Posts

On Lying

The following is a paper I wrote for my medical ethics class. The topic is lying. I had about 20 footnotes, but a simple copy-paste action won't carry those over, so, I'm not claiming to be original here or anything. 
In this paper I will argue that lying to a patient is wrong because lying simpliciter is always wrong. This will be distinguished from other acts, such as reservation and deceit, in which the patient does not receive the truth but may be permissible. Cases will be considered which it may seem beneficial to lie to the patient and to lie for the patient. I will be drawing from St. Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers that interact with the Thomist tradition. 
I begin with the assumption that man is a rational animal. That man is a kind of animal is not controversial, for the whole field of medical science deals with the reality of that animality, and how to treat it. That man is also rational also seems to be uncontroversial as shown by the medical fields concern…

Temporal vs Timeless God

What it means to be eternal and what it means to be timeless are two different questions. For God to be eternal means that He always existed and always will exist. God has no beginning and no end. To be timeless, on the other hand, means that God is outside time or doesn’t exist within time, has no temporal location and temporal terms don’t apply to God. Some reasons to embrace a timeless God is it emphasizes God’s transcendence over creation, it reconciles divine foreknowledge with human freedom, and it remains consistent with other attributes of God, such as His immutability, or unchanging nature.
Davis has three arguments against God being timeless. It is not compatible with God as creator. For God created the world at some time T, then either at T God creates the world which would make God temporal, or God creates the world and the world firsts exists at T which would mean there is a need for a notion of a-temporal causation, which he doesn’t think there is. Davis thinks all cause…

What Is Perfect Being Theology?

The three components of Perfect Being Theology are great making properties, compossible properties, and uniqueness. A great making property is any property that endows its bearer with some measure of values and greatness, or metaphysical stature, regardless of extrinsic circumstances, that it to say, it has intrinsic goodness. Compossible properties are collections of properties if it is possible that they all be had by the same individual at the same time or all together. There are no properties which are inconsistent with one another. Uniqueness means that God is the being such that no greater can be conceived, following St. Anselm.  
Why think there is intrinsic goodness? If all goodness is external goodness, then nothing would be good since they don’t terminate in some intrinsic goodness. So, if P is good for some other thing P1, but P1 isn’t worth pursuing unless it is itself good, which is denied when we deny intrinsic goodness or good for something else, P2, which goes ad infini…

Porn, Violence, and Video Games

The question as to whether video games cause violence was a hot topic recently. I don't know whether it does or it doesn't, but I think some conservatives like myself may have reason to suspect it does. Conservatives, like myself, say that pornography is part of the cause for sex trafficking and sexual violence. I won't go into detail for that argument, but I do refer you to the book The Social Costs of Pornography. And what is pornography? They are images for the purpose of stimulating our sexual arousal. While we do not engage in the acts of the images, since those times are past and perhaps in far away locations, they engage our fantasies. So, there is some connection between that and sexual violence. Now, consider violent video games. What do they do? They are also images that engage our fantasies. And they engage them into acts of violence. I killed this person. I ran over that person. I decapitated her. I shot their dog. Etc. They engage the fantasy. And so, likewise…

What Regret Can Teach Us

Image
I have been reflecting on my many regrets lately. The biggest of which is my consumption of carbs. I should have had my sandwich lettuce wrapped instead of on buns. I should have let my girlfriend have my chicken nuggets, instead of consuming them all by myself them like a fatty. So, I go home, and I have remorse. "Why am I like this? Why wasn't I able to control myself?" Plato considers it, and so does Aristotle to some extent. Of course, I was able to control myself. It wasn't like I was sitting down, watching myself on a TV screen, and seeing someone else control my body as if I were being possessed. No one possessed me. If I go to a dinner, and I let myself go, I say I lost control. In a literal sense, I did not lose control, but something did come over me, and that was my appetites (both in Aristotlean sense and in the common sense). My emotions came over me, and I decided to follow that. What we mean by losing control is that we let our reason lose control. Wh…

Baptism and Filth of the Flesh

In doing research on the KJV onlyists, I came across an argument against baptism that I want to address. It goes as follows. Those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation will usually cite 1 Peter 3:21. But that actually disproves the necessity of baptism. When you look at 2 Corinthians 7:1, you see that "filth of the flesh" refers to sin. And since 1 Peter says baptism doesn't do away with the filth of the flesh, it therefore doesn't do away with sin. So baptism doesn't save.
Understand that in dealing with the KJV onlyists, you may have to look at other translations. I'm no expert in languages, but I do trust that the translators did a good enough job for me to understand what is given to me without any expertise in any ancient language. However, just as I am skeptical of Jehovah's Witnesses using a translation that is unique to them, and various other cults doing the same, skepticism can be warranted in dealing with KJVO and looking and co…

Rebounding

It has been advised to me, by a few people, that a part of the healing process for a breakup is to get into a rebound relationship. A rebound relationship is a relationship that you enter into that isn't too serious, if at all. When I showed my friends a photo of my ex's new boyfriend to see whether they thought he had a punchable face (unanimous agreement: he does), they suggested that he may just be a rebound, and so maybe I should get in on that rebound plan too. It's bad advice, I think. Like, horrid advice, even if somewhat amusing. It suggests using another person. And we shouldn't use people so selfishly. 
But I wonder if I'm already doing that. Not long after my ex broke up with me, I was curious to see if she was active on Catholic Match. She was. That she put herself in a search mode so soon after our relationship hurt to see. Was I so insignificant? Was I so replaceable? So expendable? Did she even mean it when she said she loved me? I may never get ans…