Is Pornography Moral?

Pornography has existed as long as men have.  Some of the earliest cave drawings are that of nude women and phalluses.  There is no question to pornography's effectiveness.  But when we speak of pornography being good or evil in general terms, then we head in murky waters, certainly.

The only religion that absolutely condemns pornography is Christianity, which rests their idea on a word of Jesus: "You have heard it said Do not commit adultery, but I say to you if any of you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery with her."  Other religions are more flexible.  The major divide on porn isn't between one religious standard and another but between women and men, and it seems tied to their idea of the basis of sexuality.  Is sex an end, in and of itself, or is it related to relationship?  One tends to be a male attitude and the other a female attitude, so men tend to be drawn toward porn and women toward romances.  Is a romance or soap opera just the female equivalent of porn?  Are both simply the outgrowth of fantasy, which, with age and experience, tend to fade in light of reality?

Certainly porn can do damage to some relationships, even as alcohol does.  But does porn do damage to all relationships?  Or does porn allow some excess sexual energy to be released?  Is porn innately addictive, or are some addicted and others can partake but not get addicted? (The same question could be asked of the internet)

Is porn, by its nature, damaging to women?  The majority of woman who are enslaved are captured for the sex industry, of which porn is its most lucrative branch.  Should no one watch porn because we do not know which women are paid and which are enslaved?  Doesn't porn cause men to see women as objects for sex only?  Does porn encourage men to see certain kind of women as sexual objects instead of human beings?  Or does porn only reflect this tendency?  Does porn for women avoid this tendency?

Who is porn most damaging to: women or the consumers of porn?  Does porn encourage isolation?  In this way, can it contribute to the lack of empathy and care and intimacy in general?  Does porn encourage sexual violence?  Can it contribute to criminal behavior in general?

What does the popularity of porn communicate about society in general?  Does it mean that we are starved for real sex, or that easy sex is simply more pleasurable?  Does the billion dollar industry indicate that we don't have enough sex or that we simply can't communicate anymore?  Or has the desire for this kind of industry always been there, but only recently has it been so easily and privately and cheaply accessible?  Is porn an indication of a problem in our society, or in humanity at large?  Or is it simply the way things are?

The fact that there is great debate about the morality of pornography, does this indicate a moral issue or a societal divide?  Is pornography, like abortion and homosexuality, unable to be discussed rationally?  Is it an accident that all three of these subjects have to do with sexuality?

Relationships: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

Most of us have had the thought of living on a desert island from time to time.  People just a mess and they make things so complicated.  So full of need, so demanding, so judgmental, so... different than ourselves.  And there are so many of them!  And yet we remain with people.  Most of us live in cities where thousands-- millions!-- of people are crawling over each other like ants, involved in customer relations, traffic, apartment buildings and the internet.

Why are we so involved with other people when it is so hard?  What kind of drive do we have that constantly draws us to more and different kinds of people?  Why are we attracted to the opposite sex when we know that they will act in an insane manner?  

How close do we need to get to other people?  Is intimacy significant, or can we live well with a number of casual relationships?  If we do not have intimacy can we be emotionally and socially mature? 

Do our relationships not only determine our activity, but our very identity?  If we were without any relationships would we be different?  What kind of personality would we have if we didn't have relationships? 

Why does it hurt so much to separate from another person with whom we have been deeply involved, whether it be a broken marriage or an estranged relationship with a sibling?  Why is grieving at the loss of a loved one so painful?  What is it that we are missing when we grieve?  

The Future of Philosophy: Neuroscience

Many new discoveries have occured due to advances in neuroscince.  Many items we have connected to a "soul" or a "mind" we have found places for in the ever-expanding brain. We found that the brain is much more complicated than we ever imagined, and our interpretations determine the reality around us.  There is no color, except in our brain, no sound except in our brain.  What does this mean for who we are and what is the place of interpretation in connection to reality? 

What is the center of self? Is the self completely embodied? If the self is completely embodied, then is the mind dependent on the well-being of the body?  Are all decisions embodied decisions?  Can decisions not be trusted if the body cannot be trusted? 

If the self is embodied, does it mean that the soul does not exist?  Can there be a soul without a body, a self without a body? 

Can a self be transfered to a different kind of body, such as digital, and it still be the same self? If changes are made in the body-- such as brain surgery-- does the same self exist, or is that self destroyed? If so, is that tantamount to murder? As a body grows and goes through major changes (for example, hormone shifts) does that self still exist?  Is our current self responsible for what a past self does, if that self changes?

Is the self only a similar set of memories?  But memories have been shown to be re-created by the brain... can memories be depended upon at all?  Is our self only reacting to a contextual fiction that we have created with others?  Does it matter what fiction we choose to live in? What is the best fictional narrative to exist in?  Is our contextual narrative dependent on our embodiment?

The Future of Philosophy: The Internet

Both philosophy and theology are dogs on a walk.  It looks like they are in the lead, but any major direction changes are directed by culture.  When we have new ideas, new experiences, major events, that changes the direction of thought in general and philosophy and theology are directed by these cultural markers.

