In today's result-oriented system, almost everything is conditional. To be worthy, we have to be good at something. With nothing to be proud of, we're called losers. With no contribution to the society, we're worthless. In Japan, we have to be married and have children to be a woman.
About a week ago, a 35 year old female member of the Tokyo assembly was subjected to sexist abuse while she tried to debate support for childrearing (the details are here). It took more than five days for one of the male culprits to come out and admit the inappropriateness of his remark ("You're the one who should get married"). He did not admit his underlying disrespect to single women with no children. We still don't know who did the rest of the heckling ("Are you even able to have children?" etc.)
Many Japanese showed anger towards this incident. But I think the male councillors precisely represent the general Japanese who do think that women should get married and rear children rather than stay single. These kind of people think of marriage and childrearing as what makes women a full human being, and also what gives them "true happiness".
The declining birthrate is a serious problem. Personally, I don't understand the feelings of people who avoid marriage because they don't want to "grow up", or because they might "get tired of their partner". But lack of responsibility is not the only reason why someone is single. It might not even be their choice. If it is their choice, it must be a very important choice to them -- a conclusion they came to after overcoming many difficulties in their lives. Happiness is different to everyone, and we have to respect every shape of happiness as well as every lifestyle.
Apparently, many young people are doing the Shikoku Pilgrimage lately. During the pilgrimage, they are given free meals along the way from local people. It's a tradition from hundreds of years ago when pilgrims were called 稀人(rare person). The local people have welcomed them unconditionally to this day: every pilgrim is welcomed the same way, and as a result, by the time they finish their pilgrimage, they realize that they are worthy just the way they are.
We all want to be accepted unconditionally -- married or unmarried, with or without children.
I will make a quick side comment on the Guardian article, which you had linked to. I had read it, and I was disappointed in that the article had said nothing about what the city administration was planning to do to help with childbearing. It is about a creeping Socialism in free governments. This is what really should make headlines.
返信削除A second issue is how politicians are allowed to commit logical fallacies. With this being allowed in a formal setting, where critical and objective reasoning should reign supreme, subterfuge becomes the weapon of choice. To be able to launch personal attacks, to freely cast unsubstantiated allegations, is to be able to be more efficient, and so, to win in a game of limited resources. A person need say only one sentence, no matter how invalid, and then force the opponent to expend enormous amounts of his recourses to have to prove himself innocent. It is a sure way of allowing evil to win. This is what I do not understand. How can we, in a civilized society, not have our politicians speaking and acting in a logically correct fashion. It is always about the message...not about the messenger. Either validate or invalidate the message...not the messenger.
Ok...I do agree with most of what you had said here.
In your first sentence...I know you were setting up your point (women vs. societal expectations)...however, as a general point, if you accept the first sentence as written, it is also a premise for a vast array of other arguments.
In your last sentence, you seem to condemn your first sentence. If you had meant the part about being accepted unconditionally as a general stand alone premise, and you had merely included the other qualifiers to help illustrate a meaning for this article...then I must greatly disagree with you.
Had you meant that your last sentence was exclusive to the article, and to the additional qualifiers, then I could not agree with you more.
In your first sentence, 'In today's result-oriented system, almost everything is conditional'...seems to imply that it is somehow something new, as well as being undesirable. It is the fundamental concept of any intelligent system. It has been the way all along in all successful societies throughout history (the antipathy of which lies in Marxism). Each peron must invest something...his time or his efforts, so the whole may have a greater effect than its components separately.
To not measure anything objectively (results), is by default, measuring subjectively. When this happens, well, of course, anything goes. There can be no right or wrong. Anarchy reigns supreme.
I know this is not what you were getting at. I just didn't want any of your readers to think that the first sentence somehow condemns either thought (result oriented / conditional).
Continued:
Continued:
返信削除I know about the greatly declining birth rate in Japan.
I will make a point here.
There are three basic virtues in most any society:
Morals, Values, and Ethics.
Morals: Universal human virtues.
While morals are universal and, as human nature and basic reasoning do not change, they stand the test of time. Morals allow humans to interact and to work together...to be able to invest their time and efforts, knowing that there will be a payoff at the end. This is what makes progress possible. The basic morals of all societies which do not eventually tear themselves down, or otherwise keep themselves from progressing is:
The concept of Good / Evil (non religious sense) and Right / Wrong. They exist, and are unchanging. Is killing wrong...no. Is unjustified killing wrong...yes.
