wah kao. so many pple blogging about the penal code. this may be the next big wave to hit the blogosphere siah. as for me ah, the whole incident (plus comments by yawning bread) reminded me about a project in philosophy i wanted to do some time ago, and blue is doing it now. i understand it look quite cheem at first ah, but if you slowly read all the posts in order then maybe you can understand it a bit better lah.
but other than the ramifications for homosexuals ah, another thing which makes me say "harh??" is the whole "wound religious feelings" thing. what the heck u mean by "religious feelings?" me is scared that, since 'religious feelings' so vague ah, then the definition can bend anyhow for the ISD to detain pple in many many circumstances. very scary leh. me think this is not good. me believes that religious differences should be worked out through mutual understanding and respectful dialogue lah, not i scared kena ISD detain so i just shut my trap. what u need is more communication, not less. that's what me believe lah.
another thing which happened also is the whole goh meng seng step down from WP news. i read the different articles ah, then i got this question hor: "so what the heck really happened???" this is another eye opening experience for me lah. the media, (especially through selective ommission), can sound neutral but actually maybe it's not. wah, our MSM damn power lei.
the explanation offerred by TVD is that goh meng seng probably kena tricked by netizens (yet another eye-opener for me. net pple so devious one ah) until he say something not so smart, then pple complain to WP, then he siao liao. of course, we also dunno what happened after that lah. was he forced to step down or volunteer one? i think his blog reply is carefully worded, so cannot take at face value also. all this ah, makes me realize, being opposition party ah, really lugi leh. i thought netizens are very pro-freedom of speech one. really make me sigh lah. whatever happened to civil discourse? talk and respectfully debate about ideas?
Friday, November 10, 2006
moral realism
Firstly, if it is not at all obvious by now, I am not particularly interested (at the moment at least) in arguing for or against the propositions: "homosexuality is unnatural" or "homosexuality is immoral". My own views on the ethics of homosexuality will emerge later as I describe my attempt to outline a framework of ethical discourse which I think would be useful, especially among two very differing points of view.
If you (especially if you subscribe to Christian ethics) have read my previous post (short discussion on christian ethics and homosexuality), you might disagree with me when I said 'Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity', and your rebuttal might something along the lines of: 'according to Christian ethics, if God says it is wrong, it is wrong period. It's rightness or wrongness does not depend on whether or not you believe it to be right or wrong."
To better explain my point, I need to explain an important distinction of moral philosophy: the difference between moral relativism, and moral realism. Moral relativism, casually explained, is basically 'what is right for me is what I believe to be right, what is right for you is what you believe to be right.' If you are a moral relativist, you believe that there is no absolute right or wrong; what is right or wrong depends totally on your personal beliefs. Moral realism, on the other hand, is precisely the opposite. A moral realist believes that "true morality" exists, whatever it is, and it applies to all humans, regardless of what each individual may believe.
When I said 'Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity', I was NOT making a morally relativistic statement. That means, I was NOT saying: 'Christian ethics only works for Christians. You cannot judge a non-Christian to be immoral (even if you are a Christian) because non-Christians do not subscribe to Christian ethics.'
What I WAS saying is this: since many non-Christians do not believe in the existence of God, they therefore would not believe in Christian ethics, and as a result any moral discourse which appeals to Christian beliefs will not be very productive or successful. I was making a claim about how people with different conceptions (beliefs) of ethics and morality will have a very difficult time talking to each other. I was NOT making a claim about whether it is not justified or incorrect for a Christian to apply Christian ethics to non-Christians (I will talk more about this later).
Take the assertion 'Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural" as an example. If your concept of "unnatural" is based on religious conceptions on what is natural or not, then when you try and talk to someone who does not share those religious conceptions, then you will very likely not have a very useful discussion (this usually results in insults, name-calling, and anything but what we call civil discourse).
The point that I've taken so many words to make so far may seem quite "duh", but it is quite important for me to lay this point clearly, for I will be attempting to argue for a possible platform of discourse where you can talk meaningfully to another party who does not share the same ethical beliefs, yet at the same time not abandoning your own (such as for example, Christians talking to homosexuals), and without resulting to insulting and name-calling.
If you (especially if you subscribe to Christian ethics) have read my previous post (short discussion on christian ethics and homosexuality), you might disagree with me when I said 'Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity', and your rebuttal might something along the lines of: 'according to Christian ethics, if God says it is wrong, it is wrong period. It's rightness or wrongness does not depend on whether or not you believe it to be right or wrong."
