Plato's Euthyphro

This semester, I’m taking a class dealing with the philosophy of ethics. This is an interesting choice for me, as I am a moral nihilist (someone who believes that ethics and morality are purely a manmade creation, and have no existence outside of our heads). Which means I spend most of my time in the class disagreeing with the entire premise of the class, and building arguments to prove why everyone else around me is wrong. Fun times.

This is an essay I wrote for the class, dealing with Plato’s Euthyphro (which will make this the second time I’ve posted something about Plato’s writings on this blog). Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro discussing the relationship between what is holy (or what is good/moral, in modern terms) and the gods.

In the essay, I make reference a Shafer-Landau. This Shafer-Landau is the author of the class’s book, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil, where he attempts to prove Ethical Objectivism (the belief that morality and ethics have a real existence, objective from human perceptions of them). To express my opinion of the book in the most positive tone possible, I think that the arguments in it could use a little work. It contains various logical fallacies, and while Shafer-Landau does very well disproving Ethical Relativism (the belief that morality/ethics exist, but they are relative to what a society believes them to be) and Ethical Subjectivism (the belief that morality/ethics exist, but are relative to what the individual believes them to be), he absolutely fails at disproving moral nihilism.
But that’s not what this is about. Well, it partially is, but not entirely. No, this is about me making the claim that, based on Plato’s Euthyphro, we should all become either nihilists or Gnostics.



Plato’s Euthyphro details a conversation between the philosopher Socrates and Euthyphro, as they discuss what is “holy”. The situation which frames this discussion is a trial Euthyphro will be attending, to testify against his father for homicide. These actions had brought about the ire of Euthyphro’s contemporaries, who claim that it is not holy for a son to testify against his parent. However, Euthyphro holds his belief that his actions are holy.

To explore this issue, Socrates poses the question of what is and is not holy. According to Euthyphro, what the gods support is holy. However, Socrates quickly points out that the gods of their pantheon bicker more than schoolgirls. This forces Euthyphro to modify his definition of holy to what all the gods support.

At this time in the discussion, it is possible for modern readers to follow from a monotheistic perspective. Socrates and Euthyphro are now speaking of a unified committee of gods, which holds only one opinion. The implication of a unified voice of multiple gods would be identical the voice of a single god, as both produce only one opinion on matters.

With that little digression out of the way, allow us to move on with this delightful discussion. At this point, Socrates poses a question to Euthyphro, which becomes the central idea of the argument: Is something holy because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of it because it is holy? To put it in modern, monotheistic, terms, is something good because god made it good, or does god approve of good things?

The first idea, that something is good because god made it good, is called the Divine Command Theory. It is a stance which most theists take, as it supports the concept of god’s omnipotence. While it seems that the Divine Command Theory is the most sensible choice, after all, if God created everything, this would include morality, there are many criticism against it which support the second idea.

One of the implications of the DCT which critics attack is the arbitrary nature of morality under it. If there is no objective basis for morality, god’s choices on what is good and what isn’t were made entirely at whim. At any time, he could decide to make genocide morally acceptable, or have even made it acceptable from the start. This clashes with the idea of a benevolent god, as his morality is arbitrary instead of kind.

For a benevolent god to work, morality would need be independent of him. In this way, his support of morality is genuine kindness, and not arbitrary decision making.

However, such a view makes a major assumption: the benevolence of god. While from the perspective of Western Christianity, we may claim that god is benevolent as a sound basis for a claim, this does not uphold itself universally. To return to the Greek pantheon; most of the gods of the ancient Greeks were not by any stretch of the imagination “good”. Instead, they tended to act more akin to drunken frat boys after a football game, except with the ability to throw lightning at random pedestrians. For more modern religions, the Jewish take on Yahweh makes himself out to be a far more violent figure than the compassionate one of the New Testament. Then we have Deism, where god is merely apathetic, not necessarily good. For the most extreme example, we can look at Gnosticism, which has god as a malevolent, cruel tyrant who arbitrarily creates our current morality for the purpose of subjugation. None of these religions have any difficulty with the idea of the DCT, and by assuming it is false based on god’s benevolence assumes the truth of Western Christianity. And settling the truth on that definitely isn’t the point of this class.

