For men who cheat, the phrase “boys will be boys” is applied, and for those who manage to not cheat, well they’re congratulated like a puppy who is finally house-trained. Do men not find this practice at all condescending? And also, if you are one of those men who revel in being given permission by society to be as base a human being as possible, how do you know that what you’re doing is just human nature, or societal conditioning instead?

There are no theories that all women cannot give in to any naked man standing in front of them. Does this mean that in reality more is expected from women, morally and intellectually? Why don’t men demand the same level of respect? For centuries they supposedly were above females, and the promiscuity of men was a power tool, rather than what it is now, just sad. It’s ironic that it has come full circle on them, a practice that served them in the past merely makes men little boys with big toys these days. Boys to be looked down upon by the more evolved females. Why men stand for this degradation, I don’t know.

Are men REALLY so primitive that they cannot think for themselves? That they are always controlled by their sex drive? I would think that many intelligent men find this societal theory as patronising as discrimination was towards women. 

<script type=”text/javascript”>

</script>

<script type=”text/javascript”

src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js”>

</script>

You can just picture it: your mother standing in the middle of the room, frozen on the spot, the look of sheer terror on her face. From your perspective as a little three year old toddler, you look at the point where your mother’s eyes are transfixed, then ping pong back to her face, and back to the spider, and in that split second your own fear is confirmed. In your mind, and as a natural survival instinct you learn that if that little thing can scare my ‘big’ mama, big because as a child all adults are huge, then that little thing is very dangerous.

You live with the fear, brewing within for years, and becoming bigger but yet unnoticed. Twenty years later however, if on the good sane planet, you do receive a deathly spider bite while on vacation because you threatened one by being fearful, is it possible to say that you were the only creator of that reality? History is as much part of our reality as our thinking today, and we can never as human beings, unless we are born as adults, have complete control over the events of our history.

Oh, but then, how I digress! The issue was not about how reality comes to be, but about beliefs and how those beliefs make the person. The famous Bible quotation is, ‘as a man thinks in his heart, so is he’. Obviously, there is no correlation in that statement between the fear brewing within, and the eventual spider bite. It just assumes, I was thinking of a near death experience, and the deadly spider bite came because my vibration matched it. It does not, in any way mention that there is a Law of Least resistance at work.

Alas, I digress yet again, from what I initially set out to ponder. There has been a lot of talk lately about which Presidential candidate accepts the rights of those ‘terrible’ people that are doing funny things to other people of their own gender in private, and which Presidential candidate does not. Mine is not about Presidential candidates either, for I have no knowledge of politics. Mine is to wonder… some years back pre-marital sex was a taboo. Such a taboo, that in some communities, it was not even discussed in jest, let alone as a serious family issue requiring well planned choices.

Yet, I have watched, in my lifetime no less, the issue of pre-marital sex move from a taboo, to a topic worthy of open discussion. Even in the most Christian of homes, who of course present as the trendsetters on morality and this is a morality issue they say, parents sit with their children now to ‘guide’ them against this ‘bad’ behavior. Yes! Pre-marital sex has moved, in my lifetime, which is way less than five decades, from a taboo to bad behavior. It figures, it never ever was a taboo at all, except we feared that it was.

Seated upon my speculation stool then, I wonder, is it not possible that the ‘fear’ of this new gay/lesbian taboo, is more about our earliest fears, firmly planted in our minds of the potential of the wrath of God released upon the corporate body of humanity if we dared commit it? Is it not possible that our sudden interest in what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and that we now strongly feel should have legislation against, is more about ‘me’ than about them? Is it not possible that an act, that has no life threatening implications on anyone whatsoever, other than of course to the extent that sex predisposes one to HIV/AIDS, is so frightening because we think we will die under the ‘wrath of God’? Is that not why we urgently need a head of state to discuss it?

I am not lesbian, and I am not in support of or against the gay/lesbian lifestyle. I have no business concerning myself with what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. They should have the freedom to choose! I hate caviar! I know people who love caviar! I’m I running around needing a president to legislate against it? Let them drink what they like if the taste suits them!

I am however concerned that people are allowed to carry guns legally, guns that they use to kill. I am concerned that adults rape, molest, and destroy children, turning them over to realities in their history that scar them for life. I am concerned that we would rather waste time thinking about ‘harmless’ personal habits, that health wise fall in the same category as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, than thinking about how to make our world safer and healthier for our children. In my view, it is selfish, depraved, and altogether immoral. It reaches to the highest possible levels of immorality!