To better explain my point, I need to explain an important distinction of moral philosophy: the difference between moral relativism, and moral realism. Moral relativism, casually explained, is basically 'what is right for me is what I believe to be right, what is right for you is what you believe to be right.' If you are a moral relativist, you believe that there is no absolute right or wrong; what is right or wrong depends totally on your personal beliefs. Moral realism, on the other hand, is precisely the opposite. A moral realist believes that "true morality" exists, whatever it is, and it applies to all humans, regardless of what each individual may believe.
When I said 'Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity', I was NOT making a morally relativistic statement. That means, I was NOT saying: 'Christian ethics only works for Christians. You cannot judge a non-Christian to be immoral (even if you are a Christian) because non-Christians do not subscribe to Christian ethics.'
What I WAS saying is this: since many non-Christians do not believe in the existence of God, they therefore would not believe in Christian ethics, and as a result any moral discourse which appeals to Christian beliefs will not be very productive or successful. I was making a claim about how people with different conceptions (beliefs) of ethics and morality will have a very difficult time talking to each other. I was NOT making a claim about whether it is not justified or incorrect for a Christian to apply Christian ethics to non-Christians (I will talk more about this later).
Take the assertion 'Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural" as an example. If your concept of "unnatural" is based on religious conceptions on what is natural or not, then when you try and talk to someone who does not share those religious conceptions, then you will very likely not have a very useful discussion (this usually results in insults, name-calling, and anything but what we call civil discourse).
The point that I've taken so many words to make so far may seem quite "duh", but it is quite important for me to lay this point clearly, for I will be attempting to argue for a possible platform of discourse where you can talk meaningfully to another party who does not share the same ethical beliefs, yet at the same time not abandoning your own (such as for example, Christians talking to homosexuals), and without resulting to insulting and name-calling.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
short discussion on christian ethics and homosexuality
Since I started it with my previous post, I will continue to discuss a little bit more about the ethics of homosexuality, especially with regards to Christianity. Setting the screwball argument aside, let me revisit this structure for the argument "homosexuality is unnatural, hence immoral":
Premise [1]: Homosexuality is unnatural
Premise [2]: Whatever is unnatural, must be immoral
hence, conclusion [C]: Homosexuality is immoral.
If one subscribes to Christian ethics, one might unpack premise [2] further, into something like this:
Premise [3]: Whatever is unnatural, is not from the intended design of God.
Premise [4]: Whatever is not the intended design of God, it is evil/immoral/sinful.
Now, I believe this is a gross over-simplification of Christian ethics, and is not quite the response a sophisticated Christian theologian would supply to the "Christianity vs Homosexuality" debate, but I think for purposes of this post, it will suffice.
Now supposing, (and a very big "supposing"), this is around the arena why Christians think homosexuality is immoral. One obvious implication from the formulation of this argument is the conclusion [C] cannot stand if one denies the existence of a God, or believes in the existence of a God but denies either premise [3] or premise [4] (or both).
That also means, atheists, agnostics, and basically anyone who is not Christian, Muslim or Jew, would probably fall in the category of "this argument does not work for me". My point is simple (although I've made a big detour in making it): Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity. And that also means, a moral conclusion (such as "homosexuality is immoral") derived from Christian ethics (assuming it is so derived), also does not apply to these individuals.
The question is then, how then should Christians and non-Christians interact when it comes to such ethical controversies? If we declare, "Christian ethics only apply to Christians" and ignore them completely, would we not be guilty of oppressing and marginalizing Christians? Yet, if we make law (criminalizing homosexuality) based assumptions and postulations which don't apply to the certain groups of individuals, are we not oppressing and marginalizing those individuals instead?
This is only a short primer. I'm planning to blog about a more complex idea where Christians and homosexuals (or non-Christians, for that matter) can have a platform of discourse, and yet not compromise their own ethical beliefs. That idea will need to be rolled out in stages though, and I will blog about them separately, but soon.
Premise [1]: Homosexuality is unnatural
Premise [2]: Whatever is unnatural, must be immoral
hence, conclusion [C]: Homosexuality is immoral.
If one subscribes to Christian ethics, one might unpack premise [2] further, into something like this:
Premise [3]: Whatever is unnatural, is not from the intended design of God.
Premise [4]: Whatever is not the intended design of God, it is evil/immoral/sinful.
Now, I believe this is a gross over-simplification of Christian ethics, and is not quite the response a sophisticated Christian theologian would supply to the "Christianity vs Homosexuality" debate, but I think for purposes of this post, it will suffice.