But, for the sake of me getting a good grade on this essay, let us assume that DCT was rejected. Would it be possible for morals to exist independent of some divine figure.

No.

Longer answer: According to Shafer-Landau, it is. However, SL’s evidence for this claim is faulty, and in the end, fails to prove his point.

The basis of SL’s claims to morality independent of god is on his argument over whether morality is eternal or not. SL tries to prove that both ideas could be true, because apparently no one ever told him the saying about chasing two rabbits. For non-eternal morality, SL claims that not all laws which govern the universe are eternal. Photosynthesis is an example of such a law; before plants existed, there was no such thing as a law of photosynthesis. Therefore, laws need not be eternal.

First off, if you told a biology major that there was a “Law of Photosynthesis”, they would likely laugh at you. Secondly, the process which drives photosynthesis existed long before plants. All the examples given by SL are just different ways which atoms and energy interact. The laws which govern this have been in place for the entire existence of spacetime, and thus could be called eternal. There has never been a case of a new law appearing at any point in time.

Then we see SL attempt to prove that moral laws could be eternal, independent of god. This is based partly on the fact that there are principles governing the universe which are eternal, and partly because of the arbitrary claim that it would be wrong to torture future alien space babies. I’m not going to bother with the second part, and instead focus on SL’s faulty concept of principles. To start with, there is a world of difference between a scientific principle and a moral principle. Scientific principles say how the universe works; I cannot just decide to ignore gravity. Moral principles say how we should act, and can easily be broken. The universe cannot stop me from burning down an orphanage while kicking a puppy. The only connection between these ideas is the fact that they both have “principle: in their name; as far as definition is concerned, they are completely separate.

In the end, the concept we are left with are: SL’s claims that morality can be independent of god is faulty. Thus, If we assume morality exists, it must come from a deity figure. Thus, morality is arbitrary. Thus, god is a jerk. We’re left to choose between either a Gnostic concept of a tyrannical god, or just throw the whole thing aside and go with nihilism.

A Brief Lesson on Free Speech

So, apparently people are completely fucking retarded. I direct this mostly at 4Chan/Anon, as historically they have understood free speech to mean "LULZ I R SO SMART I CAN DO WHUTEVER i W@Nt AN JOO HAVE 2 TAKE IT!" But I also direct this at anyone who thought the "Soldiers are not heroes" group is protected by free speech on Facebook and anyone stupid enough to think this is somehow an issue of free speech.

You see kids, free speech is NOT, as it turns out, limited to just saying and writing stupid shit. Actions too are a form of speech. If you don't believe me, take a look at the concept of symbolic speech. You can exercise this speech by, say, favoring certain products over others in a store. Maybe your store caters to environmentally friendly products. That is an act of free speech. A Jewish book store is under no obligation to sell Mein Kampf and pro-Nazi propaganda.

If you're reading this and thinking "Well DUH Damios, that's just stupid!" then ask yourself one, possibly 2 questions: 1, did you object to Amazon refusing to sell the aforementioned handbook on pedophilia, and if so, what the Hell makes Amazon any different than the Jewish bookstore? The correct answer is the scope they CHOSE to take. A Jewish bookstore is perfectly, legally capable of selling pro-Nazi propaganda if it so chose. Amazon is nothing more than a store with an incredibly wide scope of goods. But just because it chooses a wide scope of goods doesn't mean it has to accept all goods.

And before you go all "Fahrenheit 451" on my ass, let's be clear that book burning is perfectly fine. Free speech is protected from the government because governments have power. If a government has power, they can control opinion. When a bunch of free citizens burn a book, it is EXPRESSING their opinion. Do you see the difference? It's subtle, I know.

So, to recap, a bunch of citizens expressing dislike about Amazon selling a book, and Amazon choosing not to sell the book, is not a free speech issue. It is an expression of free speech. If you force Amazon to sell goods they don't want to sell, that is a violation of free speech. Come on people, it isn't hard!