Why aren’t there more voices calling for more stringent rules against carrying fire arms? Why aren’t there louder voices supporting incarceration for life of child molesters? Why is there such lackadaisical support of better health plans for the majority? Please tell me there is one Christian, one morality fundamentalist, just one who can see the stupidity of the pro/anti gay-lesbian rights talk, over other pertinent life threatening issues!

The first project is a purely descriptive one, according to Harris. It would simply involve bearing fair witness to “all of the diverse behaviors, rules, cultural artifacts, and morally salient emotions like empathy and disgust” that transpire in human communities of both the present and the past. The witnessing is to be as non-judgmental as possible and is to be achieved through the lenses of evolution, to accommodate morality over time; and of psychology and neurobiology, to accommodate morality as it is being originated in the present. Because this is a purely descriptive project, it could legitimately be called a “ ‘science of morality’,” Harris argues.

The second and third projects “are arguably more important.” They are not purely descriptive in character but are rather optative/prescriptive or normative in character.

The second project involves the determination of right and wrong in universal terms. (This project, Harris reveals, is the one he is presently concentrating on.) The peculiar difficulty of this project is that it is now apparently the received wisdom “among most scientists and public intellectuals, and [perhaps even among most] journalists” that  such determination is impossible because there is no “intellectual basis” to decide the rightness or wrongness of behavior or, more generally, of conditions. Harris thinks this received wisdom untrue and offers arguments why he thinks this. (Readers are directed to the reference article below for those arguments.)

That it would be well that universal agreement regarding the rightness or wrongness of conditions be found is pointed out by Harris in the context of the United Nation’s attempts, in 1947, to frame a universal declaration of human rights. As Harris points out, because of the received wisdom among scientists, the American Anthropological Association saw fit to advise the United Nations at this time to the following effect: Because human rights are culture-specific, then it follows that “declaring a universal conception of human rights is an intellectually illegitimate thing to do.”

As Harris remarks with obvious disapproval, “[t]his was the best our social sciences could do with the crematory of Auschwitz still smoking.” It is clear therefore, Harris argues, that if we are “to converge, as a global civilization, in our beliefs about how we should treat one another”, then it is necessary that universal conceptions of right and wrong be found. “So in addition to just not being true, … skepticism about moral truth actually has consequences that we really should worry about.”

The third project has to do with persuasion: “How can we persuade all the people who are committed to silly and harmful things in the name of ‘morality’ to change their commitments, to have different goals in life, and to lead better lives?” Harris argues “that this third project is actually the most important project facing humanity at this point in time” as it encompasses “everything else we could care about – from arresting climate change, to stopping nuclear proliferation, to curing cancer, to saving the whales.” This third project is a collective determination to get our priorities straight and to allocate “massive commitments of time and resources” to resolve the collective problems that arise when morality concerns itself only with the advancement of individual interest, whatever this may be.

This third project, Harris points out, depends crucially on advances in project two: Persuading people would be especially difficult, if not impossible, if universal agreement could not be reached on what is right and wrong and derivatively, on what values are worth committing our lives to.

(Reference: Harris, Sam. 2010. The New Science of Morality: An Edge Conference

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.harris.html)

Many businesses today have no real understanding of ethics. They sell products or services to make the most money in the shortest amount of time and have little or no concern for the safety or quality of the services or goods they are producing. For us to move forward in a rewarding way we must reintroduce strong morals to the world. Morals such as doing things to better everyone, making an honest living, and appreciating the things you have instead of being monetarily motivated. Also, we must correct things like stealing from one other and the corruption in corporate businesses that just spread the disease of dishonesty, disloyalty, and lack of care for anyone but themselves. This just causes an increase in inadequate business practices and the corruption of society and family values. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, writes in her book It Takes a Village, that a child is not just raised by his/her parents but by society as well. Regardless if you agree or not with her political views, the concept of society growing together is a fundamental principle of the past that we need to incorporate back into today’s practice. Today’s businesses must see that their actions are effecting future generations to come, and that every business deal is not just a short term way of making money but something that teaches people. We must be accountable to our responsibility to each other . In life, people typically repeat what they have learned from those around them. They think that is how things are done, by learning from those that have gone before them but also by losing the moral fiber that formed those decisions. In the end, CEO’s of businesses should take hold of learning the moral fiber in order to lead to better ethics in both industry and society.

