Opinion Article

HED: Ethical Subjectivism and Open-mindedness

DEK: Is Everything Correct, or is Nothing Correct?

BYLINE: Jonathan Vogt

WORDCOUNT: 635

COPY: From an early age, we’re told to be open-minded and tolerant of others’ beliefs. What does this really mean? Well, the concept of open-mindedness seems to imply that everything is true, that every individual creates their own distinct and equally valuable truth. At the same time, this tolerance shows us that nothing is true, for every worldview, no matter how arbitrary, is equal to the next. The only unacceptable action in this relativistic system is forcing your beliefs on someone else. Aside from this taboo, everything goes.

In the last century, we’ve abandoned rigid, strict, “universal” codes of conduct in favor of this relativistic system. This isn’t to say that there weren’t any problems in the past, nor does this statement imply that we were any better off before relativism started to dominate. There were major disadvantages to living under, for example, a strict religious rule. Additionally, there are certain safeguards set in a relativistic system. Any violent or forceful actions towards others are always condemned; legal repercussions also occur when you deceive others or steal their resources. However, is the fear of punishment enough to stop people from behaving unjustly towards one another?

In times past, there were definite, heavenly punishments for disobeying basic moral laws. Who set these laws? From a contemporary, atheistic view, these moral laws were almost certainly set by the priestly class whose main goal was controlling the general populace.

The reasoning behind lawmaking is certainly important. If the only justification for a law is that it makes the citizenry easier to control, is it a just law? Or should these laws, which have no universal backdrop to reference, merely be concerned with protecting people from each other? In this case, the government should be ensuring individual autonomy first. In other words, the government would be concerned with granting each person as much freedom as possible to pursue their own lifestyle, regardless of how self-destructive it is to them. Is an alcoholic living the wrong lifestyle, if he has chosen it himself? Is a drug addict or suicidal person in the wrong, if others are not hurt by their actions? Where do we draw the line, and how can we justify that line? If we stand by relativism, it seems difficult to draw a line at all. Can we appeal to society’s well-being, or is even that belief that we should be careful not to force upon others?

The last point involves our youth. At what age is it appropriate to introduce such an idea as ethical subjectivism (where everyone makes their own meaning)? At certain ages, particularly in the teenage years, a person’s worldview is skewed and incomplete. Should they be allowed to create an early “meaning” for themselves that very easily could be ill-informed and cause them serious problems throughout life?

Perhaps it is a matter of holding a more moderate view on open-mindedness and the place that it holds in modern society. Instead of adopting a view that everything is equally true or valid, perhaps there should be a hierarchy of values. While it is nearly impossible to make any sort of claim about universal values, it might be good to set distinctions about what is acceptable and what isn’t. We certainly have already implemented this in society; we have laws saying that certain things are wrong and immoral. However, in the minds of many people there are no such guidelines, or far less of them than are mentioned in our country’s laws. If people have stricter guidelines that they use to moderate their interactions with other, the world will be a better place. Perhaps the place to draw these guidelines from is the well-being of society as a whole; at the very least, this is a far better place to start than each individual’s unique interests.

League of Legends, Walden, and "Jungling."

Disclaimer at the start: this post reeks of the absurd. League of Legends, a game that I play on a fairly regular basis, is basically a World of Warcraft spinoff with no monetary obligation. It's also far less intense and takes up considerably less time depending on your level of dedication. The game itself is typically 5v5 player format, in which you can either play with your friends or random people from across the world. Mostly Russia, from what I've seen. Russians, by the way, are very difficult to communicate with when they don't know English; I've seen really good foreigners that type with awkward, indecipherable symbols but they are usually quite bad. It's annoying to not be able to thank/rage at partners that are either really good or really bad, respectably.

