Homosexuality: Condition or Choice?

In this modern day and age, the idea of homosexuality is not uncommon. Debates rage truculently over whether being gay/lesbian is an actual condition or a matter of choice. That is, if a person is arbitrarily determined to be intrinsically gay/lesbian by birth, or if a person decides to turn gay/lesbian based on individual preference and as a result of his nurturing environment. I have to say that I strongly advocate that being a gay/lesbian is an actual condition - and not a matter of choice for most gays/lesbians. I believe that if they could make a deliberate choice, that they would choose to be straight for in many cases, being gay/lesbian is simply not worth the trouble, ostracizing, and pariah status. It even gets violent many a time. In addition, scientific research has pointed to biologically empirical evidence that the gay condition may likely to be caused by a hormone effect in the first sixteen weeks of pregnancy. I have a friend who confided me a few days back. He 'came out' but only to me and another friend. My initial response was one of shock. He was a buff, masculine and just not a stereotypical gay man as we normally perceive. Of course i asked WHY!? and he just responded. " I don't know why... I just am sexually attracted to Men.. I really don't know why... I suppose I was born like this". I know for one that if he had the power of choice that he would definitely choose to be straight. This, he said in his own words. But somehow, something inside of him, some unknown abstract force, wills him to be and do otherwise. This only served to corroborate my initially held view that it is a matter of condition vis-a-vis choice for them. Hopefully I get to hear from a gay/lesbian as one of the response(s). I truly am intrigued by this subject and the possible permutations of answers that are out there.

'Excrement Attack'

One reading this week stood out in particular - and rightly so. Terence Des Pres' graphic detailing and chronicling of the atrocities that characterized the Nazi death camps was simply disturbing. I am by no means a squeamish person. I've been through the military and I've seen a lot relative to most. But with every line I read, I just shook my head in disgust. It permeated my being... the pity for the prisoners... the sheer audacity and incredulity of it all... questions like 'How could people even get that stage of cruelty and evil' pervaded my thoughts.
From the onset of the title I was a little perturbed and a torrent of unease struck me - 'Excremental attack' - for I was not sure what to expect. And what was delivered I did not anticipate. The atrocities and so the horrid recollections actually revolved around human excrement and that was sufficient to stir the appetite of revulsion in me. What was worse however, was the overarching notion that it was humans who subjugated other humans to these conditions and treatment. Not some alien race bereft of compassion, but humans. Humans coercing fellow humans to consume each others' excrement, to wade in it, to die in it - and all the while enforcing such unimaginable and 'deliberate policy' with conviction and enthusiasm. As he emphatically states:
"The fact is that prisoners were systematically subject to filth.They were the deliberate target of excremental assault."

I was most enlightened to the concept of power as an pernicious and sinister concept that consumes - a corollary of which is the birth of 'a special kind of evil'. Also, the idea that for such men of 'pathological rage', the mere act of killing someone is not enough for something in the victim has escaped the killer's grasp. Hence, everything in a person, defined as a person's 'dignity'.
In addition, the whole concept of 'dehumanizing' the inmates so that those who carried out the policies could continue doing so was a disturbing realization to me. Apparently, killing someone who can't even look you in the eye in that very moment of life/death is easier.. especially so if that person is covered in excrement and is simply of an inhuman form. Lastly, everyone being covered in excrement meant it was hard to for the prisoners to develop any form of solidarity as their morale was too low and all they saw in each other was themselves...inferior, inhuman, and reviling to each other.
Overall, astonishingly disturbing and disturbingly astonishing.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Capital punishment has been a way of punishing people since time immemorial. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Capital punishment is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections.

People have different opinions on the issue of capital punishment given to a convict. While some think that the death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity.

Proponents of Capital Punishment cite the pros of capital punishment. These include:
1. Deterrence -

• A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a capital punishment, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes. They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society.

2. Utilitarianism/ Fair Justice('An eye for an eye') -

• Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for incorrigible convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death. In addition, Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice.

However, opponents to Capital Punishment posit the cons which include:

1. It debases us to the same level as that of the criminal -

• If we execute a person, what then is the difference between us and the criminal who has committed the horrifying crime of killing another individual?
  

