Eastern religions seem to valorize "wu-wei" or non-action. They seem to make it a virtue to not do anything. In certain cases, this is a good thing: Do not hit that guy or do not steal that woman's supper.

However, Catholicism emphasizes actively being good to people. Do not steal that poor woman's lunch but DO feed a begger. Catholicism is more inherently designed to make the world a better place!

This almost seems obvious like Catholicism is better than protestantism,
BY DEFINITION. But, for those of you who don't know why...

Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is. Simon, one of his apostles,
answers: "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God."
And Jesus replies "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in heaven. And I
tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." (Matthew
16:16-18)

Peter in Greek comes from the word rock, so when he said "this rock",
he was referring to Peter. Thus, Peter became the first pope and established
the Roman Catholic Church. Since Peter, there has been an uninterrupted
succession of Pontiffs. Jesus appointed Peter and Peter established the
Catholic Church. So, by extension, Jesus founded the Catholic Church and
Jesus is God, so the Roman Catholic Church was founded by God
himself. The Protestant movement was founded by Martin Luther.
So, the question is simply, who do you want to follow? God or
Martin Luther?

People often make ethical theories in order to guide actions, they set the rules for what is right, what is wrong and why.  They establish a guiding principle that can be used to make all ethical decisions.

Of course, ethics isn't completely rational like other philosophy. You can't draw an ought from an is. We are all individual people and there is nothing which we can really agree on thats right or wrong. We can agree on facts about the physical nature of things but what we consider right or wrong stems from our emotions. i.e. We don't like what someone does to us, so what that person does is WRONG. But everyone has different emotions and so we can't say that something is wrong for all humans.

I think the only universal ethical system that can be applied to all humans is the one that Euthyphro said: "What is right is what is loved by the gods. What is wrong is what is hated by them!" It makes perfect sense, especially now that most religions have only one God so there is no disagreement among the gods. If you KNEW that what a certain religion was saying was all true and you knew that there was a god and you knew exactly what he wanted, well then ethics is quite simple isn't it: do what God wants because he (or she) has the ultimate power over your fate.

Of course we can't really apply that moral code because the world is not completely sure about whether there is a god and who God is let alone what he wants. But these moral codes based on the will of God are known as religions. I have chosen the Roman Catholic religion for myself partly because of my upbringing and hearing about the miracle of Jesus and other modern mini-miracles that cannot be explained scientifically any other way. But I don't know if this proof is enough to convince others so I respect that others have different moral codes and there is a possibility that they are right and I am wrong so I don't impose my religion on others although I do try to sort out certain misconceptions that people have about Catholicism and tell them why I think it's the right religion. Anyway, although I can't be completely sure about things I follow a principle called Pascal's wager (devised by the mathemetician and philosopher Blaize Pascal): Follow the rules, if the religion is right, you have so much to gain, if it was wrong well the rules weren't too strict so you didn't really lose much!

Anyway, so although religion is the only possible source for a UNIVERSAL ethical code, we can make ethical codes based on emotions and since people share many emotions these codes can gain a certain acceptance and they can provide a measuring rod of sorts by which we can judge all actions and make tricky ethical decisions. The challenge is to make one which seems reasonable to as many people as possible and which is one simple rule which can define everything that you believe is right and wrong.

Of course, some would say that everyone can come up with their own system of ethics and since these are guided by individual emotions everyone can be right. And so, you should not try to impose your ethics upon others. However, since there is no universal ethics why should there be a universal ethical law preventing us from doing so. So, there is nothing necessarily wrong with trying to persuade people that your system is the right one or of a country (or some other body) imposing its rules on its constituents.

There are many pre-existing systems of ethics including utilitarianism (actions must maximize total happiness), the "Golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). There are some systems which are about individual ethics (what YOU should and should not do) and others that are systems of social ethics that guide the functioning of society as a whole.  Of course, some principles work for both individuals and society.  All the main theories seem to have their flaws if you look at them really closely. 

I have developed an ethical principle that kicks Utilitarianism, the golden rule and Kantian respect for others's respective asses!  It is based on Locke's natural rights principle.  i.e. You're born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).  However, how do you decide who's rights take precedence?  For example, in the case of slavery, you have the conflicting rights of property and liberty.  Whose right should take precedence?

Well, fret no more!  It's easy: Life, liberty and property in that order!  This standard can be used to judge all sort of situations and it can be used to solve all sorts of ethical dilemmas.  For instance, in the case of slavery, you would put the slave's right to freedom before the master's right to property. But hold up a minute. Before you start thiniking that this entire system of ethics can be summed up in one sentence, there are a few conditions:

• You must not unnecessarily violate another's rights regardless of their position on the hierarchy. For example, if you can either steal bread to feed your family or get a job, get a job! Always chose the most ethical means! In such a case, stealing bread, although it puts your right to life before another's right to property, is unethical because you do not need to do it. There is another way.


