Summary/ Update
Exams are over and there are many things to do. A few passing thoughts on the AWARE saga first.
(1) Like many others I stand against the newcomers. My criticism, however, does not lie primarily with the hostile takeover. To me there is absolutely nothing wrong with that move. They did it by the constitution and it's perfectly legal. What most people seem discontent over is that the new guard appeared motivated to launch the takeover because of their religious orientation. But I personally still see nothing wrong with that. Many ordinary people lead their lives based on their religious orientation. They don't, for example, have pre-marital sex - and yet we don't criticise their action of abstinence. To me, whether the new guard was motivated by their religious views is not an issue, because even if they were, a) there's nothing wrong with that per se, and b) their actions were legally condoned anyway.
What most people will want to say is that religion should never invade a secular organisation. I totally agree with that. But if we make that move, the onus is on us to first prove that religion is invading a secular organisation, and second show why that is bad. The second part is mostly tackled with, but I'm not sure if the first part has been adequately dealt with. To my knowledge, Josie Lau and company have never admitted that their actions were based on religious grounds. What critics frequently use to argue their case is this:
strong circumstantial evidence + (lack of denial = admission of guilt) = guilty.
Hence they will say: look, many of the new exco members are from the same church, and they were led by a feminist mentor who is overtly Christian, plus the scrutiny on them is so strong, there is so much speculation going on, that insofar as they do not respond by denying the speculations, they are admitting they are guilty.
I do not agree with the equation. Firstly, I don't believe in circumstantial evidence as a necessary or sufficient proof of anything, in the context of formal legal matters. That is to say, to prove X is guilty of Y, all that is necessary and sufficient is hard evidence. Neither circumstantial evidence nor admission/denial (or lack thereof) is needed; at best, they are needed only to argue for the pursuit of further investigation. Secondly, even if we accept the weight of strong circumstantial evidence I disagree that a lack of denial is equal to admission of guilt. To me, they are simply not the same. If we want to make them equal there must be a formal law that states that all parties involved are guilty of what is charged in the speculations, insofar as they do not deny the speculations. But such a law seems absurd to me. The only ground on which we say that lack of denial = admission of guilt, is informal and not unlike an unsupported assertion. I therefore find the consideration quite irrelevant. The only way, henceforth, we can criticise Josie Lau and company (and that's only by giving concession to the weight of circumstantial evidence) is:
strong circumstantial evidence = guilty.
This is the only valid position to take. If a critic admits to taking such a position then I agree that his or her criticism of Josie Lau and company is valid. However I will simply disagree with the position. I do not believe that strong circumstantial evidence is sufficient as proof for charges.
You will need to have an admission of guilt to make the equation true. However I disagree that lack of denial = admission of guilt. The only way to get an admission of guilt is to have an admission of guilt under no coercion.
(2) Why am I against the new guard then? Well simply because of their professional conduct, which is utterly unprofessional. For example, the changing lock incident as well as excluding Ms Chew from the press conference, and all that. This alone is sufficient ground for calling a vote of no-confidence, to me we don't even need to go into all the religious issues to argue for their removal. Of course, I admit that I do feel uneasy at the potentially religious cause for the takeover. However it is a feeling at best. I lack rigorous argumentation to criticise them on that ground, as outlined above.
(3) The arguments against the new guard, apart from their unprofessional conduct, are always in the form of 'they should have..', as opposed to 'they cannot remain in office because they did not deny the speculation that they are imposing religious views on a secular organisation..' To me this is acknowledgement that they played by the rules. That is, even if they were motivated by their religious orientation, we cannot condemn them legally. The old guard played by the rules too, and generally speaking I find it hard to take sides insofar as the rules were reasonable. What we can say is that the new guard had the legal authority to rule, but not the moral authority to do so. (I wouldn't be surprised if this form of criticism is launched at the PAP, if it hadn't been already).
