Television and Rap Music controls People. Really???

I love being able to sit down and turn on the television and watch an episode of The Housewives of Atlanta, Love and Hip Hop, Basketball wives, True Detective, True Blood, Wilfred and of course ESPN.  I also love being able to turn the Hip Hop music channel on my television while I clean my house or Listen to some Kendrick Lamar while I drive to work.  What I dislike is the media and other people that claim television and rap music is the reason why people behave the way they do.

 

 

Do you love to watch television and listen to music? Do you think television and rap music can control how you behave? Do you have kids that also love to watch television and listen to rap music?  Does television and rap music control how your kids behave?  To attempt to answer these questions, I think some other questions need to be asked and answered first.  Ever thought about if it’s possible for an external source (like other people, radio, television, newspapers etc) to control the inner workings of someone’s brain?  Ever thought about what it is that makes a person behave the way they do?  Ever thought about what is real and what is fake? Ever thought about what is appropriate behavior and why you think its appropriate?  Ever thought about how a child should behave based on their age?

 

Do you talk to your child, with a conversation deeper than “Do what I say” or “You are going to get punished because you didn’t do what I said” or “What did you learn in school today”?  Have you talked to your child about fantasy and reality?  Don’t think your child could possibly understand the difference, even if you do talk to them about it?  Well if it’s true that a child may not immediately understand the difference between fantasy and reality, then it must also be true that if you don’t talk to them about it, they will form their own opinion about fantasy and reality. 

 

When children form their own opinions of fantasy and reality they are unable to determine if what they think is true or false.  Also when they form their own opinion without the help from a parent or guardian they are also forming their own opinion of what is acceptable behavior because behavior is apart of reality.  Am I claiming that by simply talking to your child a few times about the difference between fantasy and reality your child will never display negative behaviors?  No, I am not making such claims because all humans will forever display negative behaviors.  But negative behaviors can be reduced with improved decision making skills and a better understanding of reality. 

 

I am claiming that by talking to your child about fantasy and reality, your child will grow up knowing that a parent cares enough to take time to talk to them about something that does not involve punishments and rewards. They will be engaging in an activity that causes them to think about what they themselves think is real and what is fake.  They will grow up knowing what their parent thinks about fantasy and reality which will have a positive impact on their thoughts and decision making.  What this will in turn do for the parent and the child is engage them in an activity that is positive and does not include watching television or listening to music.  There could be another benefit to the parent if they choose to think about what reality consists of and help refine their own idea of reality and this may help improve parenting skills.  By engaging in these thought activities, it could cause fantasy and reality, and may cause them to parent differently.  People should recognize that children have limited life experiences and limited cognitive abilities and should not be expected to behave like a 40 year old adult. 

 

 

 

 

 Does another person or thing have the ability to make a person do something?  If you think another person can make someone do something, think about when people are faced with punishment and the possibility of death if they don’t comply with something. There are still people that have chosen punishment and death instead of complying.  This proves that a person always has a choice to comply or not, a person can choose a punishment even if that punishment is death.  If someone says “Give me all your money or I’ll shoot you!” A person could choose to keep their money and face the possibility that they could be shot if they don’t hand over the money.  So my point is that another person cannot make someone else do anything.

 The fact of the matter is, that people make choices based on their own reasoning’s, so we should NOT claim that an external source made someone do something.  If we want people to make better decisions we should focus on their thinking skills, because it is what a person thinks that influence their decision making more than anything else.  I think it’s very important to look at the external sources that are supposed to help develop the thinking skills of people, like schools, teachers, professors, school officials, and parents.  These external sources are supposed to give people the skills necessary to make good decisions, which is supposed to help people behave in a positive and helpful manner.  If people don’t question if this is actually happening they will continue to blame behavior on television and music.  Negative behaviors such as killing and stealing and disrespecting other people existed long before television and rap music.

 

Were you exposed to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, David Hume, Kant, Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau or any of the great philosophers in grade school, middle school, or high school?  Were you exposed to classical logic, how to form and analyze arguments in grade school, middle school, or high school?  Did your parents expose you to any of the great philosophers or classical logic or how to deconstruct arguments?  Some people will say yes to all of these questions, but why won’t most if not all people say “Yes” to these questions?  If schools are supposed to improve student’s thinking skills, why don’t they expose us to different ways to think and the works of different types of great thinkers?  The development of the mind, in regards to the way it processes, comprehends, analyzes, evaluates, and creates new ideas not just how much can be remembered and answered correctly on a test. Please comment and let me know if you still think rap music and television is controlling people.