This brings us to the production and quality of products the industries are creating on the basis of making money and not on the safety of the consumer. Companies are just barely passing the safety requirements for cars, toys, food, and jewelry. They don’t try to go above and beyond to satisfy the consumer. They think if everyone is just doing the minimal requirements then people have no where to go but one of their companies. Some are pushing the limit on a product or service that is just not safe. In the world today people are starting to realize that we have the technology to make things better, for example we’ve created more fuel efficient cars, organic foods, and have been able to sustain society without destroying natural resources that are homes to wildlife. As a result, the industries are driven to improve their product to do more than just satisfy the consumer. These things cost companies more money and prevent the potential growth of these companies. On the other hand, driving beyond doing just the minimum can increase life expectancy, protect the environment, and save people and future generations money. But to make it work these industries need to understand that their actions effect the future and present as well as about improving the quality of life and not just making a couple extra dollars because you used filler in a food. Industries don’t realize the things that they add in food, toys, and jewelry can cause brain diseases, cancer, and sickness that can have long term effects and are left at the feet of those who ignored the rule of creating the best product. People don’t understand that spending the extra dollar for a better, healthier future is worth it and it’s not just all about the money. If things aren’t reverted to the traditional way of life then products will eventually just wither away into something with the quality of a prize in the bottom of a cereal box, cheap, small and of no real value.

Society has changed substantially from the traditional ideals. Many people no longer base their lives on honesty, integrity and other important morals but on selfish motivation that has occurred from the corruption of these principles. People based on the change in fundamentals no longer do things for other people but now only think about themselves and how they can make themselves happier. The first thing in improving our society is to teach people that they aren’t supposed to think just about themselves but about others around them. To do this you must start these teachings from the ground up. This means that the new generations to come need to be taught correct morals and values in everyday life. When society focuses on the improvement as a whole, the individual will have a better quality of life. Society needs to work together to improve and renew people more so that the quality of person as a whole will increase, thus creating a better lifestyle as a whole for everyone. In context if we want our children to have a sustainable environment for the future we must teach them how to be an honorable person so that they may pass their ethics down to the children and continue the process of rebuilding society as we know it.

The world needs to completely revamp the way things are done if the future is going to hold a sustainable future that will be good for both our children and grandchildren. We all want something better for the generations to come but most people don’t act on this and they just expect it to happen. To improve the future you must first better yourself and understand that repeating the same action but expecting different results is the definition of insanity. But for this to happen you need to admit that you are part of the problem and say to yourself that you will do what it takes to improve the future so that many people will be able their enjoy lives for years to come. The traditional ideologies in business, industry and society need to be resurrected in a way that we have a revolution regarding the way people go about their day to day activities with a sense of values and not of greed and personal gain. For us to sustain a enjoyable future in which holds morals, we must completely alter our way of dealing with business, industry and society.

It’s already obvious that technology is detrimentally important to the world, but how it impacts society may be greater than we can even comprehend. One might ask how this is so. Well, when a nation is thriving and prosperous, its people start thinking in a different mind set. With this being said, there’s a term that applies to this state of thought. Ethnocentrism– or the actions and behavior of a society thinking they’re better than other nations– would apply nicely here. This sociological term is a very logical way to see how a society changes from technology. With new-found knowledge and a better understanding of science, people feel more intelligent and feel above everyone else. If this term, ethnocentrism, is applied to an entire nation, the country’s hostility can increase very quickly. Technology isn’t always a bad thing; we just make it that way.

Technological advances not only affect societies, but culture as well, and the difference is rather easy to understand. Society is the people, cultures are things. Technology falls more under material culter on account technology makes things. These material objects benefit a nation greatly with things like transportation, mass production, and military advancements. During the nineteenth-century (1800’s), the American and Europeans were under way. With new and improved machinery, economies flourished and more people got more of what they needed. This made nations feel ready for anything because of how their culture was influenced by technology. They weren’t necessarily wrong to think this way, but their power-hungry actions were completely unjustified.