• Sanctions may be necessary to punish violations of the ethical system and in the interests of DISCOURAGING future violations, they may be greater than the offense. You must take into account that they didn't respect the ethical framework and so, you needn't rigidly apply this framework in punishing them. However there still ought to be limits. For example, it is not worth it if you catch a thief who stole $20 worth of merchandise from a store to pay back $20. You can make him pay like $40. Also, sanctions can be higher on the hierarchy. For example, say if someone robs $200 000 from a bank but he only has $100 000 left in the interests of justice, he may be jailed, even though this violates his higher level right to liberty but punishments should only be at a higher level if it cannot be settled on the same level. For example, if the bank robber had $400 000, then just charge him that and don't jail him. And the punishment may only be one level higher on the hierarchy. i.e. You can't kill someone for theft.

Next, how bout a discussion of these natural rights. Shall we?

Life: This is pretty simple!  Life is life!  We must do what we can to preserve it!  It is natural that life should be at the top of this hierarchy because without life we cannot have liberty or property or anything!

Liberty: This is a little more complicated. The need for liberty stems from equality or rather the lack thereof . If everyone was equal in society, like I mean absolutely equal, everybody would be completely free! People could say whatever they want, do whatever they want, use whatever they want because nobody would even have control on things. You wouldn't have to worry about getting fired, cause you would have no boss! To some, this may seem like a Utopia but it is neither desirable nor possible. There is a need for hierarchy within society! A doctor must be higher ranking with regards to medecine than someone without an MD. A doctor must be paid more than someone whose services are not as valuable and not as difficult to perform and acquire the skills to perform. Certain people are better at certain things and should control these things so as to get the most from them. People sometimes need to be in control of other people. For example, a teacher is there to teach her students. Her students are not supposed to teach her. Sure, they may even know more than her in SOME areas but odds are the teacher knows more than them. Plus, the teacher has learned skills for teaching that have been developed over time through scientific research and stuff. Imagine if the students were equal to the teacher... Would they take a vote and say that they think that what she is saying is wrong and then elect a student to teach them who will in turn churn out complete bull?

As you can see, there needs to be inequality in our society in order to get things done! Also, perfect equality is impossible. Take the case of Larry Flint. People didn't like what he was saying. The majority (that is, in the sociological sense, the people who hold the power) didn't like what he said so they tried to shut him up. Well even in an anarchistic society where everyone is supposedly equal, the majority who did not like what he was saying would disagree with him and beat him up! And thus begins a slow fall towards a divided society with those who have (physical) power oppressing those they disagree with. Further, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There may be just one apple left on the tree (You know... in this eden-like Utopia). Who gets that apple??!! If we are all equal we should ALL have it. OK! So split the apple 6 Billion ways! :p

Sometimes you have to make a decision. You have to discriminate and I don't mean discrimination as in today's connotations of it: racial, sexual, etc. but I'm saying you have to make a choice based on certain criteria. But, at least that criteria could be fair, right? And when a certain person or group has power over a certain other person or group, that power should be limited to what is necessary. For example, a teacher should not have the power to tell her students what to do when they're at home (except maybe that they need to do their homework) because this has nothing to do with her task of teaching the students.

So, there are clear borders for power. This is where freedom enters the picture. The people who are more powerful than you should not be able to force you to do or not do anything that is not necessary to preserve life. But what about the case of the teacher? She can force you to shut up and listen even if this is not necessary for anyone's life! Oh. but she's not forcing you to do anything, she is simply placing a condition on your education. Although, as it currently is, you are forced to go to school. I think it shouldn't be like this. It should merely be a condition for receiving welfare and stuff (for the parents and the children in the future). Of course, if the children are not allowed to go to school by their parents, their parents are infringing on their freedom and they should be allowed alternatives such as free boarding school or foster parents.

But what sort of things should certainly be unrestricted. What sorts of freedoms SHOULD we have?

• Freedom of speech, expression and assembly: This is a fundamental freedom because you need it to discuss and to comment on other freedoms. If the government has gone all corrupt, you need the freedom of expression to tell this to your comrades so you can agree and get together and rise up to the man. It is rather distressing to know that this right is not absolute in this country. The government has the power (and exercizes its power) to ban radio and TV stations. What difference does it make that you're saying what you think to one person who choses to hear you or to many people who chose to listen to you??!!


