Morality in Film

There is a powerful scene in Batman: The Dark Knight, in which the Joker devises a moral experiment. Two ships are leaving Gotham, to escape the terrorism their city is being subject to. One of these ships is full of innocent civilians who are fleeing the city through their own free will, the other ship is filled with the inmates of Gotham's prison. Unbeknownst to them however, the two ships have been filled to the rafters with explosives (not something worth checking during a period of extended terrorism evidently), but crucially each ship has also been given a detonator.

"Why would they give us a detonator to our own bomb?" one of the crew members aboard one of the ships asks.

Fortunately the Joker fills us in. It was he who filled the two ships with explosives, and he is about to conduct a social experiment. The detonator in the possession of the first ship is the one which will explode the second ship, and the detonator which will explode the first ship is in the possession of the second. The Joker explains that they have one hour to make a decision. One ship must blow up the other one, by the end of that hour, or the Joker will explode both ships. Effectively the only way to ensure survival is to destroy the other ship.

This poses a few moral questions. First of all, is it acceptable to kill others if it is to save yourself? Secondly, is it more acceptable to kill those who are on the prison ship, as they are convicts unlike the innocent people on the other ship? Thirdly, will the 'immoral' prisoners blow up the other ship to survive as they have no moral problem with letting others die?

In the film neither ship detonates the other, although all three questions are explored. Eventually Batman prevents the Joker from destroying either ship, and all live to tell the tale. Those on the civilian ship decide that even though the other ship is full of criminals, it is still immoral to blow them up. On the prison ship it is a large, tattooed man is the one who does the moral thing, and throws the detonator off the ship. Human spirit and morality prevails. More necessarily, a fairly liberal idea of what is right and what is wrong prevails.

I realised that the reason this is surprising is not because it is unrealistic (though I fear it may be), but because it is uncommon for this theme to be explored like that on film. It seems more common for these moral dilemmas to justify immoral actions, and for the situation to resolve itself with no immoral act taking place is quite surprising.

Take the immensely popular 24 for example. In this scenario the terribly exciting Jack Bauer is fighting to prevent a terrorist from detonating a Nuclear bomb. He finds the man who he is sure is responsible (incidentally this man is both clothed in traditional Muslim clothing and he is found in a Mosque) and thus Bauer decides he must extract information. Unfortunately though there is only a few hours before this bomb is due to explode, and our terrorist has decided to be a little difficult and is refusing to answer Mr. Bauer's questions.

Jack Bauer procedes to torture the terrorist.

This is known in philosophy as the 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario. It is used, occasionally, in an attempt to show that torture can be justified. If torture is going to prevent the detonation of a bomb, which will kill innocent people, then surely it is acceptable to torture a terrorist. It plays to a utilitarian idea. It is better to hurt one person in order to save many, than to let this man go torture free but let innocent people die.

It is quite a powerful argument, but one which is flawed. Unfortunately torture does not work. Torture makes people more angry and even less likely to divulge crucial information. It does not achieve anything.

So when Jack tortures the terrorist with extremely upsetting and disturbing psychological torture, the terrorist would clearly get angry and refuse to help the Counter-Terrorist Unit find the bomb...well not quite. Quite oddly the torture works (not only does it work, it works really quickly, and really effectively), the terrorist tells Jack Bauer the information he needs and eventually Jack saves the day and looks bloody cool doing it.

The scary thing about this episode is it aired at a time when the American government was coming under pressure and criticism over 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. America was torturing people in Guantanamo Bay and torturing prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Legal documents where created to make torture effectively illegal, wording was produced so that international law would not prohibit the use of torture and the ticking time bomb case was used to justify American foreign policy.

Perhaps I am seeing something that was not there, but is it just possible that the idea of making a difficult decision in a moral dilemma is being used in film to justify the politics and foreign policy of America? I wonder.