(4) My personal stand is that in a perfect world, legal authority to rule is the moral authority to rule. That there is a discrepancy between the two shows that the world is imperfect (or unfair), and not that moral authority is distinct from legal authority. A perfect world is a world where all persons are perfect. A perfect person has perfect morality. In other words, we cannot condemn anybody on moral grounds. Thus, in a perfect world, if there were another takeover like this, Josie Lau will 'win'. This is because she and the new guard did everything legally, and we have no reason to doubt their character. The legal authority to rule also is the moral authority to rule, and she will remain in office in a perfect world.
Of course, now the issue is whether there will be such a takeover in a perfect world. Interestingly, I think it can go both ways. A person with perfect morality can either choose to do a takeover, or not to, with equally valid reasoning, I believe. Let's look at what the person can say:
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to take over an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to campaign against an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always act on my religious beliefs.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always keep religion above petty politics.
And it's interesting because it seems, at least on a superficial level for now (these are passing thoughts!), that when our starting point is that everyone is perfect, any single action that may be uncomfortable for us now in an imperfect world, seems perfectly moral in a perfect world. This seems like a tautology, for the definition of a perfect world is one where everything is perfect. But it is also akin to saying that any single act can be justified on grounds of perfect morality - even the acts of mass murderers. They can say, for example,
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always exert my individuality.
In a perfect world, we have to accept this. For we have no ground to deny one's moral orientation, given that it is perfect. We have no grounds to reject a person's individuality, given that it is perfect. But the question of course is, in a perfect world with perfect characters, would there even be a character who will choose to murder many people? Does a perfect individual necessarily entail non-murder? Interestingly, I don't think this is the case. (If you do think so, feel free to explain why) In other words, I believe that even in a perfect world, we cannot determine if there will be mass murderers or not. If this is true, then at least some of the following conclusions are true:
1. There are no objective moral truths out there. That is: all morality is derived from subjects.
2. Either 1 is true, or we lack the capacity to envision what a perfect world would look like now. (This is because the fact that we cannot determine if there will be mass murderers in a perfect world could be due to our lack of knowledge)
3. All morality is inherently subjective. Note: weaker version of, and distinct from, 1.
4. In a perfect world, there will still be, paradoxically, imperfect morality. In other words, morality is intrinsically imperfect.
5. Following from 4, it seems like we are already living with the perfect version of morality.
6. Following from 5, it is possible we live in a perfect world.
7. There will be mass murderers even in a perfect world.
Anyway, if 7 is true, I wonder if we can then still validly criticise mass murderers.
Whatever the case, I guess we wouldn't even have AWARE in a perfect world...Or actually, maybe even that is open for debate.
(5) AWARE always reminds me of Ad-aware.
Just some passing thoughts.
***************************************
On to more important stuff, like for example the details of my personal life. Exams are over and I'm currently on a long break. I'm relying on agents to bring me jobs and if they don't I'm not particularly inclined to source for my own because I'm not particularly enthusiastic in being subservient to a routine again.
The past semester has been pretty light and enjoyable for the most part. I dropped a module early on because its focus was on technical details when I'm more interested in general thoughts and ideas. 3 out of 4 school days had me reaching school early for 8am lectures, and it was a good experience because it compelled me to sleep earlier and all. Which I did, at least for brief stretches at a time. In general, sleeping times were from 12 to 1 instead of the usual 2-3am. Waking time 6am. Halfway through the semester I discovered that if I arrive at the lecture theatres early enough, I could be all alone in the darkness. Unfortunately, after I did that for a couple of times, people started coming earlier and I found it hard to enjoy those moments of peace and quiet consistently.
Looking back now, I may have shortchanged myself by having such a light semester. It wasn't merely light in terms of the quantity of modules, it was light because the modules I took weren't particularly heavy modules. Few essays, not many readings, not much work to do in general. It just means the coming semester(s) will be tougher than usual.
So, what lies ahead this holidays?
Important and Urgent
- Complete a short story for a competition, due soon.
Important and Not Urgent
- Read Moral Minds.