The difference is the difference between Good / Evil and Right / Wrong. Aggression is wrong (taking from your neighbor that which is not yours). Assertion is right (protecting yourself, and the innocent, from aggression).
An aggressor tries to kill you. You kill him to protect yourself, or the innocent.
Killing is not wrong...just unjustified killing.
Freedom to lead your life as you choose, so long as you do not infringe on another's right to do so.
Yes, women should be able to make life choices with THEIR lives without society being concerned...unless....(read Values).
Values: The virtues of a society as a whole.
This is where the actions which are justified change.
Is it right to kill someone to prevent them from stealing something of yours? In general...no.
Is it right to kill someone where if they stole it, it would lead to your death?
Yes, of course it would be.
It depends on how the action will affect the aggrieved. This greatly changes from time, place, and circumstance. In the wild west of the U.S., stealing someone's horse could mean they would be destitute, and in some cases, would die if they were not near a town.
Is it right for a society to demand extra measures from them...even very possibly their very lives (employment being even lesser than)? It has happened very often in almost all nations...and to only one sex...males. The draft...in times of war.
Does this mean that Japan has the right to expect women to bear children to strengthen their population base?
Right now...I don't think so. Were it to become a matter of national security...well, almost anything may be justified in such a case...yes?
Continued:
Continued:
返信削除Any system, from business and societies, to biological ones...must be able to adapt to new variables if it is to flourish...and not perish.
The key is knowing when society's rights must temporarily overtake the rights of the individual. With intelligence, systems may be operated with positive reinforcement rather than through negative reinforcement (However, by positive reinforcement...I do not mean for it to be in any Marxist fashion). Japan's need is not dire...nor will it become so...so long as intelligence is used.
Women should have the rights to employment as they desire. Especially where governments are concerned. It is true that not all women desire to be mothers. It is even more true that some people should not become parents.
In free societies, individual rights should, except in dire circumstances, reign supreme. Yes...equal rights...so long as there are equal responsibilities. Of course, you must realize that this should also make females subject to any draft for service...as are the males. And in the same proportions of the population.
We all must make certain sacrifices for the good of the whole.
However, must someone be of Japanese descent to be Japanese?
Could you not have different races in your country, strengthening its blood lines (hybridization)...without losing your culture? Yes...if it is done slowly and intelligently enough. It is the culture of the Japanese which make its inhabitants Japanese. I am sure you know of Japan's history. The culture is what makes Japan so beautiful...it is what makes the Japanese...well...Japanese.
A country should seek to take the best...not the most needy...the absolute best that the world has to offer. It would lead to innovation, which would then stimulate the economy. This is what really lies at the heart of Japan's problems.
You could demand cultural fluency...and a lifetime probation on their actions in your society...or you could send them back to their country of origin. The problem could be resolved by quality and quantity control (not just the tired and oppressed as is currently the doctrine of the U.S....you must only take in those who will be a source of strength to Japan).
In terms of immigration, your society's right to flourish comes before an individual's need. This is why it is right for a family (a micro society...and the building block of the larger society) to not have to take in just anyone in need, to their home, with the family having to sacrifice their resources...and to have to sacrifice their children's needs, for someone who, for whatever their circumstances, also has a need, even if more dire.
Your families and nation comes before any others. Your rights must reign supreme if you are to survive...and hopefully, flourish.
I know this seems way off base. It is the concept of the nature of individual rights vs societal expectations which lies at the heart of this article.
Ethics: The virtues of a subgroup. Such as professions, or even religions (from their viewpoint, they are morals or values. However, in this context, being part of a nation...they are ethics).
On the grounds of ethics...at least that which should be...the politicians who had made the negative female role model comments should be fired...not because it was a sexist remark...but because their sin was even more egregious...that of the subterfuge of logic and reasoning where it should always reign supreme.
I know I went on in this comment. There was much more I would have liked to have said. However, I fear that should I continue in my ways (long comments)...I would quickly wear out my welcome :)
okay, I need more time to digest what you've said but since a crappy reply is better than none, I'm going to write a couple of things I thought about while I read your comment:
削除1. According to your definition, morals are universal but I personally think that what is right/wrong depends on what society you belong to. It's a value judgement and thus it can't be absolute.