These nineteenth-century nations now had a more advanced society and culture than most other countries, and they now felt the need to put them to use. They became far too greedy and curious for their own good and were soon on a global conquest for ultimate territorial power. It’s sometimes difficult to see how truly dangerous an ethnocentric nation is when hunting for power, but it happened quite frequently during this time period and was often brutal. A great example of this would be the fight over the Philippines. From the late eighteen hundreds into the early nineteen hundreds, America and Spain fought for the rights of the Philippines, among other islands. In the end, the Spanish signed a treaty, giving the territories of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines to the U.S. At first, the Filipinos (people of the Philippines) were hesitant to begin a new rule, but assumed that nothing could possibly be worse than how the Spanish had treated them. The Filipinos’ fear soon grew as they realized how wrong they were. America took away their independence, their land, forced labor on them, and declared war. Power got into the nations of Spain and America a little too severely, and it’s because of this that a country and its ways of life can be torn apart.

As explained here, power is the main cause of imperialism and why people did what they did. Advancements in technology brought on the behaviors of ethnocentrism and extreme tyranny to a whole new level, changing how culture and society was forever impacted and how power masked morality. But we can choose not to fall into the footsteps of our anscestors and be a better people; one where power doesn’t define a nation. Imperialism is something to learn from and to never repeat in history. Let us leave territory battles and tyranny behind as technology advances even more and be a better people instead.

            As the prologue begins we are introduced to many different characters the narrator meets in a pub on the road to the city of Canterbury.  All the characters we are introduced to are on a pilgrimage to St. Thomas a Becket of Canterbury’s grave. In an attempt to make the trip more enjoyable the narrator act as a host for a game where all the characters agree to tell two stories and whoever tells the best will have a meal paid by the others after. Some of the characters introduced include The Pardoner, a conniving man who is willing to do almost anything to make money, The Plowman, a poor working man, The Prioress, a nun who is very much attached to worldly possessions, The Knight, an ideal Christian knight who had participated in many crusades, and The Parson, an honest Christian preacher. The Knight was the first to tell his tale, a tale about how love tore two men apart,  and also the pardoner was able tell his, a tale of how money is the root of evil and will ultimately bring death. However, the death of Chaucer prohibited the tales from ever being competed.

Image via Wikipedia

            As The Pardoner began his tale he was willing to admit that he only worked for money and was honest to admit that he did constantly scam people by selling them relics for his personal profit. The Pardoner says “I preach for nothing but greed of gain (Chaucer 129)”. Even though he knows what he does is wrong he keeps participating, this trait of admitting his sins is very in line with the ethics of The Plowman who the host says “…Paid his tithes in full when they were due (20)”. The Pardoner and Plowman both tried to follow the morals god had laid out for them. However, the host looks down deeply upon the hypocrisy of the Pardoner and how the Pardoner had a pessimistic view of giving up on trying to follow morals and be a good person.

Image via Wikipedia

In the prologue both the Pardoner and the Plowman are introduced, the Pardoner a man highly ranked in the church and also very corrupt and the plowman an honest working man. It is a very clear contrasting trait that the holy man Pardoner works mainly and admittedly for personal profit while the poor working class Plowman gives most of his small income  back to the church. Both in the prologue and after the Pardoner tells his tale it is made very clear that the host despises The Pardoner because of this. Immediately after the Pardoner finishes telling his first tell tale about how money is the root of all evil and admitting relics are useless he attempts to sell some relics to the host. Chaucer’s host responds very negatively and rudely to him saying:

            “I wish I had you ballocks in my hand

            Instead of relics in a reliquarium;

            Have them cut off and I will help carry

            ‘em.

            We’ll have them shrined for you in a hog’s

            Turd. (146)”

At this point The Pardoner has no idea how to respond to the host, he is left speechless, filled with anger, and completely blown away by how rude the host was. I think this moment shows just how fed up Chaucer was with the church. This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy in how the Pardoner moves straight from preaching to trying to make money off the host. On the other hand, The Pardoners self-glorification and greed is perfectly contrasted by the faith and honesty of The Plowman. The Plowman, even though he was a misfortunate man of the working class, still honored God and paid heed to the gospels. Chaucer describes the plowman by saying “he was an honest worker, good and true, living in peace and charity…Loving God best with all his heart and mind.(20)”, Chaucer shows how he favored honest men who acted out on their beliefs even if they were of a lower class. Even though he was poor Chaucer uses the contrast of the Plowman and Pardoner to make a statement about the weak morals in the church and the upper class during this period.

