I'll be honest. I tend to flip-flop across the political spectrum. I'm not saying that I'm a turncoat and that I change my opinions at whim (that is not to say that changing opinions is wrong, since a critical person should be willing to change his opinion upon bring proven incorrect, but I digress). I'm saying that my beliefs and opinions tend to vary drastically depending on the issue, and thus it is difficult to place myself firmly in one place on the political map. Upon ruminating on the way home however, it dawned on me that I should have some sort of underlying logic to what my beliefs are, and though I've always formulated my beliefs objectively and reasonably, I've never sought to deductively expound the way I view things. To adhere to internal consistency, I felt that I should have firm tenets as to how I go about my experience on earth, so that I may also easily revise them should I be proven wrong otherwise. Thus, I wrote this piece out to try to explain, both to myself and to whoever is reading this, how I come to my opinions.
My opinions, be it ethical, political, or otherwise, tend to stem from the following personal tenets:
1. My opinions and actions should lead to the achievement of happiness for myself, and for the general populace. If there is conflict, my happiness can be given up provided that inconsequential suffering is not an alternative.
2. The happiness of the general public may be scrutinized in certain situations when other people are subjected to oppression for the sake of the general public's own happiness. This should also be adherent to the view that each and every person should have the opportunity to live his or her life to the maximum potential.
3. My opinions should be approached from a scientific view, namely that propositions and conclusions follow sound logic, and if possible, should be supported by evidence and data. If there is a conflict between evidence and logic, I would adhere primarily to evidence first, as the world should be dictated by what it is rather than what we deem it ought to be. Authority and dogma have no place here.
4. The third tenet may be subject to exceptions on the rare occasions that it may contradict with the first two tenets.
5. Society is a dynamic entity that evolves over time. Science as well is a dynamic process that leads to revisions and additions of new information and knowledge over time, thus, opinions may be subject to change as information comes in over time.
6. There is generally no right or wrong answer, but there are better answers based on logic, evidence and circumstance. Reconciliation and compromise may be possible, but not always.
2. The happiness of the general public may be scrutinized in certain situations when other people are subjected to oppression for the sake of the general public's own happiness. This should also be adherent to the view that each and every person should have the opportunity to live his or her life to the maximum potential.
3. My opinions should be approached from a scientific view, namely that propositions and conclusions follow sound logic, and if possible, should be supported by evidence and data. If there is a conflict between evidence and logic, I would adhere primarily to evidence first, as the world should be dictated by what it is rather than what we deem it ought to be. Authority and dogma have no place here.
4. The third tenet may be subject to exceptions on the rare occasions that it may contradict with the first two tenets.
5. Society is a dynamic entity that evolves over time. Science as well is a dynamic process that leads to revisions and additions of new information and knowledge over time, thus, opinions may be subject to change as information comes in over time.
6. There is generally no right or wrong answer, but there are better answers based on logic, evidence and circumstance. Reconciliation and compromise may be possible, but not always.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that this is far from a complete ethical guideline, and thus it's be stupid to dub it some form of "Rozeeism". I'll also be the first to acknowledge that it's not 100% coherent, as this is a work in progress guided by the continued encounters with political, philosophical and ethical dilemmas. However, it does, in a nutshell, paint a simple picture about my opinions on the world. For example, you can follow from my tenets that I generally adhere to a liberal view of societal makeup, due to my belief that everyone should be able to live their lives to maximal potential. This makes me in favor of gay marriage, and the legalization (though regulated) use of marijuana. This also makes me lean towards the regulation of economics, due to my view that corporations which control more wealth tend to have greater ability to gain more wealth, thus requiring the state to keep things in check. I personally view no need for nationality, as I believe the state should exist to protect those adhering to it, yet I believe that who is included in the state is arbitrary brought about by the chance of birth, thus there should be no need to pit one group against another group.
I believe it is important to highlight the role of science in my beliefs. Science is a way of thinking and scrutinizing, and it tends to go beyond political interest. It is also highly self correcting, making it ideal for internal consistency and co to use coherence. Thus, I view science as the great neutralizer, keeping myself objective and unbiased to a certain degree. Typical left wing and right wing groups tend to have their own fair share of science denial, and this blatant denial of reality baffles me. The opposition of GMOs by the left and the denial of climate change by the right clearly shows the vested interests of these groups, and has taught me to not blindly adhere to political standards just because it is the norm with your general leaning.
If one should insist on labels, I'm (probably) a humanist freethinker who adheres to social liberty and economic socialism, with a primarily utilitarianism world view. All these aspects of my identity are interconnected, and form the basis of my opinions on different things, from the environment, to health, to GMOs, to the implementation of our laws, to who I vote for, to our human rights, to the use of vices and to education. They also dictate how I go about life, how I want to make people better through health, education and policy.