2. I wasn't really thinking much when I wrote this post but you're totally right that the theme here is "individual rights vs societal expectations". Article 13 of the Japanese constitution states that we all have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't violate the public welfare -- it's difficult to define what "public welfare" is. If men can't escape the draft (though that's not the case in Japan), maybe women do have the obligation to get married and have children.
But without stating that "obligation", there are many women who do want to get married and have children but can not for various reasons. I think that was why many women were offended by the sexist remark.
The councillor who admitted his gaffe is now being attacked severely; eggs were thrown at his office door, and people are obsessively searching for the rest of the culprits. I don't think it's unimportant to figure out who said it, but throwing eggs is the same as heckling. I just thought it was time we all calmed down and realize that all we need/want is a bit of kindness, understanding and respect.
Thank you by the way. I know you don't wish to extend the comments back and forth as a rule, and I will refrain from commenting on your replies in most cases. However, I wish to clarify some points, just so my original comment was not misunderstood.
返信削除My reply to Broccoli's comments:
1) I knew this would stir up some issues. A value is that which is chosen by a group of people, usually a nation. It is what they "value". It does change from society to society, and from time to time. However, a moral is that which is right for all people, in all places, and for all time. It is the path for an ultimately good result. It is that which allows people to invest their time and energy, knowing their will be greater returns at a later time.
Without the concept of Good and Evil (Assertion vs Aggression), Evil wins by default. The strongest survives and the rest become slaves. Mob mentality reigns, the simple majority wins. The relative few feed off of the oppressed as they use them as cattle.
Without the concept of Right and Wrong (Seeing the system as a whole and finding the most effective and efficient manner toward progress and retaining freedom while being of good vs the antithesis), anything is ok. Subjective Musings become just as valid as Objective Reasoning. Anarchy reigns.
Good and Right are firm morals for any system to not only survive, but to thrive. Many people confuse Values with Morals, of which there are many (Values) to the few (Morals). Values are the specific paths taken to stay in the morals. Such as the right to survive and flourish unimpeded so long as it does not impede on another's right to do so...with the whole over the parts...and with the long term over the short. With intelligent design, the individual parts may also flourish, in the short term as well as the long. It applies to all societies. When a basic moral is foregone, the system breaks down, as it is unsustainable.
In a biological system...say our body's cells for instance...the specialized cells of our immune system are the Asserters. They protect the body from the various viruses, bacteria, prions (Aggressors)...and even rogue cells turned aggressive (Cancer). It is a biological imperative. A cell divides, and stops dividing, when necessary. It takes what it needs to survive and flourish...without over indulging and taking from his neighbors and by continually dividing, regardless of the effect it would have on the whole.
The same basic system exists in all societies. We have evolved as societies just as a body grows. There are specialties, and a basic fundamental rule which, because of our intelligence, we have passed on as a moral code so our system may survive and flourish. Just as certain specialty cells have different missions, and so, a differing "value" (certain cells continually divide but expire quickly to fulfill their function), they do so while keeping within the overriding rules of not harming the overall system (morals).
I just wanted to clarify that while there is a Right and a Wrong...differences may occur in the manifestation of them depending on the circumstances...such as in a time of war. Individual rights must sometimes be sacrificed for the survival of the whole. However, in such cases, being assertive to defend against aggressors...is moral. Right still exists. It is when Values override morals that problems exist. Also, just because we may not know what is right at the time...does not necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. Although one may argue the merit of a value...one may not argue the merit a moral. Without a moral...the whole would cease to exist. When most people think of morals...they are really thinking of values.
Continued:
Continued:
返信削除2) I am sorry, I should have clarified...a draft in times of war. And to further clarify...there are some 20 non combat positions for every 1 direct combat position. Women could still perform necessary functions in the service without exposing them to the physical harshness, danger, and deprivation that frequently occurs in times of war. I fear in the next major war...both sexes will be called upon. As weapons have gotten to be too effective, there will be such a high casualty rate, it may prove to be necessary. And as women have gotten equal rights (rightfully so...so long as they prove themselves solely on merit...as any male would have to)...there will be no rational argument against drafting them. In short...my son is just as valuable as some else's daughter...and still, even if drafted, she won't be exposed to the same possibility of death as will be the males.