- Get a new pair of speakers to complete Phase II of The Musical Medium Revolution. Phase I involved purchasing an iPod. Phase II will revolutionise the way music is heard in my bedroom.
- Meet up with various people.
Not Important and Urgent
- Settle IPPT. Such a waste of time to travel all the way to a camp.
- Finish off The Years by Woolf. Irritating book, total lack of motivation which is why I'm still halfway through it after many many weeks. But I need to finish it off now or I never will.
Not Important, Not Urgent
- Clear some stuff in my 2 in-trays. Alternatively, get a third in-tray.
I've always believed one's music preferences are tied somewhat to the period of life one is in. The period of life I am in is a relaxed, tranquil and enjoyable one, in sharp contrast with the 2 years spent in NS. So while DCFC and the like occupied me during those depressing nights where I dread going to army the next day, the past few months have seen me preferring lighter, more loungish music: Aimee Mann, Nouvelle Vague, Diana Krall, Sparklehorse, 'La Vie En Rose', ' C'est plus Pareil', songs that are just perfect for looking out the window of a bus.
(1) Like many others I stand against the newcomers. My criticism, however, does not lie primarily with the hostile takeover. To me there is absolutely nothing wrong with that move. They did it by the constitution and it's perfectly legal. What most people seem discontent over is that the new guard appeared motivated to launch the takeover because of their religious orientation. But I personally still see nothing wrong with that. Many ordinary people lead their lives based on their religious orientation. They don't, for example, have pre-marital sex - and yet we don't criticise their action of abstinence. To me, whether the new guard was motivated by their religious views is not an issue, because even if they were, a) there's nothing wrong with that per se, and b) their actions were legally condoned anyway.
What most people will want to say is that religion should never invade a secular organisation. I totally agree with that. But if we make that move, the onus is on us to first prove that religion is invading a secular organisation, and second show why that is bad. The second part is mostly tackled with, but I'm not sure if the first part has been adequately dealt with. To my knowledge, Josie Lau and company have never admitted that their actions were based on religious grounds. What critics frequently use to argue their case is this:
strong circumstantial evidence + (lack of denial = admission of guilt) = guilty.
Hence they will say: look, many of the new exco members are from the same church, and they were led by a feminist mentor who is overtly Christian, plus the scrutiny on them is so strong, there is so much speculation going on, that insofar as they do not respond by denying the speculations, they are admitting they are guilty.
I do not agree with the equation. Firstly, I don't believe in circumstantial evidence as a necessary or sufficient proof of anything, in the context of formal legal matters. That is to say, to prove X is guilty of Y, all that is necessary and sufficient is hard evidence. Neither circumstantial evidence nor admission/denial (or lack thereof) is needed; at best, they are needed only to argue for the pursuit of further investigation. Secondly, even if we accept the weight of strong circumstantial evidence I disagree that a lack of denial is equal to admission of guilt. To me, they are simply not the same. If we want to make them equal there must be a formal law that states that all parties involved are guilty of what is charged in the speculations, insofar as they do not deny the speculations. But such a law seems absurd to me. The only ground on which we say that lack of denial = admission of guilt, is informal and not unlike an unsupported assertion. I therefore find the consideration quite irrelevant. The only way, henceforth, we can criticise Josie Lau and company (and that's only by giving concession to the weight of circumstantial evidence) is:
strong circumstantial evidence = guilty.
This is the only valid position to take. If a critic admits to taking such a position then I agree that his or her criticism of Josie Lau and company is valid. However I will simply disagree with the position. I do not believe that strong circumstantial evidence is sufficient as proof for charges.
You will need to have an admission of guilt to make the equation true. However I disagree that lack of denial = admission of guilt. The only way to get an admission of guilt is to have an admission of guilt under no coercion.
(2) Why am I against the new guard then? Well simply because of their professional conduct, which is utterly unprofessional. For example, the changing lock incident as well as excluding Ms Chew from the press conference, and all that. This alone is sufficient ground for calling a vote of no-confidence, to me we don't even need to go into all the religious issues to argue for their removal. Of course, I admit that I do feel uneasy at the potentially religious cause for the takeover. However it is a feeling at best. I lack rigorous argumentation to criticise them on that ground, as outlined above.