Top Five Ways of Detecting a Philosophy Student

Last week I finally finished my four-year philosophy degree and graduated. Whilst the degree taught me a fair bit about philosophy, it taught me a hell of a lot more about how to be a philosophy student. Philosophy students are spreading, and whilst councils are putting 'Zombie Attack Survival Procedures' into place (seriously) many are unaware of the threat of philosophy students. Unlike Zombies, philosophy students are hard to detect, some of them look like real people!

After four years in their ranks I have learnt a thing or two about them. Now that I have rejoined humanity, I feel it is my duty to devise a list of five ways to detect a philosophy student.

1. An Unhealthy Love of The Smiths

The best advice every given to me was directly quoted from the book 'He Died with a Felafel In His Hand' by John Birmingham. He warned that, under no circumstances, must you flatshare with a fan of The Smiths. Unfortunately this prohibits you from living with anyone who has ever stepped into a philosophy lecture. Along with vegetarianism and depression, being a fan of The Smiths is almost a prerequisite of being a philosophy student. Personally I think the vegetarianism and depression has more to do with Morrissey than it does philosophy though.

2. Drinks Red Wine and Black Coffee

Look for the teeth. Some of us are clever and use 'Whitening' toothpaste to hide the abuse that constant consumption of red wine and black coffee does to our teeth. During the afternoon the philosophy student can be found sipping coffee at the artisan independent coffee shop, sneering at those who walk past with Frozen Skinny Gingerbread Lattes in Starbucks cups. By night they are in the pub, talking about Sartre, with a bottle of red wine which they are already planning on turning into a candle holder.

3. Avoids Anything Even Imitating a Stylist

Unkempt hair? Has a beard or hangs around with those with beards? Baggy T-shirt with 'Meat is Murder' embezzled on the front? Yep, you have found yourself a philosophy student. Tell tale sign is the obvious attempts at them cutting their own hair. If you need a pair of scissors then find a philosophy student.

4. Smokes Roll-Up Cigarettes

Not all philosophy students smoke (myself including), but those who do seem to exclusively smoke roll up cigarettes. In four years of mingling with philosophy students the act of rolling a cigarette was as second nature to many of them as putting a Latin phrase into regular conversation.

5. Hates Everyone Constantly Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche

People who do not study Philosophy seem to know two philosophical phrases, one is 'I think therefore I am', the other is 'God is Dead'. The problem with the latter is it appears as if everyone who quotes Nietzsche has absolutely no idea what he meant. Quote Nietzsche in front of a philosophy student and make wild claims about what it means and watch them roll their cigarette with fury.

So there we have it, the five tell-tale signs that you have a philosophy student on your hand. Stock up on loose tobacco, red wine and good coffee in preparation of the Philosophy Student apocalypse.

Top 5 Philosophical Latin Phrases

In the midst of studying for an Epistemology exam I have been struck with the volume of Latin phrases employed by philosophers to convey their theories. With the beginning of the early modern period in philosophical writing the idea of using Latin exclusively for philosophy was thrown out the window, but philosophers knew that reciting Latin would make stoned future students sound more profound and intelligent than they actually are so determined that the names of their key concepts would sound better in Latin.

In descending order here are my top 5 philosophical latin phrases to make you sound more intelligent than you actually are.

5. Tabula Rasa - Blank Slate

Tabula Rasa was a phrase employed most famously by John Locke. He claimed that humans are born without any innate knowledge, the mind being born as a blank slate. Locke is an empiricist and who believed that any knowledge we acquire comes from our senses meaning the mind must be born as a tabula rasa.

4. Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes - The War of All against All

Thomas Hobbes envisaged something called the State of Nature which is similar to a brutish and war-like Original Position. It is a situation before a state and before a law system has been created. Hobbes wrote during the English Civil War and it perhaps shows in his vision of such a horrific concept of what humanity would be like in a state of nature. The Hobbesian state of nature is one where every man is at war with every man, in a brutish, short and miserable life and makes up the basis for the Hobbesian state. Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes was a phrase he used to describe the fighting he believed would occur in such a situation.