On the councillor, I still think that any person in such an important position as one who makes decisions for the whole (the brain of the body)...to put his personal or party position above the nation (body), by not arguing on the merits of the message and by instead trying to attack the messenger, and so to deflect an issue which affects the whole, is a rogue cell. It is to undermine the body's defenses and its moral code. His actions were immoral...and so, he should be removed. His job is to identify problems which are correctly prioritized, and to correct them. Just as importantly, his job is to make sure the body flourishes. He can do neither if he attempts to obfuscate the issue with logical fallacies. It was not a matter of rudeness, his kind are cancers. I say to send in the T-cells and eradicate all non rational thinkers from any and all political positions. How, in this day and age, politicians get away with deceit, and how they establish their rules for society without a fully rational explanation as to how it would affect the whole...is beyond me.
I don't mind extending comments back and forth -- please feel free to share your thoughts. I appreciate it.
削除Before I start, it's not that I think your definition of morals is wrong; I just think I have a slightly different interpretation. I do understand that there must be some kind of a basic rule that holds the society together. In many countries, it's the law made by the majority. But it can't be any kind of law -- to protect the rights of the minority, the law must be based on the constitution. Then what is the constitution based upon? Morals, perhaps. And since many developed societies share very similar "morals" on this level, morals may be "universal". But as long as we define morals as principles on which we base our judgement on what is right/wrong, I think they differ between societies.
The Japanese civil law states that any juristic act with any purpose that is against public order and morals is void. In a way, this "public order and morals" may be close to what you decribe as morals, but they don't necessarily seem universal; for example, a "mistress contract" that is regarded as being against morals in Japan might be totally fine in a polygamous society.
Anyway, I agree that cancer cells should be removed, but since it seems like the cancer has metastasized all over the body and it's impossible to eradicate them without breaking up the whole assembly, I think the only way to progress is to get rid of the gene mutations that caused malignancy in every cancer cell. It might be impossible in the human body, but I hope it's certainly possible in the Tokyo assembly.
Uh oh. I think blogspot ate my comment. :( Sorry if you see this twice.
返信削除There's a movement in some Western countries about a group of people who refer to themselves as "childfree." The only thing these people have in common is that they don't want children of their own.
Some of them are tired of raising siblings, others are career focused, and some just have no reason other than they don't want children. Some of them love children and some of them do not like children.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have problems with people who are childfree. They don't see the point of having childfree forums (there's no such thing as a tea free or piano free forum is there?), and they think all childfree people want to kill children or force everyone to be sterilized and this is not the case.
The reason that there are forums, websites, books, and other outlets is because childfree people aren't accepted unconditionally. Whenever they tell others they don't want children, they're made fun of and told that they'll be lonely in their old age or change their minds. They're also told they're not real men or real women because they don't have kids.
Reading this reminded me a lot of childfree (and sometimes marriage free) individuals. They simply want to be accepted unconditionally, like the woman in the article.
Thanks for sharing Sonna. I'm a bit surprised to hear that it's not only in Japan that "childfree" people are facing harsh opinions from others. Perhaps it's the same all over the world when you want/value something different.
削除The word childfree is pretty interesting though -- my impression was that free only comes after words with negative meanings (like taxfree, smokefree, troublefree), but if "childfree" people don't necessarily dislike kids, maybe I'm wrong?
Reply to Broccoli:
返信削除Ok, I will take you at your word :)
My point is...no system can function without the morals of Good and Right. The point is that good is unchanging...as well as that of right. I know you are saying that the definition of right and wrong differs with cultures. I am saying that so long as the individuals may be as free as possible within the system, without taking away that right from others, and without bringing harm to the overall system...then it is good...and so, right. This is how the individual building blocks of the system may grow to be strong...how they may flourish, and yet work together with the others. I am not specifying a particular right or wrong...which may vary according to circumstance, time, or culture.
As for the biological metaphorical track I had put us on...unlike cancer cells...politicians observe their surroundings. When action is taken against these, the others get the message to put forth rational arguments...ones they may defend...and not personal attacks (and hopefully, any other false arguments). It is through decisive action that immediate results come.