Carry this over to the fucking internet. Here's a page on Encylopedia Dramatica that demonstrates this principle wonderfully. Notice this line;

"Fast Eddie — The founder of the site. He does not believe in free speech, is mentally retarded, is very paranoid, and, above all, is incredibly lazy. He's also not fond of words liek weeaboo because they are "derogatory specifically in a way that is against our cross-fandom."

He doesn't believe in free speech? Oh, right. See, that's in reference to Fast Eddie locking down the Encyclopedia Dramatica page.

"Encyclopedia Dramatica Locked because Fast Eddie fears that someone will mention this very page and how it exhibits TV Trope's numerous fuck-ups. Update: Fast Eddie has now pussied out entirely, and has removed even the token mentioning of this very page. Stay classy, you frail-nerved crybaby."

And...you can pretty much take everything I said about a couple paragraphs up there and just cut and paste, only replace "store" with "website." Who gives a flying fuck if Fast Eddie actually is a hypocrite? It's his fucking website. It's not a violation of free speech if its his fucking website, you retarded fucks. He has every right to say whatever the fuck he wants. If he posts a page HIMSELF about Encyclopedia Dramatica and Anonymous on TVTropes, trashing them entirely and displaying nothing but gay porn to ineffectively parody your pathetic trashy subculture, then not only would he degrade himself to your level, but he'd be exercising free speech.

By the ways, I love how quick you are to claim Fast Eddie is a hypocrite. The reason he's several rungs above you on the evolutionary ladder is that you brats are equally hypocritical, if not more so, and he's at least twice as beneficial to society. Because what screams "TEH INTERNETS R NOT 4 SRS BIZNESS!" like writing an enormous Encyclopedia Dramatica page that makes you sound like a...to steal a term, "butthurt fanboy..." who just had their favorite TVTropes article "unfairly edited" by the guy who fucking owns it.

So, fuck 4chan, fuck Anonymous, and fuck anyone stupid enough to believe that Amazon's refusal to sell a handbook on pedophilia is a violation of freedom of speech.

Elections

It's 12:08 A.M. MSN has informed me that there are currently 149 Democrats and 224 Republicans in the House. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats and 46 Republicans, with 2 independents and 3 undecided.

Wow, what a massacre. I know the GOP were projected to win the House, but this seems excessive. Also, the Dems suffered some hard core losses in the Senate. A lot more than I was expecting. Ironic, really. Obama always cites the GOP as holding back America's will. America seems to disagree.

Election Coming Up In November

In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, 56.8% of American citizens voted. That's the highest it has been since 1968, between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
In the 2006 Congressional election, only 37.1% of the population voted.

If you feel like the government isn't working for the benefit of the average American, it's because they're not. They're working for the benefit of the average voter, which consists of just over a third of our entire population.

Something to keep in mind whenever you're passing by the ballots.

Torture Porn and Nickelodeon!

Tis the month of Halloween, which means every television station with decent ratings is airing horror flicks to be seasonal. So in honor of what has to be one of my most favorite months of the year, I figure I'd do two quick bits about horror flicks.

First is torture porn. I am decidedly not a fan. At all. I'm talking your run of the mill Saw movies, your Hostel flicks, and pretty much all the mindless derivatives thereof. Now, before I do begin my rant of why I don't like these two series in particular, let me say that not all gore movies are lost causes. I remember hearing of a movie whose name I can't recall that was an exceedingly violent gore flick. It was done by a bunch of make up artists, set designers, the kinds of people who are usually involved in making a violence look real. The actual movie was basically a demo reel, a showcasing of alternative techniques to make the screen come alive with horrible, horrible violence.

The difference between a movie like that and a movie like Saw or Hostel, to me, is that the Saw and Hostel movies are fundamentally about watching people get hurt and getting off on it. That in of itself confuses me, because a lot of times it isn't like the people even really...and I am loathe to use this word... deserve it. That is to say, the characters don't really do anything to warrant ANY punishment. The pain and suffering become a thing unto themselves, celebrated for their own sake in these movies. It sort of saddens me that people are like this. Beyond that, there really aren't any horror elements to it, it's just simple human brutality. And perhaps what perplexes me the most is that it's become a genre for something that's rather...unremarkable. It's not like human on human violence is uncommon. It happens all the time in real life, and it isn't very hard to find. The Saw movies I might give you because the Rube Goldberg death apparatuses, comedically impractical and insulting as they are, do keep things... "fresh."

