Post 133: Thoughts on Phil. - Divine Control Theory

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

Divine Control Theory: 

Divine Control Theory states that things 

are morally good if they are commanded by God.

This theory states that things in themselves are not right or wrong. So, murder is not wrong until God says it is. This is all well and good on paper, but accepting it as true raises some complicated questions. The main question that hits me is whether an act committed by someone that believed they were acting on God's behalf is the same as someone actually doing it. 

For example, let's say a man is suffering from schizophrenia and he honestly and wholeheartedly believes that God is talking to him and has chosen him for a special mission to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath. If he goes and kills Tom Cruise (who I have nothing against it was just the first name that came to mind), would this act be morally good because the man who did it was told by God to do it? Even if he doesn't know that it wasn't really God? 

On the one hand, "thou shall not kill" is the 6th commandment. So, it seems like this might supersede other commands. But, most interpretations take this to mean "murder" not "kill" and distinguishes them as separate. Making most interpretations of this that "murder" is wrong and that murder is only committed through acts of the heart and are personal acts. 

Assuming that the man does not hate Tom Cruise, but is only following the voice that as far as he knows is God, it would not be murder according to this definition. And Exodus 35:2, could be said to condone Tom Cruise's murder as well, because it states that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. 

Does the fact that he is not actually being commanded by God change the virtue of the act? Especially taking into account that the Bible is thousands of years old and was written by 40 authors on three continents in three languages. It has been translated and re-contextualized and amended by many different people all of whom are assumed to be speaking on God's behalf. So, in order to be morally good, all these people must be right and trusted to have said exactly what God had intended, even with all the middle men it went through. But one man, listening to and trusting his own senses is deemed crazy. But even deemed crazy does not rule his action morally good or bad. 

Before moving on from the Bible, I would also like to point out that so much of it is ignored or reinterpreted while other parts are taken as literal. Other than the earlier example from Exodus condoning Cruise's murder, Exodus 21:7 condones selling one's daughter into slavery. 

So, assuming the man was sent to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath, would the act be justified even if it weren't God's voice, because it is still in the Bible?

And there are arguments that everything is God's will, so even if it weren't his words in the man's head, it would still be God's will that he heard them.

So, according to Divine Control Theory, are the man's actions morally wrong?

Addendum:

After a brief discussion in tutorial, I still haven't arrived at a specific conclusion. However, the tutorial did bring up some possible solutions. The two theories we discussed were very different. One suggested that there is a right and wrong, even if we don't know it. So, it doesn't matter what the man thinks, murder is wrong. Though, it doesn't really address the potential that it was still God's will that the man think he was being commanded to kill. Or, Exodus 21:7. 

The other is that we make right and wrong as a society. Which would mean that he would be wrong, because society would say it is wrong to kill, even if he heard voices telling him to kill. Though, either way, he would probably end up in an institution. 

Post 132: Thoughts on Phil. - Ring of Gyges

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

The Ring of Gyges:

The Ring of Gyges is the story about a Shepherd who finds a 

magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses the ring 

to seduce the queen, kill the king, and take over the kingdom. 

Glaucon's argument seems heavily focused on the immediate consequences of an action. His example of the just and unjust man (unjust is loved by all and given all the rewards of being just while the just man is hated by all and suffers as if he was unjust) proves this because it relies entirely on the idea that because the unjust man is happier now, he will always be happier. Though, even in a situation where he is always happier, he may not know he will always be happier. Also it is suggested in later works that Plato's definition of a happy life is one of contentment and mediocrity.

This is suggested when he is talking about the perfect city as one where people are at a level, but they never move higher or lower. They just serve a single purpose that they are best at. So, if the two lives were graphed, with the just mean experiencing low highs and lows, while the unjust man has extreme highs and lows, then maybe Plato would argue their experiences were equal or even that the just man has a better life because he did even though he did not experience as high-highs, he also doesn't experience the dramatic shift to the low-lows.

Though, this could be argued, another question comes up for me regarding Glaucon's argument of things valued. Does something necessarily have to make someone's life better to be valued? Does someone's life being happier necessarily mean it is better? If someone smokes, they might be happier in the moment, but does it make their life better?

Glaucon's argument about the two men seems to rest on the idea that just living is better only if the man is happier than an unjust man. Is it not possible for the just man to still have a better life even if he is not happier? And even if he does, does that really mean being just isn't of value?

Someone might cheat to get ahead and beat all the other players in a game, but does that mean they will benefit in the long run?

In Glaucon's discussion of the Ring he doesn't take into account what could happen. Just because the Shepherd killed the King and tool over the kingdom doesn't mean he will always get away with it. Claudius killed the King, married the Queen, and took over Denmark in Hamlet and for awhile he got away with it, but in the end he loses everything. And because he had so much he more to lose. So who's to say the shepherd isn't going to eventually get caught?

I also disagree with his point that if someone were to turn it (the ring) down people would mock them for it behind their back. But since a lot of people assume that they could be just even with the ring, why would they mock someone for turning it down? When in mocking them they are doing it because they turned down the opportunity to be unjust.