To emplace a requirement of politicians to put forth rational arguments, as must doctors and scientists...to have to start with a correct premise, follow a logical argument with supporting evidence, and to have a correct conclusion directly derived from the argument, just as so many other critical professions must do, would speed the progress of a city, or a nation...and it would certainly lead to far better decisions being made, and without the grave missteps.
To Sonna: I am very much for individual rights (so long as they do not harm the whole). I value the unfettered spirit. Of course I think that men and women
should not be looked down upon for a choice which affects their lives...and only their lives. The problem I have is with the word 'unconditionally'. To be accepted must come with conditions. If the behavior of the individual changes...the conditions of the initial implied agreement will have changed. It really is a social contract with others. For a man and a woman to formally engage...and then one of them becomes unfaithful...the initial implied condition of engagement is one of being exclusive partners...will have been broken. The aggrieved will be well within his/her rights to feel wronged and to move out of the relationship. People often think that love is unconditional...but there are always conditions (with the possible exception of the love between parent and child).
I also know what you mean when you say unconditionally. You mean to say that you wish the person were accepted as if the childless issue were not there in the first place. However, when you say unconditionally, there are many people who think that they may do as they please (frequent drunkenness, drug addiction, infidelity...etc), and have to be unconditionally accepted because, in their minds, they are doing it to themselves, and are not harming anyone. They think it is none of anyone's business. I know that this doesn't apply in this case...because it is no one else's concern. They are illogically extending the argument to ridiculous proportions. You are not a small tribe where every child born could be the means for the ultimate survival of the tribe.
There is a difference between not attacking someone, and not wishing to be their friend. There are circles of priority which each individual has. They serve a purpose for individuals. There is only so much time in life. Each individual has the right to spend their time with those of whom they trust, and are happy with. The rights of the individual to do this supersedes anyone's misguided desires to be unconditionally accepted. These people wish to have automatic friendship by societal decree...regardless of their actions.
Continued:
Also implied by the word 'unconditionally' is that of heart, mind, and body. This, in itself, is thought policing. A person's mind (thoughts) and heart (emotions) is his own. It is only the actions or inactions of the person which society should even consider to be in their realm. What people must remember is that while a person should be free from attack...equally important, is the right to associate with those of your choosing. To wish to be accepted 'unconditionally' is to wish to be fully in the inner circle of everyone by right. This, of course, would trample upon the rights of all of the other individuals who wish to simply not include that person in their inner circle. People have the right to ignore those they so wish to (in personal affairs - not professional). However, those who ignore are also subject to being ignored. There are rightfully, conditions in almost everything in life. Much of it is a barter. Time and effort for money. Respect for respect...trust for trust...love for love. Quid pro quo - this for that. These are all implied....and many are expressed.
返信削除Again, I know what was meant by the unconditional acceptance. However, words have meaning, and meaning steers thought...and thought steers actions or inactions. A wrong word can mean a wrong path of thought is taken.
I'll leave it here as I don't wish to have to continue my comment in yet another section :)
Please excuse some of my grammatical errors (reading back after posting, I noticed a lack of commas in certain areas). I am typing away as the thoughts emerge. I do a cursory proof read...but nothing extensive...as I really should. I will do a more thorough proof read in the future (I owe everyone, at the very least, correct grammar).
返信削除See? I wasn't wishing everyone to accept me unconditionally :)
As I said in my previous comment, I think we define the word "morals" differently. Maybe I hadn't understood your definition yesterday, and I'm still not sure if I do now, but if you mean that morals should be defined as a fundamental rule that all individuals are free as long as they don't harm others, (putting aside the issue of whether this rule is universal or not,) I think we all need some kind of principles that help us figure exactly what kind of acts become harm to others, and these principles are what I call morals. If you say I'm mixing up morals with values, values to me is inseparable from morals. If I'm clearly wrong though, the English Japanese dictionary doesn't have the right word for "morals", or we don't have an equivalent. I could not care less about grammatical errors btw.
削除My major point is that a moral applies universally. A value apples to a particular group of people, as mostly applied to nations. Ethics apply to a subgroup of the nation, particularly true in the professions.