(3) The arguments against the new guard, apart from their unprofessional conduct, are always in the form of 'they should have..', as opposed to 'they cannot remain in office because they did not deny the speculation that they are imposing religious views on a secular organisation..' To me this is acknowledgement that they played by the rules. That is, even if they were motivated by their religious orientation, we cannot condemn them legally. The old guard played by the rules too, and generally speaking I find it hard to take sides insofar as the rules were reasonable. What we can say is that the new guard had the legal authority to rule, but not the moral authority to do so. (I wouldn't be surprised if this form of criticism is launched at the PAP, if it hadn't been already).
(4) My personal stand is that in a perfect world, legal authority to rule is the moral authority to rule. That there is a discrepancy between the two shows that the world is imperfect (or unfair), and not that moral authority is distinct from legal authority. A perfect world is a world where all persons are perfect. A perfect person has perfect morality. In other words, we cannot condemn anybody on moral grounds. Thus, in a perfect world, if there were another takeover like this, Josie Lau will 'win'. This is because she and the new guard did everything legally, and we have no reason to doubt their character. The legal authority to rule also is the moral authority to rule, and she will remain in office in a perfect world.
Of course, now the issue is whether there will be such a takeover in a perfect world. Interestingly, I think it can go both ways. A person with perfect morality can either choose to do a takeover, or not to, with equally valid reasoning, I believe. Let's look at what the person can say:
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to take over an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to campaign against an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always act on my religious beliefs.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always keep religion above petty politics.
And it's interesting because it seems, at least on a superficial level for now (these are passing thoughts!), that when our starting point is that everyone is perfect, any single action that may be uncomfortable for us now in an imperfect world, seems perfectly moral in a perfect world. This seems like a tautology, for the definition of a perfect world is one where everything is perfect. But it is also akin to saying that any single act can be justified on grounds of perfect morality - even the acts of mass murderers. They can say, for example,
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always exert my individuality.
In a perfect world, we have to accept this. For we have no ground to deny one's moral orientation, given that it is perfect. We have no grounds to reject a person's individuality, given that it is perfect. But the question of course is, in a perfect world with perfect characters, would there even be a character who will choose to murder many people? Does a perfect individual necessarily entail non-murder? Interestingly, I don't think this is the case. (If you do think so, feel free to explain why) In other words, I believe that even in a perfect world, we cannot determine if there will be mass murderers or not. If this is true, then at least some of the following conclusions are true:
1. There are no objective moral truths out there. That is: all morality is derived from subjects.
2. Either 1 is true, or we lack the capacity to envision what a perfect world would look like now. (This is because the fact that we cannot determine if there will be mass murderers in a perfect world could be due to our lack of knowledge)
3. All morality is inherently subjective. Note: weaker version of, and distinct from, 1.
4. In a perfect world, there will still be, paradoxically, imperfect morality. In other words, morality is intrinsically imperfect.
5. Following from 4, it seems like we are already living with the perfect version of morality.
6. Following from 5, it is possible we live in a perfect world.
7. There will be mass murderers even in a perfect world.
Anyway, if 7 is true, I wonder if we can then still validly criticise mass murderers.
Whatever the case, I guess we wouldn't even have AWARE in a perfect world...Or actually, maybe even that is open for debate.
(5) AWARE always reminds me of Ad-aware.
Just some passing thoughts.
***************************************
On to more important stuff, like for example the details of my personal life. Exams are over and I'm currently on a long break. I'm relying on agents to bring me jobs and if they don't I'm not particularly inclined to source for my own because I'm not particularly enthusiastic in being subservient to a routine again.