• Freedom of choice: Thats right: I'm pro-choice. Of course, I'm against abortion because it puts choice before life (remember: this is a hierarchy of rights) As much as possible, you should be able to chose between things if you are allowed to do both (i.e. chosing between jobs, political candidates, products, spouses, etc.) This may seem natural and it may seem like it never has and never will be compromised. 'Tis true that government rarely has trampled on this right but other powerful people have. Let me give you an example, I go to a Coca-Cola campus. Pepsi or other soft drink products cannot be sold at the U of O. Luckily, I love coke but what if I prefered Pepsi. What gives the university the right to exclude pepsi from being sold on campus? It is not their right to sell away. The right to competition, is for consumers and businesses, not for landowners. Let me put this in another light. Lets say theres a club and you're black. Say someone ahead of you in line pays the bouncer and the owner $1000 ("No blacks please") Thats not fair! What gives them the right to sell away YOUR freedoms? It's quite similar.


• Freedom of self-determination: We need a government to enforce rules that protect life and freedom. i.e. to take from the rich and give to the poor and to make laws to protect us and our rights and hire people to enforce these laws. Maybe I didn't use the right word for this but what I mean is that since the government is there to serve us, we should be able to chose it! Since the gov controls us, we should control it. For this, democracy is essential and the freedom of information on it. Imagine if you owned a farm and then you were going away for a while so you hire someone to take care of it. And you call them up to ask how they're handling things like how many carrots have you grown, are the apples ripe yet, etc. And then they're like "Uhhh... we can't tell you! That information is classified!" You'd naturally be like "What do you mean??!!! I OWN this farm! You're fired!" Well it should be the same with government.


• Freedom from harm: Sure THE MAN might not opress you but what about A MAN? You need to be pro-tected from people coming and stabbing you and taking all your money, even when they don't need it - i.e. they're not starving. You need to be free to go about your everyday life without worrying about more powerful (i.e. stronger or armed) people arbitrarily exercizing their power over you. You need police and a military.

Property: Bon! Finally we have the pursuit of happiness! This is pretty simple. Do whatever you want unless it interferes with anyone's above-listed rights or someone elses property rights. You're allowed to buy something from someone else if he indeed owns it. As for land its not so clear... We didn't earn our land. It was assigned to companies and homesteaders who had the favour of the king or governement. And how did they get it in the first place? Here in America, they stole it from the natives! But anyway, thats the subject for another essay! Here I'm talking bout objects. OK, if people are starving, I guess the man could tax me so that I can't afford a PS2 so they can help the people who go hungry. But by all means, once they're already doing that (And they can certainly do all that with less than 50% of my income), I should enjoy what I earn. If I work hard, a company gives me money and that money belongs to me to spend as I please and if I buy something expecting to keep it, I should be able to do so. You can't take my ps2 just so you can have... a ps2! My money and my stuff is mine and you can't take that unless you absolutely need it for the above two rights. But otherwise: screw you: get your own $$$!!!!

Which theory do you think is best and why? Or are you up for the challenge? Can you think of a flawless ethical system which creates a standard rule by which you can make all ethical decisions in all cases?? Bring it on! Lets hear it!

 The catholic view of the death penalty: only when its necessary to save lives! i.e. snipers in a hostage situation. But as for my own personal view. I'm not sure. I used to be flat out against it for the following reasons and I will present the counter-arguments I see in my head now along side them.

a) Innocent people might get killed. That is terrible.

HOWEVER: innocent people WERE killed: the victims. And, there are certain cases where its pretty clearcut. The person IS guilty. Probably most of the cases. In the current way it happens that certain innocent people get sentenced but that is the way it is done, not the death penalty itself. It should be reserved only for cases where its really obvious. i.e. indisputable HARD facts: physical evidence not just witnesses and stuff.

b) It is inefficient. The chair and the lethal injection are expensive. These criminals aren't worth it. Plus, we can use them as slaves and actually make money keeping them in prison!

HOWEVER: Traditionally, slavery is so ineffient that it's not even worth it. The slaves' are not productive enough to even pay for their own food. Think about: slaves are slackas. Plus, not only do prisons have to pay their room and board but there's also that expensive security. There's no way you can pay for all that with a week's labour, which comes to less than $300. Plus, there are cheaper ways of the death penalty. i.e. good ol' fashioned hanging!

c) The death penalty is irreversable!

HOWEVER: The crime is also irreversable. If the dude did it, we should fry him! His victims didn't get a second chance. It's not fair!

d) It's not necessary. Studies show that states with the death penalty have almost identical crime rates as states without the penalty.