Grace and Frankie

Of things I regret this month, watching this show is one of my greatest regrets. Not to say that it is bad. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The reason I regret it, is that it was only after watching the first season, that I realized that only season 1 was out and that because it only came out a week or so before, it would be a long wait for the next season. And what a cliff-hanger!

As a fan of both West Wing (I even did a review for it) and Law and Order, it was strange seeing Martin Sheen and Lily Tomlin from West Wing. But even stranger seeming Detective Jack McCoy and President Barlet as a couple.

But, the show is interesting and it brings up some very real issues. The show is about two married couples that have been close, though also strained. The husbands confess that not only are they looking for a divorce, they are gay, and have been having an affair with each other for 20 years.

It brings up some real issues: from how the wives feel people will see them and how they couldn't see it themselves, and the husbands deal with coming out as two successful lawyers in their 70s, to how the kids come to terms with it. A big issue that comes up with the kids is, 'can we be mad?'

Which makes sense, their dads cheated. Their dads were leaving their wives. But the main reason they didn't do it sooner was because they felt ashamed and scared. Does that make it better? Does that make it more excusable? This is something they try to work through.

The issues are all treated with the right amount of seriousness mixed with the right amount of humor and respect. It was good. It was funny.

I liked all the characters too. Not to say any of them are perfect. they are flawed in some way and they are all the better for it: from the recovering addict to the way-too-blunt CEO.

I would reccomend it, and have. My friend Negin reccomends it as well. She also says that Nwabudike is her favorite character, and to pay special attention to him. Personally, I like Brianna. But, Grace and Frankie's relationship brings the most heartwarming moments and the most humor, in my opinion.

Post 131: Sympathetic Bad Guys and Evil-doers pt. 2

I was thinking about my last post about bad guys and evil-doers who didn't deserve what they got, and it made me think of Into the Woods, the musical. It is a great musical, though the original is better than the movie in some ways (mostly relating to Rapunzel and the second prince who barely make an appearance in this movie as well as the ending song that in the original is funny but in the movie is more sentimental).

Anyway, this movie is such a great example of this kind of thing because the whole movie is about what happens outside the basic fairy tale. After ever after, is it really always happy? And are the stock Prince characters more than what they seem?

In the movie there are two giants, who are probably the main antagonists, along with the witch. The witch uses the baker and his wife to get what she wants, but at the same time, she really cares for Rapunzel. Meanwhile, the giants are almost never fully shown, because everyone knows the story.

But even in the original story, the giants didn't really deserve to die. A complete stranger came to their home and stole from them. In the musical, Jack went up and stole from the giants three times. And when the giant came to get his stuff back, they caused his death. Then when his wife came down, they killed her too.

I think what is so interesting about this musical is that it really exposes some of the problems with fairy tales: from the Princes' lack of personality to the illogical 'happily ever after's.

Post 130: Why do we root for Elle Woods: Man-Stealer?

It didn't occur to me until I'd watched it a few times, but the major premise of the movie is following a man's ex as she tries to ruin his current relationship with his fiance. I mean, she does have an epiphany later on that she doesn't actually want to be with him, but the main motive she has is getting him back and proving herself to him. This is not the character we usually root for. This is the character that is usually the antagonist, but in this movie the fiance is the antagonist.

Elle goes so far as dressing up as a playboy bunny and flirting with him at a party. Honestly, i understand why Vivian is so hostile towards her. If I was engaged to someone and there ex started following him around and flirting with him with the clear intention of getting him back and acting as if I didn't exist and he was single, then I'd be pretty pissed off too. 

I think that they both crossed the line. I mean, it was one thing for Vivian to want Elle out of her way, but another to turn other students against her for no reason. For example, when Elle went to join a study group, it made sense that Vivian wouldn't want Elle to be in the same group as her and Warner, but telling the head of another study group that Elle had called her a 'dyke' was crossing the line. It hurt the girl she told and it hurt Elle, because it meant another study group she couldn't join. 

Elle does have a change of heart after the party when Warner still doesn't seem to be interested, even though she basically showed up in lingerie to flirt with him, and she becomes more interested in proving herself to him more than getting him back- but even then, it starts off mainly for him. 

I think that Elle is actually pretty self-centered. She didn't even think about Vivian's feelings OR Warren's. I mean, if they had just split up then it would have made sense, but he was ENGAGED to someone else - that would suggest that he actually CARED about someone else, but Elle didn't even think about that. She didn't ask him about it or anything.

She basically just acted like he was single and if she hung around enough that was all it would take to win him back. 

It was Paulette's advice, but still...it was not a good plan. 

I think the reason we still root for her is because we are first hit with an emotional connection to her pretty soon, when we see her get dumped when she thought she was going to be proposed to. It helped create a connection to her of sympathy so we wanted her to have a win. So, this way we could better ignore what it was we were rooting for her to win. 

It also didn't last very long. I mean, she didn't say she wasn't interested in getting back together with him until the end, but after the party she stops flirting with him and that certainly helps it from being hard to root for her. 

Still, I think it is interesting to wonder, if the movie was from Vivian's point of view or if the movie had started with Elle just deciding to go to Harvard to get her ex back, would we have rooted for her or just seen her as a crazy, obsessed ex-girlfriend?