Who is Really To Blame For Our Failing Economy & Rising Unemployment?

One of the main explanations that members of the media give for the failing economy and high unemployment rates seems to involve big corporations being evil and that their big profits taking money away from people.  There are three ways a company can stay in business and get bigger, 1)make profits  2)get government assistance or 3) receive a combination of the two.  A company that stays in business through profits does this by being able to have more revenue coming in than money going out.  The only way a company can have money coming in, is for consumers to spend money with that company and that company have less expenses and liabilities than what money it has received.  No person is forced to spend money at any company so if a company is not providing what consumers want, the consumers can simply stop paying.  Which brings me to the government, which does not need profits to stay in existence, nor does it need people’s consent for the use of their services like police and schools, nor does it need people’s consent to tax.  The government’s involvement in the market place has negative effects on the economy and employment because of it miss-handles the distribution of resources.

 When I say miss-handle resources, I mean that when the government decides to give money to anyone, it has to first take it from someone else. Although the government can borrow from the federal reserve to get money, high interest rates and high prices will be the penalty down the road for the governments actions.  If a company fails, it fails and it should fail, so that resources stop going to that company and someone else can use those resources.  If the government gives a failing company money that means someone else could not get that money, not only that, all the resources that the failing company purchases with the government money now, can’t flow to another company or person that may have needed those resources.

 The government’s answer to help the economy is always the same and can easily be summed up with: increase taxes, decrease taxes, provide a stimulus to the economy through tax breaks, subsidies to individuals, and subsidies to large corporations.  The reasoning’s behind stimulus packages,bailouts and subsidies should not seem favorable for the economy or unemployment, but many people think the government’s reasoning behind these actions are good, because of the belief that the government’s intention to help is good enough to allow it.  Most people have not been taught how to look at the results from government intervention in the market, nor how to analyze the government’s argument for the use of a bailout.

 A subsidy is any money that the government gives to a person or business.  The subsidy can be a government grant, bail out money, welfare money, student loans, money to produce more of something like ethanol or corn, or produce less of something.  Now the subsidy money comes from the government either taxing working people or borrowing from the federal reserve bank.  None the less a subsidy is government help and just like the hated “Welfare Mother” ,companies that receive bailout money and other subsidies are receiving government money at the expense of all tax paying people. 

 Now a private business has to use its own resources to make and sell their product or service and cannot survive without a profit for very long (unless the government bails them out of course!!).  businesses fail all the time because of several reasons, but if it can’t stay in business, should everyone else have to suffer economically just to keep them in business?  I think not!!  Now since big businesses have to protect it self from failing it using the government for contracts, subsidies, policies, and laws that reduce competition.  Big businesses do this with large sums of money they use to lobby for laws that are beneficial to the survival of their business.  It is not businesses fault for trying to do all it can to ensure their business survives. But the government is the institution that provides businesses with so much power enforcing the laws that businesses just paid the government to implement.  Big businesses have enough money to purchase the unfair advantage that is created by the government.  If the government was not involving itself in the market place with its regulations that favor who has the most money or who has the most connections we would see our economy and employment situation look totally different.

 I had to ask myself why would our government provide subsidies or money to these big corporations to stay in business?  If the government’s reasoning is that the economy would crumble if these big corporations were allowed them to fail, then what does that say about our economy, if our best hope are companies that can’t survive without government help.  I thought people were against people leaching off the system, because the system is a collection of tax dollars and no one wants their pay check short so someone can sit at home and watch Jerry Springer all day.  I thought that’s why the stereotype “Welfare Mother” was created, because this was a person that could find work but instead does not work and survives off the money the government gives them.  But I know that many public and private schools do not explain how governments are funded nor do they explain what a government subsidy is, nor do they explain what happens to the economy when people are taxed or what happens when subsidies are handed out.