The demo reel, on the other hand, has less to do with violence and suffering and more to do with workmanship. Though it may not be my ideal way to spend an afternoon, I could see the draw to watching such a movie. At the very least, the revulsion you might feel serves as a really good indicator of how well done the special effects are. And that is something that I can appreciate. It's like Crysis really, just a demonstration of what a team of dedicated experts is capable of with what they have available to them.

Oh, and before we continue, let me single out the Saw series for a moment. Lots of people seem to think that Saw was a cerebral experience and that it had a relatively engaging plot. I understand where this is coming from. The killer has a complex modus operandi, and on paper it would work very well. He is interested in forcing people into difficult situations because he wants them to appreciate their lives. Odd reason though that may be, the theoretical horror comes from the fact that he is a disinterested killer. His actions aren't personal, it's merely a selection process. That means that on some level, these "individuals" have marked themselves for the killer's games, even if they weren't aware of the terms.

In practice, however, the Saw series is only a gimmick. The first Saw movie may have remained somewhat faithful to this ideal, but the concept of "fairness" that would be essential to the modus operandi of the killer is lost completely in the sequel. Many of the characters die due to circumstances that had nothing to do with anything beyond the serial killer's desire to murder. The third movie, the last one I had the patience to watch, was a much worse offender, with several characters dying despite following the serial killer's "rules," with many gratuitous deaths playing out because of the simple fact that the Saw series isn't as smart as it wants you to think. The movies are about complicated death machines, and nothing more. The paper thin rationale behind Jigsaw is just a contrived device to keep the bodies coming in and the plot moving forward.

Let's move on to something a little lighter, shall we?

Last night I actually forced myself to sit down and watch "The Boy Who Cried Werewolf." This wasn't on anyone's radar I'm sure, but I decided to make the effort to see this one through for two reasons. One of them was Victoria Justice. The other was because I'm relatively out of touch with children's horror, which will always have a very special place in my heart. As a 90's kid, I had the distinct privilege of growing up with stuff like Goosebumps (both the books and the television show) and "Are You Afraid of the Dark," a classic program that actually had some fantastic horror in it. It basically springboarded me into my current fondness of the Twilight Zone and Tales from the Crypt. And there were also the full length movies, both animated and otherwise, that were pretty good all things considered. I wasn't a big Alvin and the Chipmunks fan, but I really liked Alvin and the Chipmunks meet the wolfman. Annoying voices aside, the music was actually pretty good. And you will never, ever, ever convince me that Scooby Doo On Zombie Island was not a fantastic movie. It was a great movie, easily better and spooker than 99 percent of the bullshit that Hollywood passes off as "horror."SERIOUSLY. It might actually be one of my favorite movies. I stopped watching the direct-to-video movies after Scooby Doo and the Witch's Ghost, which was still pretty good in my opinion. And it brought forth the existence of the Hex Girls, who were pretty rockin' all things considered. I heard they went really weird with aliens in one of them, which...doesn't bode well. Let's leave it at that.

That being said, I acknowledge that there's a lot of shit kids horror. What I was curious to see was if the generational gap that I've noted elsewhere remains true for this. I do believe 90's animation was better pound for pound than it is now. Mind you, our regular programming is vastly superior, with stuff like House and Breaking Bad and Dexter. We also have reality television to contend with, so it's hard to say who has it better. Either way, as someone who seems to have developed a new found fondness of television, I figured it was something worth investigating. I want to see more children's horror, hopefully before Halloween ends. Unlikely given my schedule, but a guy can hope. Til then, this is the only movie that really fit into my window of opportunity that I got to see. Also, Victoria Justice has motivated me to worse endeavors before. My weakness for the fairer sex is going to get me killed some day.