3. Ens Causa Sui - Cause of Oneself (sort of)

Causa Sui has been used by a number of theorists and philosophers, but it is in the existentialist context used by Jean-Paul Sartre that I first became aware of the term. Sartre wrote in 'Being and Nothingness' that man seeks completion and religion does this through God. He used the term Ens Causa Sui to refer to this.

2. A Priori and A Posteriori

Unlike the previous phrases A Priori and A Posteriori are not used or synonymous with any single philosopher but are common to many. The two phrases are unavoidable when it comes to Epistemology and are common to philosophy students from a standard grade RMPS level. A Priori knowledge is that which we know independently from knowledge, e.g. 'All sisters are female', whilst A Posteriori is knowledge attained and proved through empirical evidence, e.g. 'Some sisters are unhappy'. Both terms are used commonly in philosophy and it is rare to see the literal English translation.

1. Cogito Ergo Sum - I Think Therefore I Am

No surprises at what I've put at number one. Everyone knows this phrase. Without a doubt it is the most famous phrase in philosophy and one that is used by philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Unfortunately this means that it is miss-represented constantly by people who have not studied philosophy. It was used by Descartes in an attempt to prove that he does exist. He used a thought-experiment called the 'Methodological Skepticism' in which he showed that as senses are fallible it is impossible to really know the existence of anything, but by thinking about whether oneself exists is proof in itself that one does indeed exist. I think therefore I am.

And there we have it, the top five Latin phrases to use to show how philosophically intelligent you are. Now roll a joint, grow your hair and speak with that arrogance only a person who has learnt some deep sounding philosophical phrases can.

Celebrating Hume's Tercentenary

Today marks 300 years since the birth of seminal philosophy, David Hume. Hume is widely considered to be one of the most influential and significant philosophers to ever write in the English language. He was at the forefront of the 'British Empiricism' movement and a promenant figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Immanuel Kant once said, with reference to Hume, he "awoke me from my dogmatic slumber".

Living in the city Hume conducted most of his work and lived most of his life I decided to celebrate his 300th birthday by going on my own private Hume tour in sunny Edinburgh.

I began at the statue of David Hume which sits at pride of place on the Royal Mile:

Next I went to see the new Hume exhibition at the Scottish Writer's Museum next to Edinburgh Castle. The exhibition opened today and included first editions of his works as well as letters he wrote. Unfortunately I arrived whilst the press where viewing it and had to wait outside for nearly an hour. This is the outside of the building, no photography allowed inside:

After visiting the exhibit I walked to the Old Carlton Burial Site and went to the impressive grave of David Hume. It was quiet but very interesting to see, in a beautiful part of the city. Here I am there:

Note the morose look I have, not due to genuine sadness but because the French woman who took my photo (and had never heard of David Hume) thought it was insensitive to take a photo of someone's grave. I thought a smile might make it look even more insensitive!

Finally I took a photo of an interesting epitaph written on the monument:

It reads:

Behold I Come Quickly

Thanks be to GOD which

Giveth us the victory through

the Lord JESUS CHRIST

Quite interesting to see a man who was notoriously critical of religion (to the point he was blocked from becoming philosophy chair of the University of Edinburgh) to have such an overtly religious message on his grave site. Indeed, shortly after his death had his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion published in which he argues extensively against the existence of God.

It was nice to enjoy the weather and visit memorials to David Hume. It is exciting that such an influential philosopher lived and worked in my city.

My one regret is I found out that there has been a commemorative Ale called 'Enlightenment' which is brewed in honour of David Hume. It even features his picture on the beer mats and logo. Unfortunately I found this out after I got home, but there is a pub on the Royal Mile that is selling it.

I think by the end of the week I shall have to get a real taste of Hume!

A Drinking Man's Socialist

I am struck with a disillusion in politics that comes from a lack of any true socialist voice or figure in the UK in 2010 politics. With Labour a fully established centre-left/Thatcherite/New Deal/Third Way (or whatever the hell you want to call it) party where does one look for socialism?

