World Religions

Gantz

scarr102 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:04:58 +0000

Recently I began reading a comic series published bi-weekly called Gantz. In it, people who die are given a second chance, and in return they have to follow orders given by a man named Gantz, which usually involve the hunting and killing of aliens. The funny part about this is, Gantz at no point suggests that these aliens are evil, and even though they are ridiculously tough, they don’t seem to have done anything wrong? So why must they kill the aliens? In a battle of survival, it makes sense, but the aliens are never the aggressors, and usually are more like victims. So is it really right for the men and women of this comic to participate in such hunts? They really haven’t much as a choice, seeing as if they refuse they’ll either die or never ever stop participating in such hunts. Given the choice, I guess I would participate. Really, I don’t believe I would hesitate to shoot my target. I could worry about the moral reprecussion later.I believe that in this situation this would be self-interested rather than selfish. If its kill or be killed, and even if the enemy is not the agressor, I will not lie down and expose my soft underbelly to a declared enemy. The aliens in the show were not defensless, and once provoked, were potent and murderous. So I would have no qualms playing Gantz’s little game. But is the overall game moral itself? Because it is just that. A game. Played for the amusement of a seemingly comatose man, who for some reason has tons of futuristic gadgets. Put in that perspective, maybe I wouldn’t play. But protesting something isn’t honestly worth it unless your alive to see the results, so I’d put up with it for the time being until I had the chance to act upon it.

Because I Can

scarr102 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:37:14 +0000

I don’t really have a purpose behind this blog aside from ethical argument. Usually my posts are literature or film inspired, but not today. I just feel argumentative and obstinate today. Thinking back on some of these ethical rules we learned from various philosophers, I never really stopped to realize how vague and general they are. Sure they are supposed to be adaptable to situations, but being unyielding isn’t so bad either. An example I would like to use is Kant’s rule of “ought implies can”. This very well may be true, but does can imply should. This rule assumes that the person is thinking I ought to help that person. But thats really not how most people think. Most are I ought to kill him for that, or thoughts of revenge along those lines. Humans are basically immoral, and most of are thoughts really are not about others, so if ought implies can, we really should hold back whenit comes to this. Rules such as the aforementioned should be limited further, to allow less breathing room for those who would take such phrases and use them to justify less pleasant actions. Same with the Golden Rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. Somethings, rare as they are, like Sado-masochism really ought to be exempt from such all encompassing rules. This rule also implies an ideal society, where everyone follows said rule, not one imperfect as ours what with criminals and the like. Maybe we should just do away with such moral rules and stop listening to others for moral advice.

Red Carpet

scarr102 — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:27:29 +0000

The reason I chose this title was due to the imagery I got from a book I was reading. The red carpet in this case is not some fabled award show walkdown, but a carpet of blood and corpses. Is war really justifiable for a cause. Even though it may save millions, should we really rush in to such things without fail or question? If you were a grunt in a war, would you be secure knowing that the cause you fight for might not be right, what you are doing in any other situation would be considered wrong/illegal, and the fact that the other side is just as human as you? Really, when I think about it, I don’t like war. I think its necessary, but it makes my skin crawl. The fact that this happens so often, that others profit about it, that generals can sit in a room and decide who will function as bait or who gets to die that day… that idea just makes me uncomfortable. However, is diplomacy and doing the right thing always best? Through such actions or inactions, you may waste precious time necessary to stop the suffering. Fighting from the inside doesn’t always work, and when it does, it is time consuming and somewhat more fraught with dangers than open warfare. At least, in one aspect, war may get the job done quicker, solve the problem more efficiently than asking the enemy nicely. I guess I would support it if necessary, but trying the slow way first is not a bad idea. I still don’t like it though.

