December 05, 2008
Logic: Good or Bad 5
This last entry relates to economic systems and why capitalism will almost always reign over communism and socialism. By the end, you will see the one logical flaw to both communism and socialism alike even though they are different systems. At first glance, it would seem that communism and socialism are better than capitalism in that they allow the Utopian wish for perfect equality to all.
In communism and socialism, the workers have more power over the company owners, whether the owners be independent groups or the government. The working class are allowed to make the "corporate decisions" as they are called in capitalism. Furthermore, every worker is treated equally, receiving equal pay and benefits from working. One small flaw in the rules of communism which i learned in my philosophy class is that there are perks that workers can receive from the governments for good work. This almost makes communism exactly the same as capitalism because it allows for some people to be treated or payed better than others.
However, the main logical problem with communism and socialism is that there is no incentive to work any harder than the worker next to you. In fact, there is little to no incentive to work hard at all. As some have philosophized in the past, the invisible hand is the incentive to work hard. The invisible hand is basically the idea that society is always watching you hence causing you to always do the right thing. In other words, the fabric of society in communism and socialism is based on trust. This line of thought brings us to whether or not humans are inherently good or evil and many philosophers have given reasons for both being true. So since there is no known answer as to whether humans are inherently good or evil, it makes more sense to use the economic system of capitalism because incentives are not based on trust, they are based on wishes of success and the law. The ideas of communism can be further explored in this website regarding the invisible hand.
November 28, 2008
Logic: Good or Bad 4
This next entry will address issues concerning the structure of voting for presidency in the united states. The are a couple of obvious logical issues, of which i do not have an opinion about, with the main structure, specifically the electoral college. As most American's know, the electoral college rates different states by the population and gives that state a certain amount of pull towards the outcome of the election in numerical form. In this structure, California counts for 55 of the electoral votes while Delaware only counts for 3 of the votes out of 538 total. Although this structure seems like it is fair, in retrospect it actually allows a president to be elected with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote.
Another structural issue regarding the government involves the house of representatives and the senate. The senate has equal representation per state where each state had 2 delegates. In the house of representatives, the amount of delegates per state is determined by population. Since a decision has to be passed by both houses, this structure can be considered logically fair.
Now regarding the way that some people have been voting for president in the past deserves some criticism. Many people decide to vote for the president that would have the greatest effect on the majority of people. This strategy, although benevolent, is not logical. Each voter should vote for the president that will be more beneficial to their lives only. If this were the case, the president that is voted into office will still be the most beneficial to the greater good. conflictingly, here is a blog article called The 'Greater Good' and the Obama Vs McCain 2008 Election where the author came up with an opposing argument to my view on voting.
November 22, 2008
Logic: Good or Bad 3
My original plan was to save this next idea for the grand finale blog entry, but i recently realized how relevant it is for a follow-up to the last entry where i actually mentioned God's judgment over people. This next blog entry is not about proving or disproving God's existence as the last one was, but it is meant to take you through the only logical way that God can do this and keep his or her reputation as just and fair. To do this, i will take you through an example.
consider this: You are driving along and you come to a three way intersection with no traffic light or stop sign. further more, one of the entrances to the intersection is from a parking lot (I will cal this entrance way3) so the other two ways have the right of way (way1 and way2). Now, there is a high amount of cars that have been driving through the first 2 ways today and a car is having trouble making the turn from way3 to way2 which is only a right turn. If you are driving along way2 and see this as a potential problem for the car that is stuck at the intersection, you may think that it would be a kind deed to stop before the intersection to block other cars behind you to let the car at the intersection make their turn. For all you know, this was all a benevolent action. But from taking a further look at the situation, you caused the car behind you and all the other cars behind that car to stop for a little while. What if one of the cars behind you is filled with someone who is going to have a heart attack and the 30 seconds that you stop cause them to miss making it to the hospital by that little of an amount of time? Does the fact that you inconvenienced all the cars behind you negate the good deed that you are committing towards the one car. If so, how will it be measured and to what relevance will God count chance and luck into the measurements?