返信削除A moral, as applied to life, I will use in an analogy, as a mountain. To reach the peak, is to have lived happily and freely, to have enjoyed success in your endeavors, to have done no harm, and to have helped others achieve the same. A moral is the basic direction...up. Another moral would give the concept of taking the most effective route, in the most efficient manner, without taking away that right from others. Yet another moral would point out that while resting for a while and enjoying the view is desirable, to dally so long as to miss your chance to experience the views before dusk (deferred gratification vs hedonism) would be immoral. The values are the particular routes to take to achieve the goal. The policies and procedures of the guides, those which tell them how to best help the hikers, are the ethics.
Although values are often morally based, it is not necessarily the case. Just because a group of people decides to do something, does not necessarily make it the right (moral) thing to do. The values of a nation, or a society, may allow the slavery of a group of people. It would still immoral.
Now, values should be inseparable from morals...just more specific. It defines the route to achieving that which is good (Assertiveness vs Aggression), and which would be healthful for the nation...again, without the deprivation of others in the process.
Morals, when followed, allow all people to work together, and so, to allow progress.
To act in a moral manner, is to act in a way which is good (assertion vs aggression). You have the right to protect yourself, but not to attack others unjustifiably. You have the right to accumulate wealth, but not to unjustifiably take it from others. You may tax, so long as it all goes to the agreed upon area. However, you may not steal.
The right to live, and to protect yourself, or others, from unjustified attack...is a moral. A society simply cannot progress without abiding by it. Individuals having the right to possess the means to do so through firearms...is a value of the U.S....but not of Japan. Individuals may use bodily force for self protection...and in all cases...may call upon a champion to defend them...the police (in idea...not practice). These are values in Japan and in the US.
In certain societies, their values demand that relatives avenge them...rather than using the police (especially where they cannot be trusted). In order for the society to prevent blood feuds...they instituted the idea of civil courts...blood money (which has more than one meaning). Both...depending on the details...can fulfill the role of being a value while being moral.
Again, there are many examples of values not being in accordance with morals. It does not make it right. Not that you do...but to believe that because a majority decides to do something...that it is automatically a valid value...or that it is moral...is an appeal to the masses. Or even worse...that all ideas (they claim to be morals) are just as valid as true morals...that they are subjective...is moral relativism.
Morals are universal concepts which can be made, or distinguished, by extending the argument to its conclusion. Even if extended to ridiculus numerical proportions (it would have to apply to all)...the results would be a alligned with that of good. The preservation and progress of all, for the long term, without the unnessessary infringement of the individuals.
Continued:
返信削除One last example:
A tribe stands as one of a hundred tribes known to their world. They fish for sustenance. Another tribe is agrarian. All of the others are a mixture of both.
A moral, without which would lead to famine and death of all if not followed, would be to never take more than that which is sustainable.
One fishing tribe always releases pregnant female fish so as to ensure they will
have another generation of fish...this would be a value. It is a specific path to following a moral.
Another fishing tribe may simply release all fish which they deem as too small.
As their fish mature differently than the type of fish another tribe uses...
their definition of being too small may not apply to another tribe...because of the differing variable.
Another tribe always puts away a designated amount of their seed crops to ensure another generation...to always ensure they may sustain their crop output. They have developed a value. Although it may not apply to the fishing tribe...the underlying moral applies to all.
However, to say that the morals are subject to change is to say that there is no underlying principle which would allow the sustainment and flourishing of all. Values may change. The morals do not...precisely because it applies to all.
I think I understand your overall opinion. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I've said pretty much everything I can about this topic. According to the dictionary I just looked up, moral(adj) = concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society. I will of course read your comment if you have any objections to this definition but please do not expect me to respond; I may or I may not.
削除I don't expect a reply. I know this has almost run its course. However, dictionaries are sometimes wrong (I know...how arrogant of me :) Just from a point of reason, how is it that there are three categories if there is no difference between morals and values (Morals, Values, Ethics)? People often use them as if they were synonyms, however, they are wrong :) You must have learned them in the study of law...as the laws are often guided by morals and by the country's values. This is also why International laws exist. Some things are universally wrong...even though certain countries' values allow for it. They are not just an agreement among all industrialized nations...they are agreed upon because there are certain actions which are universally immoral. When nations don't abide by them...military action is often resorted to (not just the UN...but the UN through the agreement of the nations).
