Familial Relativism

I usually do not write about things that I am experiencing (my diary is used for that). However, for the moment I am currently seated in a strange place amid strange people. These people are the many realitives of a girl that I am dating. I noticed that her family is distinct from mine; this observation is obviously not anything except intuitive. Nevertheless, this apparently ‘obvious’ observation demands greater investigation, and even if my girl/ lady friend would not approve of me using her family as a test-subject, I will procceed anyway. I would like to remind you that I am typing this as I sit here – VERY quietly- in a state of observation. I have noticed that every family hold some value that is specific and “relative” to that family. For example, my test-subject holds that a level of open responsivity be actualized in moments of contact or presentatio. This is facinating becuase other families that I am VERY familiar with do not require as a collection such exposure; in seems that such interactions in the test-subject family are developed as a type of convention. However, how are such conventions developed so as to allow such and such a family holds as valuble become relativistic values? I think that David Lewis’ theory of convention comes into play here; I suppose that when a family brings about a sloution to a coordination problem, that solution is then established as a tradition and is then valued as a norm. I think that these norms become such that they are passed down and carried out as necessary to be considered part of the social group of – the family. Nevertheless, I shall add to this post latter.

Is Evil Necessary?

Traviling sucks! I am tired, but can’t sleep. So, what I decided to do is write a quick post on my phone ( so if any spelling is inccorect, then forgive me). As many of you know, I have been deeply involved with the Problem of Evil since the creation of this blog. Many of the post on this blog make reference to this problem. Today, I would like to introduce a very simple post to start things off. The most previous post had much to do with evil and modality. I will merely be adding to it – to some extent.
Many philosophers and proponets of the Problem of Evil (Poe) feel that it is impossible – in light of the obvious inconsistency amid God & Evil- that there is a solution. Why, would they conclude this. Not only is such a conclusion hasty, but false! To demonstrate why consider the folllowing:
1) x –> y
2) x
3) ~y
The previous form is false there is an obvious contradiction present by holding that if X then Y, so by affirming X, y must follow. However, we hold that ~Y is the case -this is false. To make the previous consitent all one needs to do is add or discover some proposition(s) that are able be placed so as to “explain” why ~Y is the case. There are many ways in which this is able to be done, but for our present pourposes, let us concern ourselves with the understanding that we are able to preform such a freat. In the case of POE, we find that God is x and ~x exists. ~ x can be understood as evil. So, how can we calm a situatuion of X^~X? Simply, we could insert some proposition Y. Many philosophers contribute freedom as the proposition. However, the question must be asked: why?! No, valid argument in my opinion has been mad for why freedom is of such amazing value that evil is justified. It seems that even if there were 10* Q of evil is actualized via some free action, the would it not be better for God to eliminate that free action? Any ideas?

BOLIVIA -The Establishment of “Equality” vs. The Search for Freedom

Many of you who read this post may, or may not, know what is currently happening in Bolivia. Bolivia is a small country about three times the size of Montana; it is located in the very center of South America -you can’t miss it. In this country about 70% or so, are indigenous people; the various “types” of indigenous groups vary, but the major are placed into two classes, the Quechua and Aymara. This country has had quite the flamboyant history (like many South American countries). It has dealt with uprisings, revolutions, resistances, constitutional changes, etc… Currently this country faces some crucial decisions. From what I understand, the current president/government is attempting to institute the following changes: 1) Distribute the wealth of the country (mainly the wealth located in the eastern province of Santa Cruzs) 2) bring about political equality 3) attempt to remedy the ethnic tensions 4) nationalize the energy, communication, and general utilities sectors. 4) control the “spread” of “US capitalism.” The previous list is only based on what I know the government is trying to do. Continuing…. the response to these attempts to socialize the nation, the Eastern province of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, has, by way of retort, made the advance to declare autonomy from the central leftist government. Santa Cruz will vote on this autonomy referendum tomorrow (in 2 hr Santa Cruz time), and from what I am able to induct, I wish them well.

The reason why I ‘wish’ Santa Cruz luck is because the attempts of the leftist government and President Evo Morales have, for lack of better vocabulary, erred in their attempts to create what they call, “equality.”

I would like, for the remainder of the post, to examine what that word means, and if it should be established at the cost of freedom and civil rights.

If you were to ever go to Santa Cruz, you would find a beautiful city nestled at the base of the Andes Mountains, and located next to a torrent river, El Rio Pirai. The people there are very kind, humble, industrious, and loving. I have experienced the various elements of this city many time (i have lived there for over 3.5 years and visit often). This city is the most wealthy and progressive of Bolivia, it houses the most industry, agriculture, eduction, and technological advances. Due to the advances that this city has made in the last 60 years, it has become the beacon of rationality; the people there are more educated, more happy, and more successful that any other part of Bolivia. It is undeniable that this type of ‘advancement’ is due, partially, to the economical success of the free market located in that city. However, this ‘market’ is under attack. Evo Morales has attempted to “equalise” the rich elitist of Santa Cruz with the indigenous population (approx. 30% to 70%). The problem with his movement is that he has decided that it is necessary to take some of the economical freedoms away from the people of Santa Cruz, and then give the Indians an increased amount of rights. The question that we now are confronted with is: is this justifiable, or necessary? To better approach this question, let us lay it out as a proposition:

1) To bring about equality one must take right from those who have more and give them to those who have less.

