On determinism, value, and why abortions suck

I read up a bit on Schrodinger's cat and determinism in the lab after school, and my teacher was talking about how old people are a burden on the economy and we should just support them ourselves or let them die.

Let's consider: Whether determinism is true or not is really irrelevant. We perceive ourselves as having free will. If we didn't have free will, and we've only been programmed to think we have free will, it would make no ultimate difference. The claims that we don't have free will by those evil humanists (God curse their existences!) they feature on The Truth Project are completely impertinent to whether lives have any meaning.

Let's consider: Economic conservatism claims social security doesn't work because population sizes are often unpredictable. What began as 500 some guys supporting one is now down to three guys supporting one. In the year 2017, the ratio will be 1:1. So here's what we do: let's have tons of unprotected sex. Abortion is for anarchists.

Let's consider: Some claim that without God, there would be no ultimate value in anything. I say even if there was a God, whatever he thought valuable could be completely invaluable to you. Value is judged by the individual. Adolf Hitler's morality is every bit as valuable to him as yours is to you. There is no such thing as an ultimate standard for morality, and even if God existed, there couldn't be an ultimate standard for morality because morality is in itself dependent on respecting whatever the individual considers valuable. Unless God was illogical, he could not create such a thing as objective value, could he? Now, I'll accept arguments that we can't live fulfilling lives in our sinful condition and apart from him, but claiming objective morality is silly.

A defense of gay rights, or the first and last time the logically challenged ENFP will write about politics

The sole purpose of the US government is to uphold the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the individuals it governs, and its laws exist to prevent any individual from depriving any other individual of these rights. Some moral issues facing our country today, such as gay marriage, may strike many as reprehensible and morally wrong, and wrong they may be. However, I don’t believe the government should be taking a role in restricting it. The government does not serve as a moral agent. The government serves to protect rights.

Earlier, someone mentioned the issue of changes in morality as society progresses. Will society just change its morals to suit public opinion? In defense, I would say that while public opinion on morality may change, the purpose of the government as an upholder of rights should not.
But what of your example of pro-pedophilia groups in the United States? Might gay rights pave the way to pedophiles' rights? I don’t believe this is a relevant example. The problem with pedophilia mainly concerns the question of whether the child has the maturity to make the decision to lend his/her body to such an act with full knowledge of the physical and psychological consequences; if such an act is done without the child’s decision to do so and the child suffers psychological harm as a result (which may not always happen, but should never happen at all), his/her right to happiness has been denied. If, however, it can be proven that the child can and does consent to the act (and let it be known that I think such a notion exists only in the wishful thinking of the perpetrator), it would no longer be constitutional to make this act illegal.

Of course, I am not saying it is morally right to do so; whether it is ethically wrong is still a big problem. But remember: the government doesn’t serve to uphold ethical standards. As you have mentioned earlier, ethics and morals may—and will—change as society progresses. And as I have mentioned, the role of the government should not.

So if anyone has any more issues with the ethics of gay marriage, let him go ahead and protest the ethics—it is fully within his constitutional rights to do so. Perhaps he can even start organizations to condone it, or churches to offer aid. However, let him not force the government into a role it was not intended for.

Am done ranting now. See the work of my hands! It sounds all professional and braggy and falsely mature, like a teen blog should.

And abortion is like taking away someone’s potential to be amazing.

And this shall be the only and last time I write about a political issue.


I

think

I may regret this several years from now.

Lalalalawarondrugs.