The past semester has been pretty light and enjoyable for the most part. I dropped a module early on because its focus was on technical details when I'm more interested in general thoughts and ideas. 3 out of 4 school days had me reaching school early for 8am lectures, and it was a good experience because it compelled me to sleep earlier and all. Which I did, at least for brief stretches at a time. In general, sleeping times were from 12 to 1 instead of the usual 2-3am. Waking time 6am. Halfway through the semester I discovered that if I arrive at the lecture theatres early enough, I could be all alone in the darkness. Unfortunately, after I did that for a couple of times, people started coming earlier and I found it hard to enjoy those moments of peace and quiet consistently.
Looking back now, I may have shortchanged myself by having such a light semester. It wasn't merely light in terms of the quantity of modules, it was light because the modules I took weren't particularly heavy modules. Few essays, not many readings, not much work to do in general. It just means the coming semester(s) will be tougher than usual.
So, what lies ahead this holidays?
Important and Urgent
- Complete a short story for a competition, due soon.
Important and Not Urgent
- Read Moral Minds.
- Get a new pair of speakers to complete Phase II of The Musical Medium Revolution. Phase I involved purchasing an iPod. Phase II will revolutionise the way music is heard in my bedroom.
- Meet up with various people.
Not Important and Urgent
- Settle IPPT. Such a waste of time to travel all the way to a camp.
- Finish off The Years by Woolf. Irritating book, total lack of motivation which is why I'm still halfway through it after many many weeks. But I need to finish it off now or I never will.
Not Important, Not Urgent
- Clear some stuff in my 2 in-trays. Alternatively, get a third in-tray.
I've always believed one's music preferences are tied somewhat to the period of life one is in. The period of life I am in is a relaxed, tranquil and enjoyable one, in sharp contrast with the 2 years spent in NS. So while DCFC and the like occupied me during those depressing nights where I dread going to army the next day, the past few months have seen me preferring lighter, more loungish music: Aimee Mann, Nouvelle Vague, Diana Krall, Sparklehorse, 'La Vie En Rose', ' C'est plus Pareil', songs that are just perfect for looking out the window of a bus.
6 Comments:
The assumption underlying your hypothesis is that in a perfect world there would still be myriad moral concepts. This assumption is controversial. I can easily conceive of a morally perfect world in which there is a universal moral law like the Categorical Imperative. Or perhaps moral pluralism would be correct. So I have no good reason for accepting the picture you paint in the first place.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anyway we should debate this in real life. I was typing halfway when I got quite tired.
Right, so maybe I should have explained that part better. In the 4 cases suggested above, that is:
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to take over an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to campaign against an organisation if I feel that the organisation is not performing the way I like it to.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always act on my religious beliefs.
*I believe that it is perfectly moral to always keep religion above petty politics.
I am not saying that all will be equally valid positions to take in a perfect world, though they might be. It could be the case that only 1 of them is the right one. But at this present moment, all of them seem equally plausible to me, and this in itself suggests something.
I think the new guard lost as they lost the moral authority to lead the members. Each member found their own reason(s) to vote out the new guard, even if what the new guard did was legally and principally justified in strict argument (a legal take over, and there's lack of evidence and denial of a plot or religious overtones).
As for morality in a perfect world, I think it depends on what we define as perfect. If perfect means everyone is totally happy, there are no murders and etc, then I think that there would be a happy coincidence of all morality, even allowing for individuality. So its kind of perfect 'perfect'.
But if we downgrade that, then I think we will have tonnes of different morality systems going by. Some of the more tragic conflicts occur when both parties think they have the moral high ground. I don't think anyone intentionally sets out to do something immoral, but rather their morality systems are different. Communism for instance sees private property as theft while individualism sees rights (to property) as a fundamental entitlement. Both systems have a version of what is moral that conflict with each other.
I think in this sense morality is subjective. But assuming that we can view from the vantage point of a perfect 'perfect' morality, I think we can say that some 'morality' are wrong and mislead (the right to own slaves in the past for instance). But I think we might also be sympathetic, and take into account the context of the different moralities and circumstances prevailing in that frame of time.
Aquila
holden have a new album, will pass you once I get my hands on it.
and victoria bergsman is simply gorgeous no?
Post a Comment
<< Home