 The government can do all of these things because it has legitimized power to create laws, enforce laws, run deficits, borrow from the Federal Reserve, and forcefully collect tax dollars in order to keep running its programs.  Borrowing money, higher interest rates, higher prices for products and services will definitely be a result of running deficits, borrowing from the Federal Reserve, and handing out subsidies.  This brings me to my question of who is really evil and who is really to blame for the failing economy and rising unemployment rates.  Is it big businesses that have to rely on paying customers to fund its operations or the government who picks and chooses who to give money to and who can survive by leaching off of working businesses and people to fund its operations?  Which organization is better for the economy, companies that survive only on the profits it receives or the government who can partner with businesses and create unfair advantages that are only favorable to those involved in the governmental agreement?

Do People Have Different Morals?

People do not have different morals and do not live by different moral codes, what is different is people’s views on when morality should be used when making decisions and who can violate morality without consequence.  Morals don’t change, it’s the reason why the idea of right and wrong exist, so that there are concrete things that should or should not be done.  For example if killing is wrong in the North, it is also wrong anywhere in the universe and the same goes for rape and stealing.  Many people believe that different people have different morals because people recognize the fact that socio-paths exist, psycho-paths exist, serial killers exist, kidnappers exist, different cultures live life different ways and different countries have different laws and different penalties for breaking laws.  All of these reasons make perfect sense why a person would believe morals are relative to the individual’s culture or society.  The only reason it makes sense is because the system that is supposed to educate and enlighten people, the public and private school systems, fail to provide any solid insight on reality, knowledge, morals, ethics, critical thinking or philosophy. 

 

Without a foundation in critical thinking, morals, ethics, and philosophy individuals are left to decide what is real about reality based on their life experiences and the opinions of others.  Because of this many people will suspend their own morality, to enable them to do something they want at the moment.  Many people will also allow certain people to get away with immoral acts because of the belief in moral relativity.  For example people will not view their own government as immoral when it takes sales tax from purchases, property taxes from real estate purchases, and income tax from pay checks.  The money taken in the form of taxes are never asked for, negotiated, or bargained, they are just taken.  But without a clear view of morality and ethics, people will not view taxation as stealing even though the government did not ask if it could take out that tax money.  But if this person’s company makes a mistake and does not pay them the correct amount, this individual would be upset and would view the company as immoral if they kept the money that was due to this employee. 

 

 But just because a person suspends their morality for a certain need or want does not mean they have different morals than someone else.  An example of this suspension of morals would be an angry spouse finding out their significant other had been cheating so they punch their significant other.  The punching of the significant other does not mean this person does not believe punching is wrong, but at that moment this person felt justified in their actions because of the wrong that was done to them by their significant other.  The fact that this person chose to punish their significant other with a punch proves that this person values the moral code of keeping promises, specifically the promise not to cheat while in a relationship.  Another example would be people that believe that authority figures such as parents, teachers, and the government can do things that are morally wrong that non authority figures are not allowed to do.  So many people believe that certain people are above morality and can get away with doing immoral things without being considered immoral.  So if the people in the government decided to bomb a city in another country because the government officials say they are a threat, many people will support the government’s reason for the bombing as just.  If a person not in the government wanted to do the same thing, this person or persons would be considered a sadistic, animalistic, immoral monster.  The reason many people believe that morals are relative to the individual and to that individuals culture and that governments don’t commit immoral acts is because of several reasons either they have not been introduced to the idea of universal morals, they reject the idea of objective morals, or they believe moral reletivism makes more sense than objective morals.

 

 

So how did I come to the conclusion that morals are universal?

 

  A normal functioning human body has systems within it to help the human body survive.  The normal functioning human body does not come into existence to end its existence.  From conception the fetus does things to survive and the pregnant female body attempts to protect the fetus regardless of the intentions of the mother.  The mother can do things to force the body to reject the baby, but even if this happens the normal functioning pregnant female body tries to nurture and ensure the survival of the fetus until it can’t.  The fact that humans try to survive and has a body that wants to survive proves that humans want to survive and thus anything that attempts to end that survival is not a moral action.

 

The human body has an opening where food can enter, organs that process food, and an opening for waste to exist. The human body has openings for air, organs to process that air, and openings to get rid of harmful air. The body seems to be built to survive not to exterminate itself.  My point in all of this is to refute the idea that killing could ever be natural and good because if killing were natural and right then life would naturally try to kill itself when life comes into existence, instead life tries to survive thus survival must be natural and good.  If life tries to survive then the right thing to do is to ensure that life survives.  To not let life survive is wrong because that’s what life does naturally, to interfere with someone’s attempt at survival is wrong because it interferes with life’s natural tendency to try to survive.