2. Misappropriate Conviction -

• There is also a chance that an individual is innocent and is wrongly charged for a crime he has never committed. In several cases, a person is exonerated of his crime and proved innocent only after he has been executed. Also, the conviction process is not always just. Often, poor people have to succumb to death penalty as they cannot afford good lawyers to defend their positions.

Hence, the perennial questions remain. Do we really possess the prerogative to take the life of our fellow human beings? If so, who decides? Why and how are they endowed with this arbitrary right?

Euthanasia

Euthanasia or 'mercy killing' may be defined as 'a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering'.
It seems the perennial debate rages on over this area of controversy with no apparent hint of its imminent cessation anytime soon. Proponents of its enactment have cited the fact that Euthanasia provides a way to 'relieve extreme pain' or when a person's 'quality of life is low'. From a practical, almost expediently utilitarian perspective, it 'frees up medical funds to help other people'. Lastly, the whole issue of euthanasia proves itself as another case in the free exercise of individual choice.
On the other hand, advocates against the idea of euthanasia cite that the act deftly devalues human life. Also, they point to the "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia had initially only been legalized for only the terminally ill, but laws have been and continue to change to allow it for other cases, or to be carried out non-voluntarily.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/09/italy.euthanasia/index.html

This was the case of the Italian lady who was comatose for 17 years. Her feeding tube was ultimately removed. It was a highly controversial issue to say the least, especially with the Roman Catholic Church's center being in Rome(It is publicly known that deliberate termination of life, ergo abortion and euthanasia etc. remain anathemas of the Church). Many perspectives were voiced - religious, political, medical, ethical and social.. truly a cacophony of factional controversy.

Was her father right in arguing for a sort of involuntary euthanasia for his daughter?
She was his daughter, yes indubitably so. But who has the final say in the situation if not her?

Embryos and Values

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/wrong.embryo.family/index.html


I saw this story of a couple who had the wrong embryos implanted by their fertility clinic.

What struck me the most about this story was the fact that the couple decided that the embryo would be brought to term and then given to his/her biological parents. When asked about this, the couple made it clear that their decision was based on their values.

I see this as a parallel to the whole issue of abortion.

While the cases are different, here is a case in which a woman has been implanted with a “non-related” embryo and is faced with the choice of keeping it or having an abortion. As noted above, she elected to act in what many would regard as a commendable way.

While she chose to be implanted, she definitely did not choose to be implanted with another couple's embryo. This would seem to provide adequate moral grounds for a decision on her part to abort.

Would it be such a burden to bear the child of another and do you think she is morally obligated to bear the child to term?

Suicide o pas Suicide

Consider I have a friend(Maddy) who wishes to deliberately terminate her life. She has ruminated on the matter for no less than 5 years - ever since she turned 35. In fact, she has considered it methodically and systemically for the longest time. She has weighed the reasons to live against her own prerogative to do what she will, and she concludes that there are far many more reasons not to continue living. She is not depressed; instead, she is simply profoundly bored - she is suffering from seemingly terminal ennui. She has taken into account that some people, such as her sister, will inexorably mourn her death. However, she does not feel that their suffering will be very great.For her part, she can’t really see that she stands to lose much of anything by ending her life now. She does not value it, and in any case, if she’s dead, she’s hardly going to regret missing out on whatever it is that might have happened to her had she lived.

So. The question I'd like to posit is : 'Would it be wrong for Maddy to commit suicide? If so, why?'

The only serious philosophical question — or at least the first one — is whether to live or die. We all are faced with that choice, though most of us shirk away from the decision. And ultimately no one but a particular individual in particular circumstances can make the decision — and only for himself or herself. hat being said, boredom seems like a poor reason to kill one’s self, like a failure of courage. That life is suffering is not news — the Buddha (and he wasn’t the first) discovered that circa 3000 years ago. The question is what to do about the suffering, or with the suffering. There certainly are circumstances in which the suffering is intolerable and in which suicide seems completely justifiable. However, is her case one of them? To commit suicide because one is inordinately bored... does that even sound right? The issue isn't so simple because lines of distinction are truly blurred. Individual morality, ethics, self-right, societal views all come into question and there simply isn't one answer. It truly hinges on individual subjective perspective.