Now supposing, (and a very big "supposing"), this is around the arena why Christians think homosexuality is immoral. One obvious implication from the formulation of this argument is the conclusion [C] cannot stand if one denies the existence of a God, or believes in the existence of a God but denies either premise [3] or premise [4] (or both).
That also means, atheists, agnostics, and basically anyone who is not Christian, Muslim or Jew, would probably fall in the category of "this argument does not work for me". My point is simple (although I've made a big detour in making it): Christian ethics don't apply to individuals who do not believe in the assumptions of Christianity. And that also means, a moral conclusion (such as "homosexuality is immoral") derived from Christian ethics (assuming it is so derived), also does not apply to these individuals.
The question is then, how then should Christians and non-Christians interact when it comes to such ethical controversies? If we declare, "Christian ethics only apply to Christians" and ignore them completely, would we not be guilty of oppressing and marginalizing Christians? Yet, if we make law (criminalizing homosexuality) based assumptions and postulations which don't apply to the certain groups of individuals, are we not oppressing and marginalizing those individuals instead?
This is only a short primer. I'm planning to blog about a more complex idea where Christians and homosexuals (or non-Christians, for that matter) can have a platform of discourse, and yet not compromise their own ethical beliefs. That idea will need to be rolled out in stages though, and I will blog about them separately, but soon.
interlude: purple
ok me just want to say a few things ah. firstly, if you read this post you would know that i've been going through some, um...soul searching, recently lah. actually ah, i got think about stopping blogging completely lah, but on second thought, decided not to liao. instead, me will blog differently than before
you see ah, last time, i just wanted to say my 2 cents worth in every single social/political issue which comes out, and then i want to say solid solid stuff. and then ah, i also want to say one blue way and one purple way, which according to my original idea, each blue/purple post will be substantial enough to stand on its own, yet complements the other post, yet does not repeat material twice. wah damn cool idea, but super difficult to write. in the end spend so much time planning this one write blue, this one write purple, then in the end hor, the issue nobody talk about anymore. sian right?
so now i decided lah. don't need to be so stylistically cool lah. impress other pple for what? only for your own ego only. so now ah, me will still blog sometimes purple, sometimes blue, but won't die die must blog both at once. then ah, i think i'll probably talk less commentary about issues (but still will lah), partly becoz i no got time, partly becoz i scared gahmen whack my backside lah. instead, blue probably will write more philosophy inclined posts. blue alreadi has some ideas what to blog abt, so you all wait and see lah.
but me noob hor! please give comments and advice!! thanks hor.
you see ah, last time, i just wanted to say my 2 cents worth in every single social/political issue which comes out, and then i want to say solid solid stuff. and then ah, i also want to say one blue way and one purple way, which according to my original idea, each blue/purple post will be substantial enough to stand on its own, yet complements the other post, yet does not repeat material twice. wah damn cool idea, but super difficult to write. in the end spend so much time planning this one write blue, this one write purple, then in the end hor, the issue nobody talk about anymore. sian right?
so now i decided lah. don't need to be so stylistically cool lah. impress other pple for what? only for your own ego only. so now ah, me will still blog sometimes purple, sometimes blue, but won't die die must blog both at once. then ah, i think i'll probably talk less commentary about issues (but still will lah), partly becoz i no got time, partly becoz i scared gahmen whack my backside lah. instead, blue probably will write more philosophy inclined posts. blue alreadi has some ideas what to blog abt, so you all wait and see lah.
but me noob hor! please give comments and advice!! thanks hor.
why "unnatural" does not equate to "immoral"
In light of the recent amendments to the penal code, Yawning Bread and Mr Wang have both blogged about what this could mean to the homosexual community here in Singapore. This reminded me of an argument that might (or might not) be useful when discussing about the ethics of homosexuality. The argument below did not originate from me; it was taught to me by my philosophy professor, who also happened to be a die-hard New York Giants fan.
One potential argument against homosexuality is that it is “unnatural”, and hence it is immoral. One possible construction of the argument is:
Homosexuality is unnatural. (Premise [1])
Whatever is unnatural must be immoral. (Premise [2])
Hence by deduction, Homosexuality is immoral (Conclusion [3])
Note that I’m being very loose with my wording and I have not defined “unnatural”. However, I believe for my current purposes, this construction which I have presented will suffice.
To understand how I will attempt to refute this argument, we need to understand a bit more about a particular popular American sport: baseball. Most of us would know that baseball mainly revolves around a pitcher, who throws (“pitches”) the baseball, and the batter, who attempts to hit the baseball being thrown towards him by the pitcher. There are many ways for a pitcher to throw a baseball towards a batter. One of those ways is known as a screwball.