So, what exactly is this movie about? It centers around a single parent family consisting of a father, a teenage girl named Jordan (Victoria Justice), and a younger brother named Hunter (played by Chase Ellison...I'd be impressed if you've heard of him). The family I guess inherits an estate in Romania from an estranged uncle on their deceased mother's side, so they decide to go over and claim it. The estate ends up being a large castle which they plan to sell to pay off their home back in the states. There's some adjustment drama with Jordan, and Hunter has a blast as he's obsessed with the supernatural. In particular, the town's legendary Wolfsberg Beast draws his attention. The two kids eventually stumble upon a hidden lab in Castle Wolfsberg (the estate they inherit) and Jordan ends up dropping a vial with some liquid labeled LB 217. She ends up stepping on the glass from the vial, and that's when the horror ensues! (spoiler alert: She becomes a werewolf).

How is it as a horror film? I'm actually impressed with some of the themes they tried to tackle. They start off with some great internal conflict. Jordan's newly acquired werewolf DNA...or whatever it is, they never really explain it...brings about a lot of animalistic changes in her; making her very aggressive, physically augmenting her, and instilling in her a newfound fondness of meat (she was a vegetarian prior to wolfing out). Eventually though she makes a full on transformation and nearly attacks her brother before jumping out of the castle. This all culminates in the high point (low point?) of her transformation after she ate an entire live boar, when she expresses tells her brother she's afraid she might kill him or their father. It's interesting and curious for a kid's movie, but I guess not completely unfounded. I find it reminiscent of Gingersnaps, a horror movie which told the story of female puberty through the not-so-subtle metaphor of lycanthropy (uncontrollable urges, monthly cycles, hair in strange places, etc). TBWCW didn't quite take it that far, mind you. I detected one potential mention of puberty, and I might have been searching due to the aforementioned Gingersnaps having conditioned me into thinking that way.

Course, this sort of gets thrown out the window when the vampires show up. Yes, I know, collective groan. Apparently werewolves and vampires hate each other in TBWCW universe. I won't get into much detail. You'll be pleased to know there are no romantic elements to this conflict whatsoever, as Jordan is chasing after a Romanian butcher who is in no way supernatural. Nope, these vampires just want to plunge the earth into total darkness to rule as undead kings for all eternity. And thank the Gods. I can't stomach any more vegetarian vampire sissies. But with this conflict and resulting werewolf/vampire graveyard fight scenes, there comes the fact that the werewolves kind of lose their crazy "can't control myself!" ness and sort of become trained attack dogs. They end up taking orders from a mortal at one point. A shame, I found the first conflict much more interesting.

Beyond that, the story is relatively well told I suppose. It's no Scoobie Doo On Zombie Island, but really who is? It's fairly straight forward. The comedy is a bit lacking, though I did chuckle once or twice. Special mention goes to the horrible, horrible accents though. I get it, Romanian/Transylvanian accents can never again be done seriously. But these are just...painful. Particularly the previously mentioned Romanian butcher love interest. He sounds like some horrific blend of Romanian and Italian, heavily favoring the Italian. I feel as though he should be trying to sell me lamb-flavored gelato in some poorly thought out SNL skit. The maid isn't much better, even though she has a clear shout out to Young Frankenstein.

In the end, it's decent. It's on par with old Goosebumps if you're willing to look past a bit of rushed storytelling and a couple of idiot ball moments. If you're into kids horror, feel free to give it a whirl. It'll probably be on again some time this week. 'Tis the season after all.

Modern Animation

Those of you who are friends with Damios on Facebook (which in all honestly is probably everyone who would read this) may have noticed that he posted the video for “A Whole New World”, from Aladdin. If you scroll down a bit, you can read a conversation between him and me, which at one point discusses the animation quality of Aladdin compared to more recent works. We also discussed time travel, THE BURNING HUMAN SPIRIT, the fact that Crowley proves that my attempts to make Omegia asexual inadvertently turned the entire setting into a gigantic mental/spiritual orgy, the fact that Omegia also is documented proof that I am a creepy pedophile, and that Jesus is David Bowie. However, you really only need to focus on the animation part.