Shinto Festivals

scarr102 — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:11:09 +0000

I was slightly surprised by the Shinto festivals. It is difficult to kind these kind of things worship with all the drinking and vulgarity and goings on. Mostly, however, it is the celebration that compares. Their idea of ritual worship is looser than ours, so actually can be put on the same level as their rituals. For one thing, they mostly take place at shrines, the holy places scattered throughout Japan. They also follow certain traditions, passed down through generations. One could also say their differences are their similarities. Each shrine or town differs in their methods of worship, as well as the manner of their festivals. I have trouble calling drinking and partying religious, but I guess the psychotropic effects of some drugs could qualify as having a religious experience. After all, what better way to thank your God than throw a big party, rather than sit down and have a chat, like prayers. If I were a God, all that reverence and worship stuff would make me uncomfortable, make me feel like something that was better than I actually was. With the partying, it brings me down and allows me tor relate to my followers, get to know them better, and still allow them to celebrate me. I feel a little bigoted talking about me as a God, but thats the gist of what I get.

Honor Among Thieves

scarr102 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:50:59 +0000

Most recently I was reading a book that revolved around several members of a criminal organization called the Sa’Kage. Although their deeds were evil, their motives were relatively good, and most people appreciated them more than their ruler. They did run whore houses, but those whorehouses took women off the street and gave them a decent living. Are deeds that society declares wrong always wrong? I would think not. Stealing to feed a family is forgivable, and things like selling yourself for money are just as easily understandable. Although we shouldn’t encourage such actions, should we really stop it. Should we take away a whore’s only reliable source of income, or stop loan sharks. Although neither sounds appetizing, women who whore out of free will should be allowed to, if the government is unable or unwilling to provide another career path and training for said career. Likewise, people visit loan sharks out of free will, and if they did not, there would not be loan sharks. Although we shouldn’t encourage, maybe sometimes its best to just leave it alone, or instead of incriminating, find a more appropriate line of work for them. On the same topic, what about crazy people. Should those surrounding them be responsible for their actions. Although some crazy people are “that” kind of crazy, not all of them are bad. Those surrounding them, however, really are responsible for them. Someone who is not aware of themselves should be monitored at all times. They should still be reprimanded (and if its bad enough, killed), really more focus should be put on their surroundings. I’m not saying blame the parents or the society, but really, someone had to be in charge their, right?

Ethics of Paprika

scarr102 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:30:19 +0000

To clarify, Paprika in this context is not a spice. Rather, it is an animated movie from Japan, which deals with dreams and the subconcious. The plot in a nutshell is a man named Tokita invented a device called the DC Mini. The DC Mini allows the user to delve into someone elses dreams. However, someone steals it, and uses the technology to implant a dream in people’s heads. The dream soon starts to merge with reality when enough people start to dream it. The ethical conflict presented by the movie is that of whether or not it is right to interfere in one’s dreams. Although there are good applications, such as diagnosing mental disorders, or sharing one another’s dream for another level of connectedness, there are other unsavory applications. The terrorists use the dream to control other’s actions, and eventually reality. Although it is a device with great capacity for good, its capacity for evil is equal. In my opinion, such a device is indeed all right to create. Although it can do evil, most things can be applied to do so. For example, the very internet that makes life so convenient can be used for identity theft and bullying. Devices can be used both ways. The DC Mini is another device. Although it is unnatural, it can allow for better interpretation and diagnosis of mental diseases, and treatment better applied for patients. Although it might be a sin to tap into another’s mind, this is one of those necessary evils for the evolution of mankind. Even with the risks, the good is ever present in such an action. If we monitor the progress and guard the secrets well enough, we may avoid unethical use of such tools.

White Lies

scarr102 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:21:44 +0000

Although not directly related to the media ethics we debated on today, the discussion on slander and libel got me thinking on lieing, or more importantly, if it is ever right. According to some (like Kant) lieing is a sin, and that is that. Though some schools of thought would have us believe that some sins are forgivable if the good outweighs the bad. Although I tend to agree with the latter, lieing still seems wrong. To lie, you withold or change information to get others to do what you want, which feels intrinsically wrong, no matter how good whatever your trying to get someone to do. Taking propaganda, for instance, which inspires men with lies to fuel the war machine. Although it is necessary to go to war, we should not have to lie to get people to go. However, if we do describe it, they will feel a certain advantage to not going. Therefore, conscription, or forcing them to join against their will, would be the moral choice. Unfortunately, no of these are good options, so maybe I should skirt this topic. The government tells lies to us, sugarcoating situations and leaving out the downright unpleasant. However, although it is a temporary fix, these lies are worse in the long run. People will be more devestated when they learn the truth behind your clever smoke screen, and more prone to violent reactions. Again, lying is NOT a good option here. In the end, I’d say, it is actually the only morally reprehensible action in all situations. Murder is one thing, but lying about it is just as sadistic in another fashion