A screwball is a type of pitch where the baseball spins in a motion opposite to what is the natural spin of the baseball when normally thrown. In basketball, when we normally shoot a basket, due to the natural motion of the fingers on the basketball, the ball spins backwards. If you can shoot the basketball while making the ball spin forward (instead of backwards), you would have accomplished the equivalent of baseball’s screwball.
One of the greatest screwball pitchers is Carl Hubbell, who played for the New York Giants his whole career. In 1934, during the all-star game, he struck out (meaning the batter failed to hit his screw ball 3 times) 5 hall-of-fame batters (Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Joe Cronin) in succession, setting a baseball record.
Now, anybody who knows much about baseball also knows that the human body is not designed to throw screwballs. [In fact, Jim Mecir, another baseball pitcher, was good at throwing the screwball precisely because of a birth defect (clubbed feet)] So, it would be very logical to say that to throw a screwball is “unnatural”. Yet, nobody ever accused Carl Hubbell to have done anything immoral as a result of his pitching screwballs (except perhaps Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons and Joe Cronin =)).
Based on this account, we can see that premise [2], “Whatever is unnatural must be immoral”, fails to be true, or at least requires further substantiation, and hence conclusion [3], “homosexuality is immoral”, cannot be considered a sound conclusion, at least based on this simple construction of the argument.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
noob explores blogosphere & on the 6th day...(blue)
I discovered that sometimes it takes a long time to write a blog post. I formulated the idea behind this post almost a week ago, but I only managed to publish the post 6 days later. I discovered that to be an avid blogger, each day you have to read other people's blogs, the comments on their blogs, maybe add comments of your own, then write your own posts. That could take up to several hours each day.
I discovered that as I read more and more blogs, I felt very inadequate about myself. That whatever I could possibly write in this blog would be substandard compared to all these blogs I'm reading, and perhaps I shouldn't blog at all.
I wondered about the recent spite against all things "elitist", and if the problem was not an "elite" group of people, but values and mindsets which transcend all singaporeans (all humanity?) regardless of social class. Maybe its not about social class, wealth and snobbery, but about kiasuism, vanity, pride, and selfishness?
I discovered that I've been more pre-occupied with blogging to impress, than blogging to express. That is why I feel I shouldn't post anything whom I feel lacks quality compared to the other blogs out there.
I wondered if the singapore blogosphere is more a vent for various different frustrations, than a medium for reasoned debate. Perhaps bloggers are more interested in stating their own points of view for all to read, than trying to engage and discuss with each other.
I discovered that I wanted my blog to be one that people will read and regard it to be one of the best. If it was regarded as any less, I would feel that it would not be worth my blogging. Either you are the best, or you are not good enough.
I wondered if the reason why "elitists" behave the way they do because from young they are put through a system where they are taught to compete with each other. If you do not have 10 A1s, you are not good enough. If you do not have 4As with 2 S papers, you are not good enough. If you do not get into medicine or have an overseas scholarship, you're not good enough. If you're not the best, you're not enough.
I discovered that I am a product of the system.
I discovered that I am an elitist.
I discovered myself.
purple
I discovered that as I read more and more blogs, I felt very inadequate about myself. That whatever I could possibly write in this blog would be substandard compared to all these blogs I'm reading, and perhaps I shouldn't blog at all.
I wondered about the recent spite against all things "elitist", and if the problem was not an "elite" group of people, but values and mindsets which transcend all singaporeans (all humanity?) regardless of social class. Maybe its not about social class, wealth and snobbery, but about kiasuism, vanity, pride, and selfishness?
I discovered that I've been more pre-occupied with blogging to impress, than blogging to express. That is why I feel I shouldn't post anything whom I feel lacks quality compared to the other blogs out there.
I wondered if the singapore blogosphere is more a vent for various different frustrations, than a medium for reasoned debate. Perhaps bloggers are more interested in stating their own points of view for all to read, than trying to engage and discuss with each other.
I discovered that I wanted my blog to be one that people will read and regard it to be one of the best. If it was regarded as any less, I would feel that it would not be worth my blogging. Either you are the best, or you are not good enough.
I wondered if the reason why "elitists" behave the way they do because from young they are put through a system where they are taught to compete with each other. If you do not have 10 A1s, you are not good enough. If you do not have 4As with 2 S papers, you are not good enough. If you do not get into medicine or have an overseas scholarship, you're not good enough. If you're not the best, you're not enough.
