to the Hippocratic Oath as is commonly thought, this is now legal in a few countries and US states - if my memory doesn't deceive me in Belgium, Switzerland, and Oregon being examples - this issue has been raised to the front of the political agenda, especially in the US, and ever more often nowadays the UK. We might therefore ask again, what is to be said in favour of this? And, in addition, what draws people to it?

The latter of the above is normally quite easy to answer. The person wishing to die is ill with such an affliction that life is either only the prolongation of pain - physical or mental - or that it is to be a short life not worth enduring. Thus, euthanasia is seen as the lesser of two evils. I myself subscribe to this belief, and I am strongly of the belief that law has no business in regulating how one decides to die, as long as this action is designed to affected themself only, and not infringe the liberty of another citizen. But, perhaps with greater inspection, we can see that the answer to this question is the same to the former above. That is to say that what draws people to euthanasia is what can also be said in favour for it. It is true that euthanasia is, as war and murder in general, contrary to the mainstay of belief, the 10 Commandments. According to this view, God has sovereignty over an individual, who while this person exercises free will, they do so only this has been provided by God's grace, and can be exerted only within the parameters God has set, if one wishes to avoid eternal agony. This is of a course a grossly simplified view of euthanasia in Abrahamic tradition (Judaism and Islam as well as Christianity). Others meanwhile venture to assert that euthanasia is, in a way, depriving God of his property (this is a very lose paraphrasing of the beliefs of both Plato and Aristotle). However, setting aside the fact that this belief is one of extreme high subjectivity even among those who endorse it, and that religion has no right in the lay sphere under secularism, one may still conjure up various arguments against euthanasia. Maybe that it does affect other people in their emotional turmoil of loss, that it is misguided and that perhaps medical officials lie, or are wrong. For the sake of fluidity, I will not seek to rebuke these claims. I will instead address the question I asked myself directly; what is to be said in favour of euthanasia, and perhaps by extension suicide, as well.

I have already expressed above that what draws people to this action is what equally is perhaps the best justification for it, and what again by necessity, renders the action not contemptible. That is to say, of course, that the want to end the suffering of the person is itself not only a commendable act (that of compassion on the side of the assistant in euthnasia) but also a beneficial service to they that shall die. There is here however another aspect to be explored, which is in a word the will of the person seeking to die. John Stuart Mill, the infamous Utilitarian and champion of liberty, explained how that individual liberty amounts to near sovereignty on all aspects of the individual in relation to both themself and the state, as long as their actions do not breech the liberty of another (it will be noted by more attentive readers that this was the opinion I expressed above in relation to this subject, as it is one in which I agree with JSM). In this he wasn't far different from the infamous Romantic Jean Jacques Rousseau, who in his Social Contract expressed similar views. But what relevance does this hold to euthanasia? The answer is quite simple. At base, one of the (though not only) most fundamental aspects of liberty is the ability to exercise individual will within the civil entity, which is to say state. Under law in any Western nation no one, for example, has the right to tell me I cannot hop on one leg for the rest of the day if I so will it, and they cannot do this because this action does not encroach upon their own liberty. They can however (as referenced above) stop be from murdering themself, or another, or committing rape, theft, or some other crime. This is because, as a general rule, any action which breeches individual liberty of one person by another is considered a crime. I thus ask, that what moral right does one have to enforce their will (or, cynically, normally their religious belief) on another person? Or by extension, what right does the state have to regulate against the expressed will of the individual. Is it to true that liberty - that most noble concept - is extended to every individual, and that integral to this liberty is the ability to exercise will? In a word, what right does anyone have to enforce their own belief on anther? These questions relate not to the morality of anyone concerned insofar as these morals are personal. But these questions relate to what moral right one has to assert these beliefs on another. It can be seen that this is of dubious credibility.

As for other related topics, abortion comes straight to mind. However, this is for anther day.