I've learned that it is often times difficult to understand the human mind. Within each of our series of thoughts and feelings, there will likely exist at least one contradiction. However, while most outsiders may visibly see that contradiction, the actual person likely won't and in the end, that's all that really matters. So long as things make sense to that individual person, all other vantage points tend to be meaningless to them. However, we also can't look at these seemingly contradictory thoughts and feelings in pure black and white terms. Sometimes, while they may seem contradictory on some level or another, they may make a great deal of sense.
One prime example of this is with regard to the taking of life.
Most people believe that when one's life is being threatened, it is morally reasonable to take another's life in defense of one's own.
We then get into trickier territory when talking about abortion, capital punishment, and eating meat.
Many on the far-left end of the political spectrum support abortion rights, are against capital punishment, and are vegetarian, while many on the far-right are against abortion rights, support capital punishment, and have no qualms about eating meat.
Are both sets of beliefs not contradictory on a certain level? Yet, couldn't both sets of beliefs also make sense in some contexts?
With the first example (the far-left), it could be seen as contradictory since it would appear that on the surface, these people believe in the rights of animals and convicted felons over those of unborn babies. However, it could make consistent sense if these same individuals were against abortion rights after the unborn child was officially a living, breathing person.
For the far-right example, it could be seen as contradictory, since it would appear that while they don't support the rights of animals, they fully support the rights of unborn babies, and don't believe people on death row should be afforded any rights. However, if one were to look at this as a societal hierarchy, animal life could be seen as less valuable than human life, and while the convicted felons may have been afforded the values of life at one point, they rid themselves of such privileges when taking the life of another.
For myself, I believe in abortion rights up to a certain point, unless the mother's (and child's potentially) health is in jeopardy. However, if a point has been reached in the pregnancy where the baby can truly be called such and the mother's health isn't in jeopardy, I have a difficult time supporting the measure. If I had to label myself as either pro-choice or pro-life, I'd call myself pro-choice, but with an asterisk next to it. Staying consistent on the taking of life theme, I'm against capital punishment. It costs the state much more money than most people realize, has been shown to increase crime around the area in the following days and weeks (known as the brutalization effect), innocents have been killed by way of the death penalty, and I honestly think it's harsher punishment to place an individual in prison for life than to execute them after 15-20 years in prison. Where I find my inconsistency is with regard to eating meat. I was born and raised in Nebraska, on beef, pork, and poultry. While I love animals, particularly my dog, perhaps in my own mind, I see some animals as being born to provide food for humans. I sometimes find myself having trouble rationalizing that position, but like with the other potential scenarios I laid out, the seemingly contradictory belief(s) are likely contradictory on some level, yet consistent on another.
The human mind is a fascinating, yet puzzling entity, and while I often times have difficulty understanding others' minds, I sometimes even have difficulty understanding my own, and I have a feeling I'm not alone in that regard. Based on all the contradictions I've heard spouted by politicians, I'm beginning to think it's a pre-requisite for them to understand their own mind about as much as a newborn baby understands quantum physics.
One prime example of this is with regard to the taking of life.
Most people believe that when one's life is being threatened, it is morally reasonable to take another's life in defense of one's own.
We then get into trickier territory when talking about abortion, capital punishment, and eating meat.
Many on the far-left end of the political spectrum support abortion rights, are against capital punishment, and are vegetarian, while many on the far-right are against abortion rights, support capital punishment, and have no qualms about eating meat.
Are both sets of beliefs not contradictory on a certain level? Yet, couldn't both sets of beliefs also make sense in some contexts?
With the first example (the far-left), it could be seen as contradictory since it would appear that on the surface, these people believe in the rights of animals and convicted felons over those of unborn babies. However, it could make consistent sense if these same individuals were against abortion rights after the unborn child was officially a living, breathing person.
For the far-right example, it could be seen as contradictory, since it would appear that while they don't support the rights of animals, they fully support the rights of unborn babies, and don't believe people on death row should be afforded any rights. However, if one were to look at this as a societal hierarchy, animal life could be seen as less valuable than human life, and while the convicted felons may have been afforded the values of life at one point, they rid themselves of such privileges when taking the life of another.
For myself, I believe in abortion rights up to a certain point, unless the mother's (and child's potentially) health is in jeopardy. However, if a point has been reached in the pregnancy where the baby can truly be called such and the mother's health isn't in jeopardy, I have a difficult time supporting the measure. If I had to label myself as either pro-choice or pro-life, I'd call myself pro-choice, but with an asterisk next to it. Staying consistent on the taking of life theme, I'm against capital punishment. It costs the state much more money than most people realize, has been shown to increase crime around the area in the following days and weeks (known as the brutalization effect), innocents have been killed by way of the death penalty, and I honestly think it's harsher punishment to place an individual in prison for life than to execute them after 15-20 years in prison. Where I find my inconsistency is with regard to eating meat. I was born and raised in Nebraska, on beef, pork, and poultry. While I love animals, particularly my dog, perhaps in my own mind, I see some animals as being born to provide food for humans. I sometimes find myself having trouble rationalizing that position, but like with the other potential scenarios I laid out, the seemingly contradictory belief(s) are likely contradictory on some level, yet consistent on another.
The human mind is a fascinating, yet puzzling entity, and while I often times have difficulty understanding others' minds, I sometimes even have difficulty understanding my own, and I have a feeling I'm not alone in that regard. Based on all the contradictions I've heard spouted by politicians, I'm beginning to think it's a pre-requisite for them to understand their own mind about as much as a newborn baby understands quantum physics.
Comments
Post a Comment