The Sarah Connor Chronicles

I just finished watching the first two episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles (i didn’t need to watch the second episode, but i couldn’t know that before watching it). I was surprised by a number of religious ideas, amongst others, that have been adapted into the series and that gave me pause concerning the transformation religion is undergoing at the moment.

one: As in the Terminator movies, christian escatology is incorporated, but with one important change. It is not that robots are informing us about the future instead of God himself, his angels or prophets; it is rather that instead of explaining what is going to happen so that we might prepare (our souls) for the End of the World, Sarah is told what will happen so that she can prevent it, i.e. change the future. Power over the future has passed from God’s hands into ours; the future is no longer determined and inevitable, but it is now (at least in the minds of the producers or script writer of the show) something we can influence. That i consider that a good turn in our conceptions of escatology.

two: a non-religious idea: instead of a strong man protecting a fragile woman, we now have two pretty and strong women protecting a frail boy! There might still be hope for Hollywood, though they haven’t changed their tired storylines, only inverted genders; but it’s a start.

three: as in many an american movie, the cops are the badguys because they don’t know an important secret. This i consider a rather worrysome development in american culture. It is, of course, a bit of revived Gnosticism, but instead of the secret being a portal to salvation, the secret (that robots want take over the world, what else?) is necessary to knowing what is good. That is, the secrecy has been moved from soteriology to ethics. What worries me is that people  might actually (begin to) think that you can do things that appear wrong/evil by appealing to a secret no one can understand. That is not a very good basis for a global ethics.

wittgensteinian thoughts on morality

How does one choose a morality? — Like shoes: by trying them out.

A: Aren’t humans determined by their moral past?
B: No, they can interpret it.
A: With what?
B: With one another.

What do i want? — To be at peace with myself and the world. — Is this what everyone wants? — Probably not. Others are creatures of movement.

When i decide between a kantian and a utilitarian act (killing an innocent man to save the world), the ultimate rule of my decision is nothing other than my peace of mind.

What is the purpose of morality?

wittgensteinian thoughts on evil

Do you know you just became evil like an unbeliever knows he just became christian?

–Where does evil begin?
–Do not ask that question. Ask: When did we begin speaking of evil?

“Evil is a destroying of the good” — What is the cash value of that statement?

Imagine a robot programmed to shoot and kill human beings. Is this object evil or is it just bad?

on the origin of good and evil

Do not ask: Unde malum? but: Unde malum atque bonum?

There is no good reason to assume that the world is good and then ask how evil came to it. The greater mytery is whence our concepts of good and evil came from. One simply explanation is evolutionary: one day, someone came up with the word “good” and said to her friend, pointing at a berry: “good!” and pointing at another, poisonous one: “bad!”. Humans suddenly had a means of structuring their social interactions, of getting one another to do things by talking to them. The invention of the words “good” and “bad” or “evil” was a revolution, like the invention of agriculture or electric power.

An ode to European virtues (or decline and fall of the [evil] american empire)

in a long essay on what geopolitics will look like in the future (Europe, China and the U.S. evenly fighting it out), Parag Khanna includes an “Ode to Europe” that is surprising not by the fact that it is perhaps overly rosy-eyed, but by the fact that is doesn’t seem all that far fetched. There is no conceptual discrepancy today describing the U.S. as a dying, violent and selfish dinosaur, while extolling Europe as the paragon of virtue, inclusiveness and gentle power. Would this ever have been a likely description at any point in human history up until now?

In Europe’s capital, Brussels, technocrats, strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a German member of the European Parliament, calls it “European patriotism.” The Europeans play both sides, and if they do it well, they profit handsomely. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the self-described “friend of America,” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army; the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well, binding it closer to the E.U. even if it never becomes a member. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya, Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year, with others waiting in line and begging to join?

on Humanism (richard norman interviewed)

From Philosophy Bites, a 10 min interview of Richard Norman author of On Humanism, on humanism. Most of the interview focuses on morality and whether or not you need a god to keep you good. There is not much meat, but that is why it is short. I’ve always been wary of “Humanism” myself just because of the name as it smacks of speciesism. But this interview put it in rather good light. mp3.