The problem with (1) is how can one person have more rights than another? For the natural law theorist, it follows that (1) is false; people all are endowed with the same rights as others. However, this view for institutionalism, and governmental proponents would feel that if a group of people is discriminated against, then they have less opportunity and thus their rights have been “lessened.” It is not obvious that discrimination limits right, but rather infringes upon them. For example, I have the right to free speech. But in a country where I am a sever minority, I might be threatened to not say certain things…I could say them, but I might be beaten or killed if I do, so I don’t.  But the law in that country says I can say what I like, thus, I haven’t lost that right, it has just been infringed upon. So, Evo’s claim is false. But to be fair, and for the purpose of discussion, let us reformulate his claim so as to make it more proficient:

1A) To bring about equality one must infring upon the rights of the infringers. And free the infringed from the infringers.

So, in (1a) we come to what Evo and his government are attempting to do. They are bringing this about by distributing property of the rich to the poor, they are giving more freedoms to the poor, and also destroying certain capitals that dominate the industry.  Is this right? Should a government dictate who should be equal, and how that should be brought about? Should a government say, “you are poor, so we will give you stuff so you are not poor” and additionally, “you are poor because of those people, so we will take from them and give to you.” This seems to be a type of robin hood government. Evo Morales justifies his movement on the idea that the people of Santa Cruz have “enslaved” the Indians!!! This is preposterous, i have worked for several humanitarian companies and lived amongst the Indians and the people of Santa Cruz. I must say one thing, the Indians are poor, because they choose not to progress. They are “traditionalist” they follow the “traditions” ignorantly of their for fathers. I know Indians or people of Indian decent that are very wealthy because of their choice to be that way. Evo, should not try and fix it by treading upon the rights of the people of Santa Cruz, but rather educate the indigenous population and empower their minds. Santa C. has exercised its FREEDOM to think, to act, to create business, to learn, to work, and to progress. It is sad that the Indians are poor, I hate it! But I notice when i am down there in Bolivia that the only beggars are the poor Indians, and the poor citizens of Santa Cruz (non-indigenous) work and don’t beg. The focus should be to have more freedom via more rational thought…Mr. Morals is utterly missed the mark here.

Thus, I support Santa Cruz. They have what they have as a result of the long won deposit of their efforts and toils.

The Eventual Death of The Problem of Evil

As many of you know, I have been involved in the study and analisis of the Problem of Evil for about a year. I have been assisted by Dr. Ulatowski (formally of Weber State University) in many of my pursuits. I would first like to give thanks to his patients with my arguments (that many times were wrong) and with my lack of clear thought. Nonetheless, I have finally attepted to provide a solution to -the vexing- Problem of Evil. I dont think that the solution that I have formulated is full -proof, at least not yet. However, I am anticipating that very shortly (with some more studying and work) I can eliminate the Problem of Evil. I know that this is a tall order, but I think it is a worthy pursuit. I will be posting l, some possible arguments that I feel are able to aid us in solving it….However, I will not be posting my specific argument untill I have further refined it, sorry.

The first argument that I would like to examin is the famous “Free will argument.” This argument can be unsrstood as:

1) X is free to perform or refrain from a choice Y.

2) X choses to commit Y

3. Y produces evil (E).

4. Thus, E is the result of X choosing Y and not because of God.

This argument is, however, not sufficient to refute the POE (problem of evil). The problem that is the result of inferring that X has some ability that an omnipotent God cant control is to, 1) limit the power of God. 2) demands and argument that god must have reason, or cannot stop X from doing Y; 3) is able to be proven false by counter example/ reductio. The previous 1-3 is exactly what J.L Mackie did in his work “Evil and Omnipotence.” As, we have discussed, Alvin Plantinga attempts to refute some of Makie’s objections, which I believe he does with great skill. However, there is a problem even with Plantinga’s claims…but before going there, let us list Plantinga’s argument.

1) God cant do the logically impossible

2) God cant actualize a possible world that possesses agents who are capable of moral good without making those agents capable of moral evil.

3) Thus, if God creates agent capable of moral good, then he must create those agents capable of moral evil. (1-2).

—So what follows is that if God allows agents to be able to bring about certain moral goods, then it must be the case that those agents must be able to bring about evils….This conditional rest upon the claim that such agents must be free in order to bring about certain moral good, because it is morally praisworthy to bring about a moral good without being compelled. The problem here is that do we have any reason to accept freedom as something that is NECESSARY. Perhaps, God should have just made agents not free, and thus, he would have not had to allow any evil at all….