 

Humans need material things to survive so if someone steals from another human they are affecting the survival of that human.  If a human attempts to kill another human they are also attempting to end the survival of another human, which is immoral.

 

 

 

Although I believe morals to be universal, I do believe that morals are relative to the existence of humans because humans have a brain that enables them to form multiple concepts and apply these multiple concepts to multiple situations, which allows humans to create the idea of morals.  Human brains enable humans to create concepts that help to generalize and organize thoughts of the outside world and one’s self. Morals are a response to the fact that humans are living things that try to survive from conception and have the ability to ensure they don’t interfere with the survival of other humans.  If a monkey, ape, wolf, lion or any animal does something like kill another animal or use aggression against another animal, their behaviors can only be looked at as moral or immoral by a being that has the ability to create the idea of morality, thus the animal can never for themselves create morals. 

 

 

Do non-human animals have morals?

 

Here is an article about the differences in human cognition and animal cognition.

 

Recently, scientists have found that some animals think in ways that were once considered unique to humans: For example, some animals have episodic memory, or non-linguistic mathematical ability, or the capacity to navigate using landmarks. However, despite these apparent similarities, a cognitive gulf remains between humans and animals.

Hauser presents four distinguishing ingredients of human cognition, and shows how these capacities make human thought unique. These four novel components of human thought are the ability to combine and recombine different types of information and knowledge in order to gain new understanding; to apply the same “rule” or solution to one problem to a different and new situation; to create and easily understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory input; and to detach modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual input.

Earlier scientists viewed the ability to use tools as a unique capacity of humans, but it has since been shown that many animals, such as chimpanzees, also use simple tools. Differences do arise, however, in how humans use tools as compared to other animals. While animal tools have one function, no other animals combine materials to create a tool with multiple functions. In fact, Hauser says, this ability to combine materials and thought processes is one of the key computations that distinguish human thought.

According to Hauser, animals have “laser beam” intelligence, in which a specific solution is used to solve a specific problem. But these solutions cannot be applied to new situations or to solve different kinds of problem. In contrast, humans have “floodlight” cognition, allowing us to use thought processes in new ways and to apply the solution of one problem to another situation. While animals can transfer across systems, this is only done in a limited way.

“For human beings, these key cognitive abilities may have opened up other avenues of evolution that other animals have not exploited, and this evolution of the brain is the foundation upon which cultural evolution has been built,” says Hauser. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102137.htm)

 

 

 

 

 

A moral code, ethical code, code of conduct, acceptable behavior, unacceptable behavior all depend on the being’s ability to formulate multiple abstract thoughts in their head, apply these abstractions to several different concepts, communicate their abstract thoughts, and understand the abstract thoughts of others.  If this being does not have the ability to formulate multiple concepts in their head and apply these multiple concepts to multiple situations then this being will not have the ability to form the idea of a moral code or ethical code, because that requires the mixing and matching of several different ideas in an effort to come up with new ideas.  With limited cognitive functions it would be next to impossible to create ideas of the outside world, ideas of self, analyze the ideas of the outside world, and analyze the relationship of self to the outside world and other beings.  This is why there is no moral code within the groups of animals that are not human because they don’t have the ability to combine, disassemble and reassemble multiple concepts and apply them to multiple different situations.  Non-human animals are left to do what they can to survive, humans can judge the behaviors of animals and say that the behavior of the animals is right or wrong, but the animals themselves don’t have that ability.

 

 

 

 

Any time a person does something immoral like stealing or killing they are in turn affecting the survival of that human. Without the existence of humans their would be no need to ensure the survival of humans because of course humans don’t exist.  Animals that are not human don’t have the mental capacity to create the idea of morals and apply them to their lives and interactions with other animals and this is also true for living things that don’t have a brain or central nervous system.  Non living things don’t need morals because they are not alive and are not fighting for survival.

 

 

 

 

So what about the idea that there are people that believe killing is moral……

 

If Hitler really believed the killing was good and not bad why did he have to convince and coerce people to do horrendous things to other people.  Why did Hitler create a system where people were punished for not supporting him or his mission.   If Hitler thought killing was good and not bad why didn’t he kill everyone around him, why did he single out Jewish people?  If killing is good then why didn’t Hitler start ordering the killing of everyone around him? 