I discovered that I am a product of the system.
I discovered that I am an elitist.
I discovered myself.
purple
Friday, November 03, 2006
noob explores blogosphere & on the 6th day...(purple)
wah, the more i explore the singaporean blogosphere, the more interesting things i find. especially many new things which i never know about such as the AcidFlask incident lah, the Mr Brown incident, the current news going around about Shincorp & the restructuring of TODAY and what happened to nantah in 1980. actually ah, my mom told me about nantah several years ago, but me was too politically apathetic to care, so malu right? actually ah, one week ago me is just the typical politically apathetic singaporean who not very often keep up with current affairs, and not like, very suspicious of our mainstream media. wah kao, after reading so many blog articles this past week, macham i like move to a different reality, just like in matrix neo eating red pill. no wonder blogosphere use the "red pill" metaphor so much lah. (dun laugh at me hor, i say i noob liao wat). indeed, blogs are a good altenative, or at least a supplement, to MSM.
me also pretty much found which are the blogs i really think very zai. me really wish me can write as atas and cheem as xenoboy, as funny as mollymeek, or as cool as kway tiao man (eh, this dude really sell char kway tiao in real life ah? hosay lah). kitana and her 'significant other' are really good bloggers too, and they both say nice things about this blog. that makes both of you really cool lah! but ah, the blog which i realli realli like the most, is the one by bernard leong. becoz me wish i can blog like him, philosophically sophisticated, yet can explain clearly and make it applicable to our context. he probably very good teacher too loh.
then ah, blogging scene also more diverse than i anticipated.got pple ranging from university students like kitana and ben, A-level students like weikiat, gayle goh and even a 16-year old. "high-flyers" like a lawyer, a doctor, and a dude whom sounds very much like a PSC scholar. benard leong is a prof (of entrepreneurship) in NUS (wah....), and this dude (who i suspect to be the incarnation of AcidFlask), is a phd student in US. of couse that's not like a super wide spread lah, sure don't include people who are too poor to access internet or pple who not english literate.
although me realise many good things about blog scene, me also see alot of limitations lah. at first becoz its like so many new things i dunno, i very excited. but then ah, i realise also got ugly side, the whole WSM thing for instance. then ah, like in kitana's blog, the comments so long like macham forum liao, then like in any forum ah, can have pple make trouble. but i also din noe trolls got so sophisticated one lah, pretend to engage in serious discussion, but merely baiting the blog owner and other bloggers.
me also realize, after reading so many good blogs, me is not very good blogger. and maybe me shouldn't blog. after all, i not sure if anything i say got any substance since i so noob, and i not very good writer. aiyah, i just wait and see how lah. besides, my readership so low, not like anybody notcie i write badly right? hahaha.
blue
me also pretty much found which are the blogs i really think very zai. me really wish me can write as atas and cheem as xenoboy, as funny as mollymeek, or as cool as kway tiao man (eh, this dude really sell char kway tiao in real life ah? hosay lah). kitana and her 'significant other' are really good bloggers too, and they both say nice things about this blog. that makes both of you really cool lah! but ah, the blog which i realli realli like the most, is the one by bernard leong. becoz me wish i can blog like him, philosophically sophisticated, yet can explain clearly and make it applicable to our context. he probably very good teacher too loh.
then ah, blogging scene also more diverse than i anticipated.got pple ranging from university students like kitana and ben, A-level students like weikiat, gayle goh and even a 16-year old. "high-flyers" like a lawyer, a doctor, and a dude whom sounds very much like a PSC scholar. benard leong is a prof (of entrepreneurship) in NUS (wah....), and this dude (who i suspect to be the incarnation of AcidFlask), is a phd student in US. of couse that's not like a super wide spread lah, sure don't include people who are too poor to access internet or pple who not english literate.
although me realise many good things about blog scene, me also see alot of limitations lah. at first becoz its like so many new things i dunno, i very excited. but then ah, i realise also got ugly side, the whole WSM thing for instance. then ah, like in kitana's blog, the comments so long like macham forum liao, then like in any forum ah, can have pple make trouble. but i also din noe trolls got so sophisticated one lah, pretend to engage in serious discussion, but merely baiting the blog owner and other bloggers.
me also realize, after reading so many good blogs, me is not very good blogger. and maybe me shouldn't blog. after all, i not sure if anything i say got any substance since i so noob, and i not very good writer. aiyah, i just wait and see how lah. besides, my readership so low, not like anybody notcie i write badly right? hahaha.
blue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
