Has anyone ever noticed that despite the fact that wearing gloves while handling food is required in the state of indiana, no pizza joint ever wears gloves at all?
It doesnt matter if its papa johns....dominos....wherever. No one ever seems to be wearing gloves, you can watch them make your pizza with no gloves on the entire time and just throw it in the oven. Which makes me wonder, do these places of business just carry on and when the health inspector walks in simply take the penalty and leave it at that? There has been a couple places ive seen wear gloves, a couple family owned businesses, while they wernt usually busy, had some of the best pizza ive eaten in a while, locally anyways.
I just wonder how they can get away with it hiding in plain sight. That isnt the only thing, most fast food joints while they dont do anything in front of your face, do plenty of nasty shit behind the scenes. Especially in bad neighborhoods where people dont care even more.
If youve never worked at a job like this maybe you can go eat at these places and not care too much, but let me warn you, I guarantee you some food handler that doesnt give a shit because they're getting minimum wage, has scratched their ass, picked their nose or touched a variety of other things. Maybe picked up something off the floor....touching the grease and dirt that was all over the floor and they didnt wash their hands.
So stop being a lazy little shit and go make some food yourself, dump some frozen vegetables in a frying pan. It takes literally 3 minutes to cook. Grab a bag of chicken or something and just throw it in the oven, it literally takes no effort at all. have some self respect and dignity, and oh look at that, you ended up spending less than you wouldve paid even if you ordered off the dollar menu.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Euthyphro, a false dilemma? + A rebuttal to god's nature being the source of morality.
Ok so I've been asked to start a blog and I don't know how many people would be interested in this type of thing, but I had been contemplating it for a while so here I am. Now I'm going to be writing a bit about the euthyphro dilemma and how it is a true dilemma and any objection to this is simply a denial of basic logic. Now one might deny the validity of this dilemma, but any attempt to do so is about as futile as saying this website is either a blog or it isn't. Anyone who denies such a dilemma which implicitly states it is either this one thing, or it could be any possible thing external to this thing, is either misunderstanding the language being used, or has some other reason.(there's another true dilemma for you *irony*)
If I had object X and I state it is either X or it is not X. That is a true dilemma and any denial of this is insanity. The only other option could be this object is X and not X at the same time, but of course this violates the law of non-contradiction, and you can obviously shout ad infinitum that this could be possible therefore it is a false dilemma, but no matter how many times you repeat the mantra, it does not make it true.
Now onto euthyphro! Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral?
This is a true dichotomy, there is absolutely no way around this, and I would offer the theist some common ground, if the theist were to say this is a false dilemma because god's nature is the source of morality, then one is admitting that god makes his commandments because it is moral, his nature being the cause of it being moral. Any attempt to deny this is actually an admittance to one not believing in objective morality! Funny huh? This violates the law of non-contradiction, because for one to state that god does not command something because it is moral, and then to state god's nature is the source of morality, is a contradiction, but not exclusively, for example god could make commandments that are not based on his nature, yet his nature is the source of morality, in which case the theist would be holding quite a weird position indeed. For god to make a commandment not based off of his nature is suggesting he is making commandments not consistent with himself, as well as his nature is also the foundation for morality, so he cannot derive commandments from his nature because then that would lead to a contradiction as stated previously.
(I would also like to point out that for the theist to deny he derives commandments from his nature would ultimately be stating god makes immoral commandments, since he is either deriving them from his nature or he isnt, another true dichotomy, and if he isnt deriving them from his nature but they are moral anyways, it was ultimately moral because of his nature, leaving you still stuck with that dilemma)
So even if god's nature is the source of morality, that can still be plugged into the euthyphro dilemma, god commanding such things because of his nature being moral, would be such a proposition which is able to be plugged into the premise, god commands such things because they are moral. Nothing about that statement implicitly denies god's nature being the source of morality. It is a question not a denial of morality. Let me restate that so you all can get it through your heads. The euthyphro dilemma is a question, not a denial of such things being moral.
Now that we got that minor annoyance out of the way lets talk about why god's nature cannot be the source of objective morality, as this is a separate question apart from the euthyphro dilemma. One could say that god's nature is the source of morality, but this is still stating that objective morality is based upon a subject, the subject being god. If one were to say that values or principles were embedded in god's nature, and it is not as simple as a commandment which could be different to a value in the way one derives a moral action from said value or said subject. Then contradictions entail, for example several values conflict with another when moral dilemmas happen in which one has to choose one value over the other. For example if we have the value of human life, and the value of happiness, that would conflict if we were to make the decision whether or not to pull the plug on someone who is suffering, they are not happy, they are miserable. So our desire to promote happiness "tells" us to pull the plug, where as the value of human life "tells" us this person is still alive and their life should be preserved as long as possible.
Obviously that's just one example, and there are better ones out there, but this is just to illustrate that stating that there are objective values, and it does not matter if contradictions entail from these values, because nothing about objective morality existing entails that we should know how to resolve contradictions in two objective values is absurd in my opinion. The reason why is morality is all about what we ought to do, and to say certain values are valid in some cases even though they contradict in every other case, is the same as saying a contradiction exists objectively since we are suggesting both values are objective. This only makes perfect sense if all values are morally neutral, from this there can be no contradictions, because no value or preference is "better" than the other.