 

If Hitler valued killing and did not think killing was wrong why did he arrest and kill the men that attempted to assassinate him?  Shouldn’t he congratulate and thank his assassins for attempting to do something good, which is killing?  The reason is because every living thing attempts to survive and killing would end that survival, thus Hitler wanted to survive so he wanted to ensure his assassins were punished to deter other from trying to kill him.

 

 

 

What about cultures do they really have different morals?

 

In Saudi Arabia a person could have a limb cut off for stealing or their life taken for murder.  It would seem as if Saudi Arabia has different morals than the United States, but is this so?  If Saudi Arabia does not think killing is wrong why would there be a punishment for killing?  If Saudi Arabia did not think that stealing was wrong why would they punish someone for stealing?  If Saudi Arabia did not think killing was wrong why would they punish someone for killing?  See the trick being played on many people is that people don’t realize that when you give a group of people the authority to make and enforce laws, then its hard to see how these laws could create immoral acts.  People believe that the government is doing the right thing thus its above morality or morality does not apply, but it does apply.  No human should be allowed to kill another human and no human should be allowed to commit violence on another human.

 

 

But why is all of this important?

 

This is important because people act based on what they feel is appropriate at that moment.  If a person believes something is right or moral they will be more likely to engage in this moral behavior and will be more likely to consent to the behavior of others either implicitly or explicitly.  Thus if a person was raised in a household where spankings were normal, this person may believe that spanking are good and necessary part of child rearing.

 

A parent that spanks their child does not view the spanking as unneeded violence against a child. The parent believes the spanking is a necessary part of rearing children especially when the parent believes the child has done something horrendous.  The parent believes they have the right to treat their parents they way they want since the parents are older and provide the necessities and wants of the child.

 

What about people that want to steal from people that make more money than them or break the items of people that make more money than them to bring attention to some type of cause.  They do it because they have not recognized that stealing and purposefully damaging property is wrong.  No matter what a person’s motive or intentions stealing  and damaging someone else’s property is wrong.

 

This applies to governments too, no matter the good intentions of the government, if the government takes money out of people’s pay checks for tax revenue, takes business taxes, takes sales tax then its stealing money because no one was asked and thus no one consented.  It does not matter that the people taking the money have good intentions, they still did not ask and did not get permission to take this money.

 

 

 

What if a person is broke and believes that entering in the military is the best thing for their life.  The military promises an income and money for college, the income will help this person satisfy their basic needs and money for college will provide an opportunity to get some type of education that will help to improve the financial status of this person.  But this person is only likely to take this job in the military if they believe what the military does is moral and ethical.  If a person does not believe in objective morals they will believe that the military has the right to take human life and think

 

 

Let’s take the example of the local government deciding to build a park in a certain neighborhood.  Most people will say that a having a park in a neighborhood is a good thing because it gives kids a safe place to play, it can give the inhabitants of the neighborhood a place to work out, it gives the inhabitants of the neighborhood a place to engage in recreational activities etc.  No one will question how this park is funded or the validity of how its funded.  Since the government is going to build it, the money to build the park comes from taxation.  This means that the people that work and pay taxes in the vicinity of the park will fund the construction of the park whether they like the idea or not.  Now the people that don’t believe objective morals exist will argue that taxes are just apart of living in America, or that taxes are our duty to pay, or taxes are a way to pay for our freedom in America.  Some people have argued that the park will help to raise the property value of the homes in that neighborhood.

 

If a person knows that objective morals exist they will know that taking someone’s property (in this example the property taken is a person’s money) is wrong, no matter the reason given for taking the property.  So if a government, religion, parent takes something from someone else it is wrong and these actions should not happen.  Although the government may have good intentions for what they want to do, they first have to take people’s money via taxes to fund their operations. 

 

 

 

It’s important for individuals to pay attention to the words they use and the reasons they use to justify their beliefs and behaviors.  Individuals should strive to find the reality in their thoughts and ideas about life so that they are not easily deceived by the propaganda of others.  Its important for individuals to understand the importance of morality so that they don’t mistakenly take freedoms away from those they know and those they don’t know.  Without a good understanding of morality people will continue to view morality the same way the people they trust and choose to listen to for advice, view morality. 

I hope this sparks a conversation within the minds of people that read this and I hope people research morality on their own and share with me what they find.  Thanks for reading.