One aspect of this situation that God has to have a procedure for is whether or not to count up just the good deeds, just the bad deeds, or add both together in a way that bad deeds are negatives and good deeds are positive numbers. In other words, does God take into account Good, bad, or both deeds when judging a person on there deservedness to go to hell or heaven. One way he could determine a person's worth is to only count the positive deeds and if a person reaches a certain level, then they are admitted into heaven. He could also go the opposite way and only count the negative actions of that person and if they reach a certain level, then they should be condemned to hell. God would also have to create a sort of system that rates deeds on their distance from neutral to aid in the rating process.
Another aspect God's judgment procedure that becomes relevant in this example is whether or not God counts every little thing that a person does in their life. Does this deed really make or break a person as to whether they will spend eternity with angels or with Satan. It is possible that God only counts actions that effect a multitude of people or just people that are considered important. When thinking about this, God must come up with an equation representing the amount of people and the effect it has on each person. Also, how will the importance of each person be decided since their self worth will only be determined at death? Furthermore, what if the action does not effect people at all? do other living things or even nonliving things matter? One reason they could matter is because people may hold sentimental value in these items and actions effecting them indirectly affect the people holding those values.
In summary, the aspects of judgment that God needs to take into account include Does this action matter? If it does, to whom and to what extent? And finally how will the final judgment be tallied? The only real clues as to how God judges people are through the ten commandments which he didn't even bother to explain in detail.
November 18, 2008
Logic: Good or Bad 2
This entry to my blog is going to touch on a small, yet important aspect of most modern religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These three along with most religions i have ever heard of teach that a follower of the beliefs should " walk with God" in a sense, meaning that one should act as God acted or acts. Yet, at the same time, most modern cultures such as right here in the United States tells everyone that they should not "play God" meaning they should not perform God's work.
God in most modern religions, especially Jesus, is and was a man who always did good deeds and never sinned. He is also the one to cause people to die and then pass judgment over them; Whether that judgment be who deserves to live or die or judgment as to who deserves to go to heaven and who goes to hell.
My problem with these fundamentals of religion is that they are opposing examples of logic that contradict themselves. "Playing God" and "walking with God" are inherently the same thing. however, we are supposed to copy what God does in walking with God but not copy what he does when it comes to Playing God. My conclusion is that when it comes down to issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and cloning, the same logic should be used as is used in doing good deeds. If you do not follow a religion, then you are free to come up with your own morals, but for Jewish, Catholic, and Islamic fundamentalists, this logic should be revised in your morals. However, an opposing view can be further explored in this argument against playing God regarding abortion
Another controversial example of "playing God" vs. "walking with God" is portrayed in a three part drama about a fertility clinic where a couple can artificially cause pregnancy and even choose aspects of the baby such as sex. A more detailed description of the show can be read about here
November 15, 2008
Logic: Good or Bad
The title Intro to Logic does not stand for the class that The University of Michigan offers. Instead, it means this entry is an introduction to my blog that examines examples of people using logic either correctly or incorrectly.This blog will probably touch on subjects including, but not limited to, Religion and God, business decisions, and possibly the U.S. voting structure.
This blog topic is meant to voice my opinion about these uses of logic. I repeat, this is just my opinion it is not meant to be considered fact; although it will touch on facts that i will use as premises for my opinions. Hopefully through my explanations, my voice will be that of reason and not seem like the incorrect logic that i am so adamant about exposing to you.
My purpose in exposing the uses of logic as good or bad are benevolent. I hope to do my small part in retrieving the lost integrity of Aristotle's original definitions of logic and its formal structure which can be explored in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy . Without correct flows of reasoning, people are just irrational. Although many people have the view that humans are naturally illogical and there is much evidence supporting this view, I believe, in contrast, that humans are inherently logical. They simply get lost in society's pressures and therefore are forced to change some of the original assumptions about life because of trivialities such as love and emotion.
Reason is a light that God has kindled in the soul. ~ Aristotle
October 06, 2008