So what questions might philosophy deal with in the next 50 years, given the state of things now.  I suggest that philosophy will be answering these sets of questions because of the direction society is heading in.

One of the areas that is changing everything is the internet.  It isn't just computers, rather the internet is changing how we relate to each other and how we understand relationships.

What is relationship?  Does relationship demand physical interaction? What is community?  Can community be something different than being in physical proximity?

 Is the lack of physical really spiritual?  Is, then, the internet spiritual connection? What is missing in relationship that does not have a physical connection?  Can a relationship be complete if you can see and hear and understand the person without ever touching them?  Do we obtain information about others outside of sight and hearing?  Is that information important?

What is "friendship"? What different levels of friendship is there? Can we be socially and mentally healthy when we have deeper connections with people whom we've never seen than those around us?

If "property" has no physical existence besides a pattern of electrons, can it truly be sold?  If intellectual property is spread throughout the internet, can it be owned?  What kind of ethical regulations determine property that cannot be held or kept under lock and key?

How does ethics change in an internet environment? Besides property, how does one care for another on the internet?  What is the responsibility of one when an idea on the internet turns into a crime in the "real" world?

How Do We Create Peace?

Peace isn't controversial.  Almost everyone wants peace.  We want to be without conflict, or major conflict anyway.  We want to be a peace with everyone.

But what is the context of peace?  How can peace be achieved?  That is the real conflict. Should we bring peace by having a standard culture which everyone adheres to? But those who cannot fit in will not feel peace, will they? Is it possible to have peace by allowing everyone to do whatever they want?  But what happens if someone wants to use their freedom to harm or even kill others?  That doesn't create peace at all. 

Can we create peace by making peace a prerequisite for one's own self interest?  For example, to grant everyone economic well being if they promote peace?  But we will always have idealists who will fight and kill for what they believe in. How can we encourage them to act for peace?

And what about people who are poor? If people do not have their basic needs met, will they ever accept peace before they have their needs met?  Wouldn't they more likely fight in desperation until their needs are met? Is a prerequisite to peace creating people's well-being first?  But how do we do that?

And what about the paranoid or the severely mentally ill who look to violence because they see reality differently than the rest of us?  Can they ever participate in a society of peace?  Can we have a society of peace that includes everyone without exception?  If not, who would be excluded?  And what would we do with those excluded?

What Makes Art Good?

Art is like pornography.  We can't define it, but we know it when we see it.  Or do we?

There is a variety of viewpoints about whether something is art and whether a specific artistic endeavor can be called "art" or not.  Are there any guidelines to help determine art?  Must it be original?  Provocative? Beautiful? Must it invoke emotion?  Be intellectually challenging? Could different kinds of art do different things to a person?

Is art completely subjective?  Is art entirely in the eye of the beholder?  Or can art be held to any objective standards?  Can a movie be objectively "bad"?  What about a poem or painting?  Or can a four year old's drawing be "good" art to his mother, but to everyone else it is awful?

Can a four year old actually create art or only random scribblings?  What is the difference between Jackson Pollock and Marla Olmstead?

Is art better if it has a compelling story behind it, or is is only more popular?  Is there a difference between popular art and good at, except in the opinion of the individual?  Since everyone has an opinion about art, why should critics be paid for their opinion and others are not?  What makes a critic's opinion better than anyone else?

Religious Tolerance

Most people think that religious tolerance is a good thing.  We should live and let live and if a group wants to believe in something, even if it is weird, they should be allowed to do so.

But what if one's belief is that all other beliefs are wrong and that they would be severely judged if they continued to believe in the wrong thing?  Some might go to extreme measures (and many have) to convince others that they need to believe the same as oneself.  Does "live and let live" extend to beliefs that cannot accept a "live and let live" standard?  Frankly, any religion that holds itself exclusively (such as most monotheistic religionists) cannot accept tolerance as an overall standard, because their beliefs are too serious, too much a matter of life and death for it to be taken lightly enough to easily tolerate other beliefs.  Can all religions really be tolerant without compromising their faith?

And should all religions be tolerated?  Some worshipers of Kali acted on the belief that anyone not worshiping Kali should be killed.  How different is that from the 30 Years' War in Europe, when hundreds of thousands of people killed each other over which version of Christianity they accepted?  Or the Crusades, who killed people in the name of a belief?  Should such religion be tolerated?  

What about doing something less than direct killing? What if a religious practice (or a belief in general) doesn't trust modern medicine based on a scientific model?  What if they believe in an alternative model of medicine?  What if they insist upon faith healing and prayer without medicine?  Is our medicine so foolproof that we must demand that they take it?  Must we demand that they give it to their children, even against their beliefs?  Can we legislate lack of trust?  Can we afford not to?

And what about cultural tolerance?  Many religionists want to teach their children instead of sending them to public school, so they can promote their world view without outside influence.  Doesn't that warp the children for their whole lives?  Isn't that a form of enforced belief, even cult behavior?  Or are they right that legistlating public education is also a form of enforced acculturation, enforced belief?  If we don't know who is right and who is wrong, does anyone have the right to believe as we believe?

Does one cultural group have the right, ever, to enforce their beliefs on others?