It seems the new 'right on' attitude is that of Liberalism, but I see myself almost as opposed to Liberal thought as I am to Conservative thought. I am inherently not a Liberal. Now to qualify that statement there are certainly aspects of Liberalism that are key to my political thought, but without exception these are liberal theories that are to the compliment of equality as a justice, rather than to the detriment. Yet amongst my peers the current buzz-word is 'progressive', and according to this defined progressive politics Liberalism is at the forefront. Ironically the party which proclaims to be Liberal is the one currently propping up a Conservative government. A progressive conservative government is a paradox too far.

But I am not a Liberal and I am not a conservative. I am a socialist.

Who do I look to? Really I have the Scottish Socialists (or whatever Tommy Sheridan is calling his current sex club) or George Galloway. Both of them bigoted Scottish arseholes (in my opinion). It seems that in the media and mainstream politics there are certain criteria one must fit to be considered a pigeon holed 'right on' socialist in Scotland. They are as follows:

1. You Must be Opposed to the Iraq War.

2. You Must wish for an Independent Scotland

3. You Must not Drink.

I'll take this point by point beginning with point 1. As it happens I am not wholly in favour of the Iraq War (lets rephrase that and call it the 'Iraq Intervention' from now on). I think we went into it under false pretences and I am not entirely convinced we were told the God's honest truth by the government when we went in. However I think going in was the correct decision at the time, and I believe more good has come from it than bad. However as a Socialist I cannot say that. I have to be opposed to this 'Illegal War' caused by that dirty 'War Mongerer' Tony Blair.

Why? Using our army to dismantle a pseudo-fascist religious dictatorship is surely right up the street of political socialism? No? We must be pacifists now must we? It's understandable, that great Socialist Stalin was far more heroic when he was making pacts with Hitler than when he was liberating Poland wasn't he?

Now on to point number 2. This one I truly don't understand but Scottish Nationalism seems to be key to Scottish Socialism. I'm not going to dwell on this topic too much, but how many of you really think National Socialism is a good idea?

And with great fanfare I bring you to the final point, you cannot drink. This may sound ridiculous but socialists don't seem to drink anymore. Not only that but they criticise people who do drink. Despite the great socialist drinkers of the past now alcohol is demonised (along with cigarettes might I add). The biggest culprit for this is Mr. Galloway who has layed into the likes of Christopher Hitchens, the entire House of Commons, the entire House of Lords and the entire apathetic electorate at one time or another for drinking.

Really George, go back to your teetotal dining club with Saddam and just let us be lefties who enjoy a bloody drink.

Anyway, rant over, there is no socialist I can admire. Perhaps I will make do with Labour. After-all, they at least manage a some-what decent manifesto without sounding like preachy, whiney, arseholes.

Happy as a Pig in Muck

Tonight I combined the two somewhat distinct pleasures of reading the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and watching the trashy television show Britain’s Got Talent. I enjoyed both, but they were completely different types of pleasure. Bentham was intellectually stimulating, providing me with an interesting insight into the levels and meaning of happiness. It provided me with a basis to think philosophically and elaborated on intelligent and important life-issues. It is an enjoyment that I thrive in. I study philosophy due to this kind of enjoyment and thought-provoking ideas. It’s an enjoyment I experience time and time again and go out of my way to find this kind of enjoyment.

Britain’s Got Talent was completely different. The pantomime entertained me in an amusing and simplistic way. Booing and hissing at the acts I disliked, complimenting the acts I thought were good and acting dismayed with the opinions of the judges. It was Simple, tacky, entertainment, mass-packaged for instant and effortless enjoyment. I would never go out of my way to experience this, but feeling unwell and tired it was nice to relax to and lose my mind to senseless entertainment.

Bentham made an outrageous claim. He said that pleasure from ‘quality’ sources is a greater happiness than that from base pleasures. To read is a greater happiness than to laugh at a clown falling down a stair-case. I realised that today I coincidentally put his theory to the test. I experienced happiness from reading philosophy and happiness watching a base form of entertainment. Both made me happy, but was the former happiness better than the latter?