Hmmm... I guess that's a fact. But perhaps it is necessary in certain hypothetical cases. People die in prison, even in Canada. People kill each other in jail. And it is the weaker more innocent criminals or guards who die at the hands of evil ****ers. Why does it have to be this way. Sometimes, you get ****ers who don't even try to cooperate! They just there are certain cases in which a person just won't cooperate at all. They ARE guilty of very heinous crimes and they pose a threat to the other inmates. Think of that ****er in the Green Mile. (Hopefully you saw it.) I'm talking about the crazy evil white guy not the brother. He almost killed one of the guards. What if he did? What if they didn't have the death penalty in that state? Would it have been worth it to spare that guy's life?

In conclusion, I used to be dogmatically against the dp, but now, I'm not necessarily for it but I'm open minded about it. I don't know. It's good to at least consider alternate points of view and that's what I did but if you want to try to persuade me one way or another: go ahead. It's not an issue that really gets me riled up like abortion. In that case, the foetus is definately innocent: it's not ambiguously as in the case of the death penalty. So abortion is a more important issue for me. I.e. if i had the choice between two candidates: one that's against abortion but for the death penalty and another that is for abortion but against the death penalty - all other things being equal. I would chose the first, even if I was against the death penalty because of the nature of the issues.

I am for the death penalty in a certain rare case: for the leaders of countries who we are at war with, if the war is a just one. For example, say we found Hitler alive. It would be unfair to his soldiers NOT to kill him. Then, they died for him but he gets off scott free. The same goes for Saddam. They should execute him! Although, the Iraq war was not a just war, it was just enough that his iraqi soldiers need not have died in vain. The same goes for urban warriors like huge drug dealers who have soldiers fight the police and die for them.

 Obviously, one can see where this leads to: an Orwellian nightmare where people are jailed not because they pose a threat to society but because they disagree with those in charge or they pose a threat to the continued dominance of the rulers. Especially if they can be held indefinately.

HOWEVER: Incarceration isn't just about justice it is sometimes also about security. Say there is a huge riot going on with people getting killed n' stuff. Say there was one person walking among the crowd with a gun or something, looking suspicious and dangerous. Say you can manage to arrest this person without killing him. You have no proof that he did anything. He could have been just on his way to work as a brinks agent and was unaware of this riot but got caught in the crowd. In regular times you would not have enough evidence to make an arrest. But it would make sense to lock him up for a LIMITED amount of time, during an emergency situation such as this. Just in case. Better safe than sorry. But certainly, let him go after a few days (like 2 days) if you cannot prove that he did anything and perhaps pay him for the inconvenience and he'll be on his way. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But definately the "indefinately" part, I certainly don't agree with!

Recently, one of my friends and I discovered a new model in game theory Basically, game theory is a branch of math that looks at winning-losing interactions or something like that. Anyway, ZERO sum games are cases in which one side's gain is EQUAL to another sides loss. For example, if I steal $10 from you, I gain $10: I gain the SAME amount that you loss. That's why this is called a zero sum game because the total benefit of all parties equals zero.

However, we realized that situations that most people would consider are zero-sum are actually non zero sum. That is, one person's gain is not equal to the other's loss. In fact, the winner's gain is greater than the losers loss due to a synergy effect, of sorts: the winner gains not only what the loser lost but he also derives extra happiness in knowing the other person is unhappy! So, its like a bonus. So, in the situation I mentionned above, I would not only derive pleasure from all the great things I can do with your $10 but I gain extra happiness in knowing that I have made you unhappy.

So, all that we formerly believed were zero sum games are actually positive sum games because the victor gains not only joy equal to the pain (or loss of joy) that the loser experienced but also greater joy that they derive by knowing that the loser is miserable!

From there, we drew an ought from an is and said that since we discovered this, it is our role to perpetuate this by going forth and making others miserable in order to make ourselves really happy. It even works from a utilitarian perspective. Mills would love us!!!!!

And eventually, once Sir Langdon and I have usurped all the happiness and joy in the world and the world would be a miserable hell-hole devoid of any happiness, due to our insatiable greed, we would still want more happiness so we would invest by giving up some of our happiness, temporarily, simply in order to take it away again, so we would be even MORE happy. For example, we would give back 10 Million units of happiness, or so, only in order to steal it back and thus gain 11 Million units of happiness. It is the perfect plan!

Also, in order to accomplish this, we may need help removing happiness, in the beginning. So, we would enlist the help of the world's richest people, who are, by definition, superior and happier people. Only these people would be allowed to usurp other's happiness because they have proved that they are the most worthy of happiness by being the happiest, already. Eventually we will usurp their happiness, though so that me and Sir Langdon are the only happy ones left. Then only one of us, can have all the happiness so one of us will have to usurp the other's happiness and take our rightful place as god.