Asian Art Museum

scarr102 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:38:08 +0000

Our recent trip to the Asian Art Museum was interesting to say the least. We viewwed several different religious art relics from China, India, and Japan. My favorites were the Chinese or Japanese guardian statues. The way they were carved was intricate, and their eyes were so realistic it was a little scary. One thing I noted was that most of the art was from Buddhism. We saw one Jain sculpture, maybe four Hindu sculptures, but the rest was mostly Buddhism. I think this may have had something to do with the relative age of the religions or beliefs. Buddhism is younger than Hinduism, and in Jainism, plainness was encouraged and thus art was discouraged. Still, however, I was intiruged, and felt that it made the museum seem a little one sided. We barely viewed any other aspect of religion in these respective countries, such as Shintoism. If we did, it certainly wasn’t explained or embellished upon. I think the Shinto sculptures especially would have been fascinating, seeing how multi-faceted that particular religion is. All in all, it was an interesting trip. Some of the other parts of the musuem that did not pertain to religion were great, such as the Peacock room. i would do it again, given the opportunity.

Reflection: Guru Angad Dev

scarr102 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:11:47 +0000

In my opinion, Guru Angad Dev should be considered the greatest guru in Sikhism. Although hew as not the founder, he had a profound effect through the continuation of Sikhism. Appointed Nanak’s successor over his son, he reluctantly accepted the role. Although he made no significant changes, he took charge of the religion when it was at its weakest: the beginning. Although it is one thing to start a religion, or a cult following if you will, it is quite another thing to maintain the religion someone else started. Not to mention he also created an alphabet centered and established several centers of education. Although he did not make any profound changes to the religion, he is most important for his ability to keep going what would have died without his guidance or assistance. Even though he reluctantly accepted the job, he was the best man for it in the end. Without Guru Angad Dev, Sikhism would probably not have survived to become what it was today.

Guru Nanak Dev

scarr102 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:56:10 +0000

Guru Nanak Dev was born on April 15, 1469 to a small Hindu family. He recieved a formal education, and was hailed for his learning abilities and questioning of teachers. At age 13 he refused the sacred cotton thread of Hinduism which marked him as a rebel. Eventually, he was forced into marriage in an attempt to get him to conform to the Hinduist traditions, and although he loved his wife, this did not stop him. One day, he fell into a river while bathing and reportedly drowned. He appeared three days later, claiming to have had a visitation from God. He claimed there was only one God. He proceeded to travel across the country spreading his new word of Sikhism. He went on four great journies, the first to Kurukshetra, the second almost to Sri Lanka, the third to Tibet, and the fourth to Baghdad. On all of these, he gained followers through mostly his actions, not words. He debased local superstitions, pointing out flaws in traditional beliefs of God. One particular occassion was his stay over at Saidpur. he chose to stay with a carpenter, Lalo, rather than the local chief, Bhago. When he refused Bhago’s invitation, Bhago became angry, asking how the peasants wares were better than his. Nanak proceeded to take a piece of Lalo’s food in one hand, Bhago’s in the other. When he squeezed Bhago’s, blood came out, and milk came out of Lalo’s. This signified that where Bhago’s food was earned by exploiting peasants, Lalo’s bore the milk of hard labor. Guru Nanak eventually retired to Punjab, his original town, with his wife and two kids. in 1532 he was approached by Lenha, who became his apprentice. Guru Nanak died in 1539, on September 22. Thorughout his life, Nanak preached honesty and a certain skepticism about superstitions. He successfully established the foundation and ideal behind Sikhism.