Go ahead and watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VfN2BhJA8) or if you own a copy of the movie, just watch it instead. Pay attention to the animation. It’s GORGEOUS. Prior to watching the clip, I had assumed that a movie from the 90s wouldn’t have aged well. After all, we live in the future, with computers which can drastically reduce the amount of work needed to animate; plus, modern CGI should have improved dramatically since then. Except that’s not the case here; I watched the clip from Aladdin, a movie I watched when I was just a wee lad, and realized that its quality was superior to the majority of recent animation that isn’t PIXAR.

The oddity doesn’t just end with 90s era Disney. Look at the works of Studio Ghibli. The animation in their film Ponyo is hand drawn, but it is far, far superior to animated movies using computer technology to assist the process. True, Disney and Ghibli had larger budgets than most studios, but we’re comparing hand drawn animation to studios that presumably have the help of modern technology.

The problem isn’t just restricted to movies; many cartoons and animes have animation quality which makes me feel sad. There are only a few shows which I find visually appealing; Code Geass, Death Note, and Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei are the only series I’ve seen recently where I’ve said to myself, “Damn that’s pretty” while watching. Part of it is a slight, personal problem I have with modern anime style: everything is so damn shiny and colorful. Even Code Geass has this, with bright primary colors thrown all over the screen every scene. It’s like they think we have the attention spans of children, and need the rainbow effects to keep us entertained. Death Note avoids this with a more subdued, realistic color scheme, but everything is still so bloody shiny looking.

Maybe I’m just ranting. In fact, I definitely am. I’m not an animator; I have no experience with the process it takes to make a cartoon. But when I look at modern work, I expect it to be higher quality than works that lacked modern technology. If it doesn’t, what’s the point of having all that expensive stuff in the first place?

Video Game News!

I had a serious post lined up about Glenn Beck's Washington rally, but then homework happened. I'm at work now, so I figured I'd just post some recent news in the world of video games.

Vanquish demo is out for XBL and PSN. Played it a bit last night, and it's actually even more fun than I'd anticipated. High speed, loads of adrenaline, craziness abounds. Highly recommended.

Kotaku got their hands on the "Playstation Move" and some games prior to it's September 19th release date. Seems that they are rather impressed with it, but I wonder how much of that is genuine "I'm-impressed-ness." Not that I'd suggest Kotaku is being paid off by Sony or anything, but having strongly negative opinions about a system that's going to be here for a while does have consequences. When you're gonna be reviewing games and whatnot for this system for that long, you can't really just say "Move sucks" and then convince everyone your reviews aren't affected by that. Just the same, most Kotaku writers seem to feel that the constant calibration is a concern.

http://kotaku.com/5626492/playstation-move-review-the-motion-controller-wars-start-now

http://kotaku.com/5626491/what-we-loved-what-we-hated-about-the-playstation-move

Me, personally, I won't be getting it. I share Yahtzee's sentiment that without tactile feedback most motion control games won't feel natural or intuitive. While there are some genuinely innovative design implementations possible (usually of the painting and brush stroke variety a la "Okami," or possibly paint brush mechanics in Epic Mickey), they don't seem to show up often enough to warrant (in my opinion) the purchase of a motion control system. Course, Move still beats Kinect no matter what. I mean seriously...what exactly is the point? So I can play imaginary full body soccer in my living room? Why not actually go out and play soccer? At what point is technology like this "innovative," and what point is it "a substitute for having no friends?" And yes, this is totally coming from the guy who has no friends whatsoever at college. Feel the judgment.

But I can't give Kotaku all the credit for early reviews. IGN posted a review as well. While I'm not the biggest fan of IGN (A perfect 10 for GTA IV? Seriously?), it's good to have different opinions. They seem to think the motion controls are solid, but the software is pretty weak. Really? Shovelware? In MY Playstation Move? What nonsense is this!?

http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1117286p1.html

Also, Tank MMO. As in, an MMO where you play as a tank. Because...why not.

http://kotaku.com/5627067/welcome-to-the-world-of-tanks