I Have a Question For You..

Yes all of you, if you don’t mind and you’ve got a minute or two spare. You see, I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few days about this World we live in and what a mess its in and from that my thoughts turned to the people in charge (I use this terms loosely) i.e. the politicians. On one side of the pond we have Theresa May, scrabbling to hold on to tail of the tiger that is Brexit and, on the other, we have Donald Trump  who seems to be shooting himself in the foot by refusing to let go of the idea that a $5.6 billion wall will solve all the country’s problems

Yes all of you, if you don’t mind and you’ve got a minute or two spare. You see, I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few days about this World we live in and what a mess its in and from that my thoughts turned to the people in charge (I use this terms loosely) i.e. the politicians. On one side of the pond we have Theresa May, scrabbling to hold on to tail of the tiger that is Brexit and, on the other, we have Donald Trump  who seems to be shooting himself in the foot by refusing to let go of the idea that a $5.6 billion wall will solve all the country’s problems.

My question to you is:

If you were in charge of the US or the UK what would you do differently to Mrs May or Mr Trump?

i have a question for you 1The thing is, we are all ready to criticise their efforts but could we do a better job in their position? Everyone views politics according to their own agenda; if you’re poor you’ll want higher taxes for the rich, if you’re rich you’ll want lower taxes and there are arguments for both, that’s the real problem. All development in societies requires change and human beings really don’t like change, especially if change is imposed upon them by people they didn’t vote for.

We have two nations that are currently divided down the middle: leavers and remainers in the UK and the left and the right in the US. In each case one group is determined to loathe the other and, worse still, to prove them wrong whatever the cost may be and there will be a cost because one side will have to lose. The really sad thing is that there no longer seems to be anyone in the middle; sitting on the fence, however uncomfortable that may be, doesn’t seem to be an option.

We are emotionally bludgeoned by the media, social and otherwise, to take a position and fight for it regardless of whether the final outcome will have any direct impact on us or not. Things which were once of the slightest political importance are now portrayed as major disasters that will cause the fall of a nation. We no longer view our politicians as leaders who will make sensible decisions for their people but rather as either Gods or Demons. We put them high on a pedestal, demand perfection from them and then dance on their political graves when they prove that they are merely human. Either that or we refuse to listen to their ideas because they are on the ‘wrong’ side; what, in your opinion, can we do to change such rigid perceptions?i-have-a-question-for-you-2.jpg

To answer my own question: I would not lie to the people who’d put their faith in me.

Theresa May is telling people that she will fight to get out of Brexit but it’s fairly obvious that her heart really isn’t in it. Wouldn’t it be better just to say ‘OK guys we’ve made a complete pig’s ear of all this so we’re going to give it another year or so to try and put things right rather than creating a huge mess that’s going to take forever to properly sort out’. Of course, she won’t say that because the whole nation would be up in arms……but wait, isn’t that what’s happening now?

As for Donald Trump, his ‘spin’ (a political word for lying) is legendary but I wonder if his popularity would be greater if he just came out and said ‘Yes you’re right, the Mexicans never agreed to pay for the wall so you will have to foot the bill whether you like it or not because I’m President’. He’s arrogant enough to do just that but without admitting that he lied and if he can lie about that, what else will he lie about?

The way I see it, 50% of Theresa May should be grafted onto Donald Trump and vice versa. May is an apologist who will try to appease the masses while simultaneously dragging everyone into a politically correct World where hurting someone’s feelings can be deemed a ‘hate crime’ thereby stifling free speech and causing unnecessary, frustrated anger. Trump will do whatever it takes to create an America that is, in his view, great, not caring that he is often viewed as a racist, misogynistic, bigoted bully and someone to whom political correctness is just something that happens to other people.

i have a question for you 3People are not stupid, they can cope with being told the truth. What they cannot cope with is fear and change and, thanks to mass hysteria on the likes of Twitter and ‘left’ and ‘right’ news networks that is what people are having to deal with constantly.

So, what would you do? What do you think should happen to bring the people of these two nations back together and stop the divide which is such an enormous threat to them both? Please let me know, I’d love to hear from you.

Lisa x

Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

This is another one of Fandango’s Provocative Questions and, damn, it’s a good one! First things first, what is morality? According to Lord Google, it’s a set of principals which consider the difference between right and wrong……but according to whom? That’s where we run into our first problem with morality as a concept isn’t it?

This is another one of Fandango’s Provocative Questions and, damn, it’s a good one! First things first, what is morality? According to Lord Google, it’s a set of principals which consider the difference between right and wrong……but according to whom? That’s where we run into our first problem with morality as a concept isn’t it?

If you’re a devout Christian for example you may believe that lust is immoral, it is listed as one of the seven deadly sins after all! However, if you’re a healthy teenage boy you’re going to be lusting after something or another every five minutes because your hormones, at that age, are in overdrive. Lust, or the desire for sex, is part of our make up as human beings (and how far would we get as a species without it I wonder) so is it something that we can judge as being either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? I would say no. In fact I would go so far as to say that enforced celibacy is an unnatural state and, to my mind wrong but do I think that celibacy is ‘immoral’ – no.

Following that train of thought is the idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ really what we use to support our ideas of morality? Isn’t it more a case of there are certain things that we can accept and others that we can’t but then doesn’t that depend on the circumstances? For instance, most of us would consider it morally wrong to eat a dog BUT if we were absolutely starving and there was nothing else to eat would we put aside our moral principals in order to survive? We’d like to think that we’d never eat a dog under any circumstances but the reality is that we probably would if the alternative was death.

The two examples I’ve used here both concern subjective morality; they are things that we accept or not according to our own set of principals and according to the circumstances. Let’s face it then, subjective morality is going to be ever changing, it’s not something that we can readily use to write laws for instance.

However, objective morality could be used, in theory, to write laws because it concerns absolutes; something that is fundamentally right or wrong. A commonly used example would be murder. If you stopped 100 people in the street and asked them the question:

“Do you think murder is wrong”

it’s a pretty sure fire bet that 100/100 would say yes; this then could be a moral absolute.

However, what if you then asked someone to define murder, how many answers would you get then? Probably the most common would be something along the lines of

“The intentional taking of another life”

If you then asked a third question:

“Do you agree with the death penalty?”

How many would say yes? 25/100 maybe? Perhaps more? By their own definition, those people have just condoned murder despite it having been determined to be a moral absolute. However, they would then likely argue that the death penalty is different because it’s the State that carries it out…..but what about when they get it wrong is it still then morally right because it’s been State sanctioned? No! How can it be?

Opinions on what is right and wrong will always be divided based on social attitudes, religious beliefs, upbringing and a host of other things so what could humanity say, with one voice, is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

For me, morality can only ever be subjective because our circumstances are ever changing and our opinions of what is acceptable or not will change accordingly. Nothing, in my opinion, can ever really be absolute.

I’d really love to know what you think so please let me know

Lisa x