alain badiou on evil

I like what Alain Badiou says in this interview about evil not being something that can be derived from nature, but i wonder about his solution, making it all a mater of subjective perspective. His book on the subject (which i havent read yet) is Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil (Amazon). From the interview:

that the natural state of the human animal has nothing to do with Good or Evil. And I maintain that the kind of formal moral obligation described in Kant’s categorical imperative does not actually exist. Take the example of torture. In a civilization as sophisticated as the Roman Empire, not only is torture not considered an Evil, it is actually appreciated as a spectacle. In arenas, people are devoured by tigers; they are burned alive; the audience rejoices to see combatants cut each other’s throats. How, then, could we think that torture is Evil for every human animal? Aren’t we the same animal as Sencea or Marcus Aurelius? I should add that the armed forces of my country, France, with the approval of the governments of the era and the majority of public opinion, tortured all the prisoners during the Algerian War. The refusal of torture is a historical and cultural phenomenon, not at all a natural one. In a general way, the human animal knows cruelty as well as it knows pity; the one is just as natural as the other, and neither one has anything to do with Good or Evil. One knows of crucial situations where cruelty is necessary and useful, and of other situations where pity is nothing but a form of contempt for others. You won’t find anything in the structure of the human animal on which to base the concept of Evil, nor, moreover, that of the Good.

But the formal solution isn’t any better. Indeed, the obligation to be a subject doesn’t have any meaning, for the following reason: The possibility of becoming a subject does not depend on us, but on that which occurs in circumstances that are always singular. The distinction between Good and Evil already supposes a subject, and thus can’t apply to it. It’s always for a subject, not a pre-subjectivized human animal, that Evil is possible. For example, if, during the occupation of France by the Nazis, I join the Resistance, I become a subject of History in the making. From the inside of this subjectivization, I can tell what is Evil (to betray my comrades, to collaborate with the Nazis, etc.). I can also decide what is Good outside of the habitual norms. Thus the writer Marguerite Duras has recounted how, for reasons tied to the resistance to the Nazis, she participated in acts of torture against traitors. The whole distinction between Good and Evil arises from inside a becoming-subject, and varies with this becoming (which I myself call philosophy, the becoming of a Truth). To summarize: There is no natural definition of Evil; Evil is always that which, in a particular situation, tends to weaken or destroy a subject. And the conception of Evil is thus entirely dependent on the events from which a subject constitutes itself. It is the subject who prescribes what Evil is, not a natural idea of Evil that defines what a “moral” subject is. There is also no formal imperative from which to define Evil, even negatively. In fact, all imperatives presume that the subject of the imperative is already constituted, and in specific circumstances. And thus there can be no imperative to become a subject, except as an absolutely vacuous statement. That is also why there is no general form of Evil, because Evil does not exist except as a judgment made, by a subject, on a situation, and on the consequences of his own actions in this situation. So the same act (to kill, for example) may be Evil in a certain subjective context, and a necessity of the Good in another.

Jim Wallis on the new christianity

Jim Wallis (wikipedia), a non-right-wing intelligent evangelical christian (no joke), was on the Daily Show (video) talking about how (his) religion needs to refocus on the environment, peace (Darfur) and ethics.  Refreshing. From the Friendly Atheist.

being polite vs. being silly

Now making a movie about tearing up the Koran is impolite and uncessary in my book. But rejecting a storey based on three little pigs for an award because it might offend muslims is plain silly.

It is the difference between slapping someone in the face (not so nice) and mistakenly stepping on their foot. No one wrote the three little pigs story in order to annoy muslims.

on insults (people, religions)

A senior Iranian lawmaker warned the Netherlands on Monday not to allow the screening of what it called an anti-Islamic film produced by a Dutch politician, claiming it “reflects insulting views about the Holy Koran.”

From the Religion News blog. The politician in question is one Geert Wilders. Now i understand that “we” in the “west” don’t mind overly much when people insult us. We tend to get over it. But it really seems to annoy many muslims to no end when we go about trying to insult them. I know we call it “the truth” but there are many ways of formulating the truth. What has ever happened to politeness?