返信削除There are numerous mistakes in text books, as well as in dictionaries. You will sometimes see a great difference among the accepted dictionaries. Also, Universities will usually only deem one or two dictionaries as acceptable, because they do vary in quality.
Actually, read some definitions of some words you are absolutely sure of...and then see how inaccurate some dictionaries are. Some omit valuable information...others are simply wrong.
One last point...I rarely state an opinion. As I had given a premise, my statements were supported with reason and argued in a logical fashion, and I derived my conclusion directly and correctly from the argument...I submitted a rational argument. An opinion is in the realm of the subjective, not the objective. An opinion is a mere posit. This is not a case of my being pedantic. To say that someone had stated an opinion automatically relegates the statement to that of having no evidence to support it. I am merely stating this, not because I think you had done it as a means of dismissing my argument, but just to point out that words often go through a change (in every language). They become more vague or lose their meaning. They become common, and so, the original meaning is often lost. Commonly used words are often used in modern dictionaries.
It was fun, but it seems, this course of thought can no longer be run :)
I was a very very lazy law student, but what you're describing kind of sounds like Natural Law, though I don't remember (or don't know in the first place) the link between Natural Law and morals.
削除Anyway, I'm responding to say that no matter how objective and logical and rational a statement is, I personally regard it as an "opinion". Say a doctor comes up with a "perfect diagnosis" based on ten objective findings. The eleventh finding can always prove the diagnosis wrong. And it's pretty hard to prove there isn't an eleventh finding hiding somewhere in the picture; we all unconsciously choose what we see, no matter how objective we try to be. But this is in itself merely my opinion so we can agree to disagree :)
Broccoli,
返信削除I just had to reply to your comment because you are young and your life is ahead of you. You are a practicing scientist, and a doctor in training. A rational argument is the most plausible path to take for the stated reasons. An opinion has no basis for the "feeling"...no supporting evidence. Please understand the difference between an argument where the variables are accounted for, and a known path has been established, and one where the path is still unknown because of a number of unknown variables.
To say that since nothing can be absolutely proved, that therefore we can never know what the truth is, and even how we can never fully see the truth because we all perceive differently, is the false basis for relativism. If this were true...then anything goes...there can be no right or wrong. Nothing can consistently be made to happen. But we know this to be different. Therefore...
your statement is incorrect.
No...we do not always unconsciously choose what we see. People often explain things subjectively. When asked to be objective (more like tricked to be objective)...the truth starts to come out. That is why detectives and lawyers practice the logical boxing in of a person to reveal truths. If a doctor lists all the objective symptoms detected...and another consistently misses some...it just means the latter is a terrible doctor. Just because a mind cannot pick up on details in a flash...does not render it incapable of monitoring the important things about its environment. It is not a statement about the human mind. You will always have those on the fringe of the bell curve. You cannot judge the majority by the fringe. We can pass on understanding because we have similar triggers in our minds. That is how knowledge is passed on...accurately.
You are soon to be a doctor. You will be making life and death decisions on a daily basis. You will never be rendering opinions. You will be giving the most plausible explanation for the given objective symptoms, and you will be following the most reasonable path for the resolution to the medical problem...and you will be fully supporting all of this in official documents. You will be making rational arguments for your decisions. It will be demanded of you by the hospital lawyers...besides as being part of the ethics of being a doctor. They will review all of the decisions for cases which go poorly. If you say it was your opinion...a good lawyer will have your head. You will not be operating by opinion...you will be operating off of known variables...and the probabilities of unknown variables. These can be verified and justified. You will have to document them as such. Anything which is not written....did not happen. By saying that you agree to disagree is to be complicit in the possible negative results. If someone is wrong...fully lay out your argument, show them how they are wrong. Never give them wiggle room to be wrong. If it was important enough to bring up...it is important enough to bring to a correct conclusion. If after stating your argument, the person still does not acknowledge they are wrong...simply state the possible consequences of their actions...and that you do NOT agree with their stance. Never agree to disagree.
Sorry, I know I seem to be nitpicking. Please don't see it as such. We make each other stronger by identifying our weaknesses. A true friend does this. An enemy will never do anything which would ultimately be helpful to you.