To me it was. It was a happiness I enjoy looking for, find interesting to delve into and time and time again will enjoy considering. After-all I wouldn’t even be writing this if it weren’t for Bentham. I got instant ‘canned’ happiness from Britain’s Got Talent, but it’s is like the buzz from drinking red bull. It’s a sudden, fast, immediate rush of happiness that leaves as fast as it arrives. I found it a lesser happiness.

This begs an important question, is this the case just to me, or is it across the board? There are plenty of people who look forward to shows like Britain’s Got Talent much like I look forward to learning from philosophical texts. Maybe to our Britain’s Got Talent fan watching these shows gives them a proper, lasting, and instilling happiness that is akin to the happiness I get from philosophy. Or perhaps our Britain’s Got Talent fan is missing out in the type of happiness I can experience, perhaps this person only knows the fizzy pop happiness I experienced this evening when watching the show.

Bentham is certainly correct with regards to people like myself who enjoy these ‘loftier’ pleasures. Perhaps though to people who do not Bentham is incorrect.

My Problem With God

I'm bringing in the New Year with a message about why I hate God. Quite simple he is the most evil, vile, horrible character ever thought into existence. To illustrate the point I will compare him with five well known historical figures.

1. Radovan Karadžić

Radovan Karadžić is widely considered to be the architect of the Ethnic-Cleansing atrocities that took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990's. His Serb nationalist agenda led to the siege of Sarajevo and the massacre at the UN declared safe zone of Srebrenica. After being a fugitive of international law he was finally captured in 2008 and is currently being tried at The Hague for war crimes.

Comparison to God:

Difficult to choose just one, but lets go for Sodom and Gomorrah. God didn't like their way of life, so decides to massacre thousands of people. Not unlike the massacre at Srebrenica.

2. Adolf Hitler

Do I need to explain why he was evil? Top of the list of his atrocities would undoubtedly be the Holocaust though, were an estimated 6 Million Jews were massacred for being the wrong race.

Comparison to God:

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people."

God ultimately tells his children to massacre all people of the race of Midiantites for being of inferior moral character. Hmm.

3. Arthur Gary Bishop

Less known than the first two, but the religiously named Arthur Gary Bishop was one of the most notorious killers of children in criminal history. He systematically killed children for pleasure until he was caught in 1983 and charged with the murder of five different children. He was executed in Utah state prison in 1988.

Comparison to God

Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers;

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes

Scary!

4. Sarah Palin

Homophobic running mate of John McCain in the 2008 US presidential election Sarah Palin is the next I add to my list. Unlike the others so far she has not technically done anything illegal, just highly highly immoral. Her core politics lay in anti-gay legislation, going so far as to attempt to strip Gay couples of any legal rights, and openly homosexual people from receiving state benefits!

Comparison to God

Well God goes a little further than Mrs Palin by saying that Homosexuality is as much of a sin as bestiality and child molestation. Similar tact, though I think Palin may have actually copied from God on this one. That's how cheaters are caught, they copy from people with the wrong answer.

5. Paul Joseph Goebbels

Better known simply as Joseph Goebbels. He was the propaganda minister for the Nazi regime, forcing all to listen to the Nazi message, a message full of lies, mistruths and manipulation all under the guise of morality.

Comparison to God

Evangelism takes up a key part of God's message, that is essentially Christian propaganda, but more tellingly look at the best selling book of all time! The Bible, a single piece of Christian propaganda that espouses God's message, a message full of lies, mistruths and manipulation all under the guise of morality.

Yep, if God were a man and not a mythical entity he would have been tried and imprisoned long before his message would have time to corrupt so many. Unfortunately still we are told to pussy-foot around this creature, and we are supposed to believe his followers are some how moral? The worrying thing is Ireland has recently passed anti-blasphemy laws. The simple blog I am about to publish would incur a 32,000 Euro fine now in Ireland. 32,000 Euros for giving my opinion on what seems to me an evil, immoral and vengeful being. Could you imagine if a country passed a similar law protecting Hitler, Goebbels or anyone else on my list? Seems unlikely.