Chaucer begins describing both The Knight and The Prioress in a very positively. The host describes The Prioress by saying “Her was of smiling very simple and coy, Her greatest oath was only ‘By St Loy!’” (7), the host shows respect for The Prioress because she had taken up the most difficult oath that a sister could commit to during this time. By the same token, the host also has great respect for The Knight, listing that The Knight “…rode abroad had followed chivalry, truth, honor, generousness and courtesy.(4)”  Chaucer shows through the descriptions given by the host that he had great respect for the noble actions of both The Prioress and The knight. Chaucer shows that he understood the difficulty of The Prioress’ oath along with the strength, grace, and bravery needed by The Knight to go on as many crusades as he had. Chaucer displays how he had much respect and understanding of what was given up by The Prioress and Knight and the moral strength it took. Despite all this, Chaucer goes on to describe how he did not like some of the personality traits of The Prioress.

Image via Wikipedia

The host makes it very clear that although The Prioress had taken a very difficult oath she still did not fully give up the worldly materials and desperately wanted to be a part of the noble upper class. The host describes the prioress as having “To counterfeit a courtly grace (7)”, The Prioress strove to be in the upper class and therefore tried to develop the habits and manners of nobility even though it did come across to others as awkward and fake. The Knight on the other had was though of highly by the host, “He was true, a perfect gentle-knight. (5)”. The host looked highly upon The Knight and how he did not strive to be nobility but how instead he only tried to glorify God through battle and spread Christianity in the crusades, the best he knew how to. Chaucer uses The Knight as a way to present the morals of an ideal Christian who only fought for God. In contrast Chaucer uses the host’s descriptions of The Prioress, for example, to petition how feeble he thought a church head striving for nobility was. Again, Chaucer uses two characters to reveal what he believed to be morally right.

Image via Wikipedia

            Despite the fact that most of the holy men and women that are described in the story are actually very corrupt and worldly, The Parson, who was a preacher in a small town, is a very devout Christian man. It is arguable that Chaucer is not placing moral judgment on the church because he also uses characters like The Parson who is an honest and hardworking leader in the church. The Parson is said by the host to not be wealthy, “Yet he was rich in holy thought and work (18)”.  Chaucer however judgmental and hateful of the church he may appear looks fondly upon the parson and does not seem to be judgmental of how The Parson acts and the morals of The Parson.

Image via Wikipedia

            Chaucer uses multiple ways and characters to unveil his judgment and distaste for the poor morals of the Christian church leadership. Chaucer uses Canterbury tales to symbolize how corrupt he though the church was because he was a secular and an outsider looking in. Chaucer uses his host narrator’s descriptions and actions to show his own repulsion to and petition the hypocrisy of the church. Chaucer uses his tales as a way to display his opinions and bring attention to the corruption and poor morals of religious leaders in the church.

Moreover, Dr. Jose Rizal’s educational ideas jibe with Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which goes:

“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Civic Virtues

In regarding education as a prerequisite to liberty, Rizal emphasizes the study of civic virtues. Through civic virtues, the natives who wallowed in ignorance and moral depravity, could be enlightened and redeemed. Civic virtue is basically a morality or a standard of righteous behavior in relationship to a citizen’s involvement in society. An individual may exhibit civic virtues by active participation in public life, trustworthiness, and through a reciprocal relationship which is acquired through social connectedness. The understanding of civic virtue helps us understand our ties to the entire country and our responsibilities within it. Only through an understanding of civic virtue will we be able to flourish as a nation and play an active role in the Philippine democracy. Thus, education is directed towards national service and welfare, not only towards the happiness and efficiency of the individual.  Just as in the Philippine Constitution, every educational institution has the following goals: “to inculcate love of country, teach the duties of citizenship, and develop moral character, personal discipline, and scientific, technological, and vocational efficiency” (The Constitution of the Philippines).

Image via Wikipedia

Nihilism, for Nietzsche, is the loss of the sense of meaning in the world. Nietzsche writes: “What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; ‘why?’ finds no answer.” Nietzsche further describes: “For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals.”

Nietzsche argues, “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here.”

According to Nietzsche, not only that nihilism is coming, it actually already “stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?” Nietzsche finds out that the truth of modern science rests on a moral obligation to become truthful. Nietzsche writes, “We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist.” He adds further that “to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.”

Indeed, the truth of modern science rests on a morality, which is in itself also rest on a metaphysical faith. Thus, Nietzsche blames the Christian-moral interpretations of the world as the root of this approaching nihilism. Nietzsche writes: “The end of Christianity – at the hands of its own morality…is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history.”

Friedrich Nietzsche – found in the Cool Kids Never Die blog (Photo credit: Cea.)