A Question of Pragmatism

Here's something to think about, and that's really all it is. A thought-experiment, if you will.

Take Hitler. I've previously covered the fact that I think I could be morally-pragmatic enough to kill Hitler. Not that it's the panacea some people seem to think it is, but still. So consider Hitler as a model of someone whom it might be morally-pragmatic to kill.

Consider two people. One is a German nationalist who hates Jews as much as Hitler, but can see that Hitler's actions will bring ruin to his beloved Germany. The other is a devout Jew who wishes to save her people from extermination. They both decide that they will kill Hitler because of their various reasons, and they both make plans which are identical in nature to do the deed.

Now, suppose you are moral, but pragmatic enough to agree that killing Hitler would be a good thing if not necessarily wholly good ("wholly is a word which really should be spelled differently). Suppose that the German nationalist kills Hitler. Is his action less moral because of the motivation behind it? The effect is the same as if the Jew killed Hitler: Hitler ceases to be alive. Is killing justified in the service of a moral cause, or is it merely justified in the service of a moral effect?

In other words, all other things being equal (I know they weren't in this case, but I'm moving from the specific to the general as one often does in these sorts of thoughts), does motivation for an immoral act which has beneficial effects govern the morality of that act?

And here's another question: suppose the person who kills Hitler does it in a way which is designed to ensure his or her survival? Is that more or less moral than someone who essentially commits suicide by assassination. Or, to put it another way, is it selfish and therefore less moral to give less than one's life to the cause?

The pragmatist, the truly pragmatic, thinks this whole thing is ridiculous. It doesn't matter why, it merely matters that Hitler is killed, they say. But I would wager that few people are that pragmatic. Consider it yourself and think about how your reactions to the two assassins differ. I'll admit that I find the Jewish assassin who is acting for a moral cause even if her actions are immoral to be the more moral actor, even if analysis tells me that murder is still immoral and the ends do not justify the means, nor are the effects made moral by the causes (and I do believe that those two statements are different, as well being different from the statement that the motivation doesn't justify the crime).

Does motivation matter to morality? Does effect? Or is action moral or immoral without regard to cause or consequence? You should think about it.

Brave New World

Dear People Who Use the Phrase "Brave New World" to Describe the World in Which We Are Currently Living, or One in the Immediate Future,

You are being unintentionally ironic. And you're being stupid. And clichéd. And did I mention stupid?

We are not living in the brave new world. If you use the term, you're a moron. Sure, the world is new, if you take into account the fact that everything is always new. But brave? Plus, "brave new world" has connotations you're not considering. "It's a brave new world out there," is the kind of thing you're supposed to say after the bomb drops and civilization is reduced to rubble, only now everyone is a peace-loving mutant. Or something like that. Incremental change is not supposed to bring about a situation where you can be that hyperdramatic.

Also, "brave?" Really? Because it sounds kind of stupid to me.

That is all.

Sincerely,

An Occupant of the Cowardly Old World.

Breaking the Rules

I'm going to do it! I can't stand it no more! Everyone back! I said get back! I don't want to do it, but you're forcing me!

Okay, that's it! I'm doing it!

...Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am said: "With this kind of success your ego wants to take all the credit.

"But your heart reminds your soul that it was your heart that had you slaving and creating in the studio making the music.

"In the fight between heart and ego my heart always wins."

What? The? Hell?

Told you I was hardcore.

Okay, all joking aside, here's the article if you want to read it. You don't have to. The above says everything. I was going to try to break it down, but it's like an irreducible lump of verbal excrement that I don't want to go digging through even if I could reduce it somehow.

What does that even mean? Are you saying that you'd like to take credit egotistically, but you just can't because you need to take credit from your heart? How is that any less egotistical? In fact, I think your ego is feeding your soul a line about your heart, which shriveled into a cold black lump of money-fueled emptiness several decades ago.

I'm so great. I'm just the greatest. You know, sometimes my ego wants to take credit for my greatness, but then my heart takes the credit. My heart is huge. And that's part of the reason I'm so great. Because it's not my ego. My ego doesn't make me great.

In summation, Will.i.am is a drooling imbecile.

Vindication!

HAHA! I knew it!

The relevant article is: Twitter tweets are 40% 'babble'

The relevant text:

A short-term study of Twitter has found that 40% of the messages sent via it are "pointless babble."

...

Almost as prevalent as the babble were "conversational" tweets that used it as a surrogate instant messaging system.

The study found that only 8.7% of messages could be said to have "value" as they passed along news of interest.

This is one of those times when you should probably read the article. Basically, the testing is not what I'd call a representative sample, but their hypothesis was that spam and self-promotion would make up most of the content. In fact, most of it is garbage, just a different kind of garbage than they were expecting. Twitter: garbage.

That is all.

Ye Olde Conflicted

I was going to write a post (a short post, but whatever) saying "Hey people, if you want to imitate the archaic style, at least do it properly." In fact, to give my first impulse, here's one way I feel.

If you're going to use "thee' and "thou" and "wouldst" and so on, at least use them right. "Thee" and "thy" are not interchangeable. Adding "est" to the end of a verb when it's not proper to do so throws me off. Basically, it's like pirate-talk; if you use a pirate turn of phrase, at least use it in the way a pirate would. Don't tell me to "swab the mainbrace." Unless you're intentionally trying to do it badly, and then I guess none of this applies to you.

But see, thing is, that's me being nitpicky, and possibly wrong, because archaic English had way fewer rules than we do now. For one thing, spelling was loose as... yes, well, it was loose. Shakespeare regularly made up words. Chaucer too. Basically, while there were some rules, there weren't that many, so anything you do might be right, or at least not incorrect (largely because there are no rules governing it).

So I was conflicted.

Then I realized what it's really about: style. I'm not demanding that you hew to an ancient style guide, because there wasn't one for the most part. I'm saying, "Hey, if you're going to write comedy pastiche, write it well." So to those who are curious: thee is in the objective, so if you wanted to say "Can I hit you on the head with my ax?" you would say, "Canst I hit thee on the head with mine axe." See, that's possibly not any more according to the rules than anything else, but it sounds better. Thy is like my: it's a possessive. Just as you wouldn't write, "Jimmy went with my to the store," so you wouldn't write, "The pirate hit thy on the head with his axe," (we know, of course, that you'd use, "thee," right?). I'm not going to get into the rules for using the "f" thing in place of an "s." If you say "my" or "thy" and then continue to a word which starts with a vowel, you should probably change it to "mine" or "thine." Don't add "est" or "eth" to every single verb (and there are probably rules here that could be made, but I'm not going to make them because I'm not totally secure on them, I just know what sounds right).

Basically, it's funnier if it sounds right, and it only sounds right if you follow rules which may be anachronistic, but which will result in a better product. Don't overplay it for yucks. Do it right and people will be impressed (plus the laughs will come from the content, not the way you present it) (plus plus people will be able to understand it, which many times is tough if it's been ye-olde-fied too severely).

That's all.