The Don has made some interesting points about the Foodstamp Program, which I feel is worth discussing here as well. Don’s first two complaints about the program are concerns I’ve had about it for a long time.
“1.The Foodstamp Program is outdated because it has no restriction on items: Customers are free to buy any cold food item, including soda, candy bars, gum, potato chips, etc.
2. The Foodstamp Program is wasteful of tax payers' money: Customers are free to spend funds however they wish, in which they tend to buy expensive items (such as made to order sandwiches) rather than basic foods (such as flour, bread, packaged meat) for wholesome meals.”
The system is wasteful because it allows people to spend money on foods that are expensive rather than more basic necessary foods. People are also allowed to buy unhealthy foods. To me this seems unacceptable since the program was intended to help people. Don’s third point is that the stamps are abused on non-food items such as cigarettes and alcohol. I seem to remember some fraud cases involving the sale of alcohol in exchange for food stamps. This is illegal but a certain amount of corruption is involved in any program this size since there are quite a few evil individuals in the world.
“4. The Foodstamp Program sets no goal: Foodstamps customers are given no incentive to get out of this Foodstamps-dependent state. On the contrary, it encourages customers to remain in this state.”
Any welfare without a limit is bound to have a number of users who see no reason to better themselves when they can get a free ride. This is another form of corruption and these people have as much a share in evil as the others.
“5. The Foodstamps Program rewards immorality: People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are easily eligible for Foodstamps. This mindset in a way rewards premarital sex. Only those in financially desperate situations should be eligible for Foodstamps.”
Point five I disagree with. Unlike Don, I am not convinced that premarital sex is immoral in all conceivable cases. I could provide examples I think explain this position here but that would be going off topic. This said I would not engage in premarital sex because of the risks of unplanned pregnancy. I do not believe that food stamps themselves are sufficient incentive to convince people to get pregnant out of wedlock.
To begin with, unplanned pregnancies cause extreme emotional strain, which is aversive enough that I doubt any benefit from the stamps would be seen as a reward. Also, raising the child itself would be even more emotionally and financially straining even if one has food stamps to alleviate some of that. The problem here is not with premarital sex but with sexual promiscuity. Those who engage in unprotected sex repeatedly and get pregnant many times over are a drain on the system. I believe these individuals are evil or immoral because they ensure almost beyond doubt that their many children will grow up in poverty and will likely not get out of it.
I am sure it is unintentional but Don seems to lump all premarital pregnancies into the category of needing the assistance of foodstamps. I can see how teenagers and younger couples might need the assistance since they are the least likely to be financially secure. However, there are many individuals who are in this situation that are financially capable of supporting themselves and do not use foodstamps.
With a time limit imposed upon use of the system and the help of someone like a social worker as Don suggests I would expect a decrease in the waste of taxpayer money. The downside is a time limit might also increase the number of abortions since unwed or even wed couples may choose to abort rather than bear the great expense of raising another child. At the very least the poor may be forced to put the children up for adoption, which would actually increase the burden upon the state. A time limit may also drive some couples to be more responsible and use protection or abstain from intercourse. I think a majority of people would use the options of abortion and adoption since there is a deficiency of self-control and responsibility in many individuals. The good news is if the children are given to the state for adoption it is possible they would be raised to be more responsible than their parents. But that would require an overhaul of an entirely different system, which is already strained and does not do a good job for the majority of unfortunate children. It should begin to become obvious here that the problem is not all with the system but with people themselves.
Don’s ideas for reform are good but I would make a few suggestions. Make it a food card system instead of a food stamp system. Instead of just restricting the food items have set standard meals that all users receive weekly. The meal size would be based on the height and weight of the individuals receiving the food credits. It would be enough to keep them healthy but not allow them to over indulge since it is only meant to keep them from starving. The cards would have a limit of three meals a day given out weekly. Using cards would have the added benefit of allowing the government to track expenditures and make oversight a little easier. I think someone would still come up with a way to abuse the system for profit, but like I said before some corruption is unavoidable. Until we change people we will never have a truly efficient system.
Showing posts with label Don. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2006
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A Response to The Don
Before I get into the philosophical discussion here let me tell you a little about how I stand as far as theology goes. I am NOT an atheist. I wish to clarify that since Don's chosen opposing viewpoint to his argument is atheism. I am not really an agnostic either though I generally claim to be whenever I am asked. My basic viewpoint is Not that God does not exist or that no one can know. I believe that God does exist. I just happen to believe He is not like what many people believe Him to be. More specifically I am against taking the Bible as absolute truth. This is where I pick up with disagreeing on the foundations of The Don's argument.
The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:
"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."
Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.
It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.
It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.
Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.
The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:
"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18
"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18
This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16
This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24
This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.
The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.
Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.
I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.
The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:
"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."
Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.
It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.
It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.
Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.
The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:
"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18
"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18
This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16
This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24
This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.
The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.
Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.
I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
In Answer to a Question
In answer to a question posed by The Don I reply that I do not believe all prisons to be immoral. I believe the CIA's prisons to be immoral because they are secret and on foreign soil so as to avoid the Geneva Conventions. The CIA could very easily be torturing people in these installations since there is no one to oversee that the prisoners are being treated properly. In addition to this the United States is a country that believes strongly in justice yet we do not appear to believe other human beings should have the same rights as ourselves. We deny the people being held in places like Guantanamo the same basic rights to trial as we possess. Whether or not these people are guilty of causing us harm we are giving them good reason to do so by viewing them as something worth less than our own human lives. If we granted them the rights we give ourselves giving them fair trials and decent treatment then I would have no problem with holding the ones found guilty in prisons that would have no need of secrecy. Such treatment guarantees the best we can do to ensure fair punishment of the guilty and minimization of harm to the innocent. The problem of treating prisoners as less deserving than of human beings is something that we do to American citizens not just those of other nationalities. Those who are convicted of felonies are denied the right to vote in many states. Instead of including people we reject them. This gives these people no reason to listen to us or change since they have no say in their government. Who would pay taxes if they had no say in how those were spent? Who would obey a law when having no say in its making? As human beings we should be better people than to strip the rights of others away. This is my answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