At any rate, "jungling" is a style of play that many pre-made teams resort to. The match-making system assumes that a group of five people that know each other will be a stronger team than five random strangers; they will pit you and your friends against stronger teams according to that assumption. If all five of you were somehow randomly paired up you would have weaker opponents. The map for League of Legends is made up of three lanes and an extensive jungle with creatures that can be killed for money and experience. Teams that are comfortable with each other will often have one of their players gain their experience and money through killing in the jungle, leaving one of the lanes as a "solo" lane (one ally against two enemies). The ally left in the solo lane will gain bonus experience and gold from the extra minion kills they are able to get; the ally in the jungle will, if they are skilled, level up at a faster pace as well. This gives the team a decisive advantage in teamfights and can often lead to victory.

One skilled jungler that would basically win the game for the team:

Henry David Thoreau, 19th century thinker and writer, also went to the woods. His book Walden gives us his experiences and thoughts on the matter. Here's a quote:

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." -Thoreau, Walden

I think I see a very strong parallel. When you jungle in LOL, you only have to deal with the intricacies of killing monsters. This remains largely the same regardless of what game you are in (unless the other team decides to go hunting for you). You have to be deliberate, learn from your mistakes, and know your strengths and weaknesses enough to be able to judge which monsters you can kill by yourself.

However, you have to be careful; being lazy in the jungle can make you an object of derision for your team:

If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer. But if he spends his days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. -Thoreau, Walden

In LOL, the same thing is true. If you spend a majority of your time wandering the jungles and admiring the beauty of the creatures found therein, you are a slacker. However, if you spend all of your time killing these monsters, you are a valuable asset to your team.

I could go on, but I'll spare my readers. This has been a really fun blog to keep; I'm really proud of several of these posts, although the majority (including this one) are kinda... well, I'd like to think that to people with a background in these subjects at least find them a bit humorous and a little helpful. Thanks for reading, I really appreciate it.

Brothers Karamazov

To be honest, I'm starting to run out of movies to talk about. So, since I've been reading "The Brothers Karamazov," by Fyodor Dostoevsky, I figured I'd talk a bit about the interesting parts. He's also wrote "Crime and Punishment," by the way. Oh, and there IS a movie called "The Brothers Karamazov," although between being in Russian and being 40 years old I can't imagine anyone is interested. In all fairness, the clips that I watched were pretty good, but it's not something I would spend much time on.

(Disclaimer: I haven't finished the last 100 pages, which means I've only gotten through roughly 90% of the book. I wish that was a joke. Anyway, apologies to anyone who has actually gotten through this whole thing)

The three brothers are named Mitya, Alyosha, and Ivan. The represent the sensual, the idealistic, and the intellectual, respectively. Their conversations are often fascinating; both Mitya and Ivan think that God is fading away in the minds of the people, and that this could very well disrupt the foundations of morality that rest underneath society. That question is interesting enough: what gives people the inclination to act morally without some kind of eternal judgment at the end of their lives?

At some points, Ivan advocates a rather existential mindset. He thinks that humans can live together in harmony, even without God, by embracing their common humanity and looking for united happiness in this world, instead of the next. However, he doubts that this sort of era can come about. It's not a difficult thing to be skeptical of; such a system would have to be well thought out, and most people, upon being freed from the chains of a god, would not look towards long term desires.

Alyosha is the idealistic monk; he believes in God still, even though his brother Mitya insists that God must move aside so that science can progress. He prays for both of this brothers throughout the book; I'll be vague on the details, but they both get into serious trouble. Anyway, the question of whether God exists is key to this book, but even more important is the implications if he doesn't. Will everything be lawful, as many minor characters contend, or is there some sort of morality written into humanity itself? It seems that all of the brothers find something unappealing about "everything being lawful," regardless of their feelings about God. Even Mitya, the sensual brother who excels at getting extremely drunk, cheating, and stealing money, tells his brother Alyosha that he is sorry to see God go.

Anyways, sorry to expose you all to a book review on a blog that should be portraying epic movies. What are your thoughts on these theological questions? This book was written about 100 years ago. Are the questions still relevant today?