If we are to say god's nature contains these contradictions then god doesn't know anymore about morality than we do, and if we are to say that god wrote these values on our hearts but he actually knows the correct values to choose in every given scenario, then you are suggesting morality is subjective in determining what to do, because there must be a mind(god) to decipher which value takes precedence over the other. If you say that god does not have to subjectively or arbitrarily decide which value is to take precedence over the other, because this is also embedded in his nature, then either this is not the same god that wrote these values on our heart, as he didn't technically make us in his image, as his nature would contain objective morality that allows for knowing which values take precedence, but he would have made us with moral instincts unlike this nature. Or god arbitrarily chose us to be left in the dark as far as morality goes, in which case I'd say arguing over morality would be pointless.
So basically that is about it, maybe I'll do a followup on this as it is somewhat of a rough draft of my thoughts.
If I had object X and I state it is either X or it is not X. That is a true dilemma and any denial of this is insanity. The only other option could be this object is X and not X at the same time, but of course this violates the law of non-contradiction, and you can obviously shout ad infinitum that this could be possible therefore it is a false dilemma, but no matter how many times you repeat the mantra, it does not make it true.
Now onto euthyphro! Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral?
This is a true dichotomy, there is absolutely no way around this, and I would offer the theist some common ground, if the theist were to say this is a false dilemma because god's nature is the source of morality, then one is admitting that god makes his commandments because it is moral, his nature being the cause of it being moral. Any attempt to deny this is actually an admittance to one not believing in objective morality! Funny huh? This violates the law of non-contradiction, because for one to state that god does not command something because it is moral, and then to state god's nature is the source of morality, is a contradiction, but not exclusively, for example god could make commandments that are not based on his nature, yet his nature is the source of morality, in which case the theist would be holding quite a weird position indeed. For god to make a commandment not based off of his nature is suggesting he is making commandments not consistent with himself, as well as his nature is also the foundation for morality, so he cannot derive commandments from his nature because then that would lead to a contradiction as stated previously.
(I would also like to point out that for the theist to deny he derives commandments from his nature would ultimately be stating god makes immoral commandments, since he is either deriving them from his nature or he isnt, another true dichotomy, and if he isnt deriving them from his nature but they are moral anyways, it was ultimately moral because of his nature, leaving you still stuck with that dilemma)
So even if god's nature is the source of morality, that can still be plugged into the euthyphro dilemma, god commanding such things because of his nature being moral, would be such a proposition which is able to be plugged into the premise, god commands such things because they are moral. Nothing about that statement implicitly denies god's nature being the source of morality. It is a question not a denial of morality. Let me restate that so you all can get it through your heads. The euthyphro dilemma is a question, not a denial of such things being moral.
Now that we got that minor annoyance out of the way lets talk about why god's nature cannot be the source of objective morality, as this is a separate question apart from the euthyphro dilemma. One could say that god's nature is the source of morality, but this is still stating that objective morality is based upon a subject, the subject being god. If one were to say that values or principles were embedded in god's nature, and it is not as simple as a commandment which could be different to a value in the way one derives a moral action from said value or said subject. Then contradictions entail, for example several values conflict with another when moral dilemmas happen in which one has to choose one value over the other. For example if we have the value of human life, and the value of happiness, that would conflict if we were to make the decision whether or not to pull the plug on someone who is suffering, they are not happy, they are miserable. So our desire to promote happiness "tells" us to pull the plug, where as the value of human life "tells" us this person is still alive and their life should be preserved as long as possible.
Obviously that's just one example, and there are better ones out there, but this is just to illustrate that stating that there are objective values, and it does not matter if contradictions entail from these values, because nothing about objective morality existing entails that we should know how to resolve contradictions in two objective values is absurd in my opinion. The reason why is morality is all about what we ought to do, and to say certain values are valid in some cases even though they contradict in every other case, is the same as saying a contradiction exists objectively since we are suggesting both values are objective. This only makes perfect sense if all values are morally neutral, from this there can be no contradictions, because no value or preference is "better" than the other.
If we are to say god's nature contains these contradictions then god doesn't know anymore about morality than we do, and if we are to say that god wrote these values on our hearts but he actually knows the correct values to choose in every given scenario, then you are suggesting morality is subjective in determining what to do, because there must be a mind(god) to decipher which value takes precedence over the other. If you say that god does not have to subjectively or arbitrarily decide which value is to take precedence over the other, because this is also embedded in his nature, then either this is not the same god that wrote these values on our heart, as he didn't technically make us in his image, as his nature would contain objective morality that allows for knowing which values take precedence, but he would have made us with moral instincts unlike this nature. Or god arbitrarily chose us to be left in the dark as far as morality goes, in which case I'd say arguing over morality would be pointless.
So basically that is about it, maybe I'll do a followup on this as it is somewhat of a rough draft of my thoughts.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)