One may even go as far to argue that there is nothing selfish about suicide; if anything the selfishness comes from the side of those willing her to not to give up - they would extend her suffering just to give themselves peace of mind. Those who take their life voluntarily should be admired for their courage; they were repulsed by the futility and inelegance of our existence and chose no longer to experience it. Yet doesn't this constitute a logical fallacy since caring for a person's life is now erroneously interpreted as being selfish? Evidently, this is not a simple matter and there exists not a single all-encompassing answer.

Philosophy - A humble beginning..

Lets begin this virgin post as a prologue to my embarking on the study of Philosophy. The subject has alluded me up this juncture in my Life. I come from a country(Singapore) where simply put, the way of life is overtly different. Individual preference in terms of academic choice hardly exists. Education is merely a means to an end - a high flying job that will satiate the expectations of your family, socio-economic class and country. This reflects a propensity to engage oneself in more economically 'pragmatic' and prestigious courses of study : Accounting, Medicine, Business.. etc. Philosophy as a course, was not a requisite and so to include it in the function would be to egregiously 'waste' one's time and effort. So I decided to take a risk and come here - here where I could study what interested me. I was absolutely sold on the idealistic notion of a liberal arts education where I would be holistically developed and thus, in a better position to appreciate the world around me, and within(as cliche as it sounds). 'The shaping and of the mind rather than the mere filling of it' - that just appealed to me. Cutting to the chase, Philosophy had always been this abstract subject that only those adept in critical thinking and proficient in searching the caverns of intangibles thrived. A subject whose criteria for success was abject intrinsic intelligence and intense rumination and musing. The possession of a beard would have augmented the sagacious aesthetic and satisfied the criterion and look too. Now however I realize how far from the truth I essentially was..
Since starting on the intro to Philosophy course, revelations have occurred to dispel my highly fallacious and stereotypical preconceptions of Philosophy. I came across this line that posited how '[Philosophy] is not so much a subject as it is a way of thinking'. I never thought about it that way, but I almost immediately appreciated the applicability and practicality of it. Previously, my ignorance made me label the study of Philosophy as one meant for those with their heads in the clouds; for those who were inordinately out of touch with everyday reality. Quoting from my textbook, It actually operates quite to the contrary. As asserted, 'Philosophy takes our heads out of the clouds, enlarging our view of ourselves and our knowledge of the world, allowing us to break out of prejudices and harmful habits that we have held since we were too young or too naive to know better... It [makes us] look at and think about ideas carefully...rather than to unthinkingly accept them.'
Once cognizant of this, I realized how much of an 'unthinking' life I had been leading. I was doing well but according to whose definitions? Mine or my parent's or my government's?(Ostensibly, Singaporeans are a brainwashed people who do not ever question, brainwashed that what they do is meaningful etc..) Socrates once said that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'... and I truly want a life worth living so...
I'm increasingly drawn to Philosophy because I possess now, a better comprehension of what it can do for my life. Particularly, I'm fascinated by the skills of persuasion one garners from practicing Philosophy - the capacity and attempt to justify our beliefs and substantiate them with good reasons. Even before that, to critically contemplate what our beliefs are, and why. I hope to be lawyer and am indubitably sure that the methods and skills attained from the study of Philosophy will only litigate my arsenal of logic and oratorical persuasion. The notion of being able to systematically rebuke or refute someone in an intellectual debate or argument does really compel me to want to be engaged in this subject. I also learnt that the ethos of the writer(philosopher) is extremely important, but not more so than relevance and logic. On a separate note, I need to learn too, to speak up and be more active in discussions. Cultural legacies have accustomed me to not question, as to question hierarchy or in general is tantamount to disrespect. However, questioning seems to be a cornerstone and underlying requisite for any productive Philosophical debate. Also, since I'm here in America now, I've got to learn to imbibe some sense of 'unequivocal individualism'. All in all, I'm progressively liking the subject..I hope I manage just fine.