Logic vs Feelings

“Insufficient facts always invite danger, Captain.”

“Space Seed,” Season 1, Episode 22

A quote from Mr. Spock in an episode of Star Trek where he chooses to see all the facts before making a decision. You have to look at facts before you can come to any conclusion.

How many stories over the past few weeks have we heard about the ‘absence of facts and evidence’. Taking, for example, the criminal court cases of rape against a number of young men. The cases have collapsed due to more evidence and facts being produced.

Another instance where a family has taken their court challenge against medical experts whether or not a child has their life support withdrawn, echoing the heart-breaking case of Charlie Gard, I wrote about last year.

I looked on twitter after the National Television Awards to see a certain programme who had won an award for drama. Some complained and said that another fact-based drama should have taken its place “after all it was based on a true story”.

Our ability to objectively see life is driven by our feelings and not logic. I think this has become a real problem in 21st-century society. We should do and act based on our feelings, rather than the facts that are presented before us. It’s a dangerous path to follow as consequences occur after our feelings have been enacted.

Take for example the terrorist Darren Osborne his thoughts and feelings had been catastrophic in events that took place in June last year. His intent was murder. He had been reading far-right material that changed his mindset and turned him into a serious criminal. His feelings towards Muslims had been radicalised and those thoughts turned to what he perceived to be revenge.

We all make decisions in life from the morning we wake until the time we sleep. We can choose to act on feelings but most of the time it is governed by logic. I feel like staying in bed all day (like a lot of people) but we know we have to get up and deal with tasks during the day to function correctly.

We chose to make decisions about life and beliefs in all walks of life. Click on an ordinary video on youtube. Say for example The Beatles – Yesterday everyone knows the song. A simple inoffensive song about love from the most famous band in the world written and released in 1965. Most people would say ‘yes it’s a nice song’ or ‘its okay’ and others might not like it. So you have a thousand people disliking this song. My attitude is to think if I dislike something not to totally dismiss it and press the dislike button but realise to others that this song has meaning and it’s not hurting anyone. Why press the dislike button but rather allow others to have an enjoyment of the song?

You could say the same for other people’s beliefs in life. Take for example Jacob Rees-Mogg. I don’t agree with his views on gay rights and find his opinions on abortion abhorrent and small-minded. But he has the right to say them as he is entitled to his opinion.

My mother didn’t like a Marc Chagall painting I used to hang over my fireplace. Saying rather that it should be in my bedroom than the living room. But the fireplace was mine and the painting stayed. Just because she didn’t like the painting was inconsequential, the fireplace was mine not hers.

Decisions in life have to her governed by thoughts, opinions and logic rather purely how we feel about things. I am not saying I am perfect certainly far from it. If it was all logical decisions about my life I would like a greek god rather than the size of a greek temple. I make bad choices for most of the time but I would like to think I was able to exercise right in allowing others to speak and sometimes I do listen. I don’t automatically press the dislike button just because that type of music (rave) is total garbage. I don’t react to others opinion on art just because they feel it is good.

Hopefully we can all think a little more like Spock.

Tim Farron – God before politics

Tim Farron (the leader of the Liberal Democrats) resigned today stating that he couldn’t reconcile his faith with his party’s politics, which begs to differ why he entered into the party in the first place, know their views on abortion and gay rights.

He became a committed Christian in 1988 and has held evangelical views for a number of years. But after all this time, why does he feel the need to ditch politics? Does he feel now he has reached a tipping point? Or was it really the fact that the LDs need a leader who represents the whole of society, rather than restrictive views which aren’t reflective of 21st century Britain.

Regardless of what you believe in a religious context the great good has to precede your idea of what should be happening in society. This is more apparent with the DUPs belief that all abortion should be made illegal. It comes from religion rather than a rational viewpoint which takes into consideration the life and the circumstances of the mother. Black and white thinking and relative morality has its past in 18th-century beliefs the majority has moved on.

 

 

Feminist views

I have a problem with some feminist views. I have been struggling with them for some time and wondering why I have a problem with moral issues associated with feminist belief.

The term “Rape culture” was first used in the USA in the 1970s by feminists who believed a society which normalised rape as a part of the society and sees it as pervasive due to certain values it held about women’s sexual identity and gender.

So what feminists are saying that somehow society doesn’t see it as being a bad thing or even a punishable crime in a society. They believe that making excuses of what a woman was wearing beforehand is part of this “rape culture”. It is prevalent and symptomatic throughout attitudes in the society and endemic to it.

I had some discussion with a female friend and thinking about high profile cases where men had been convicted of rape or had been acquitted. I found it interesting that some on social media platforms held the view that the man was guilty even if he had not be convicted in a court of law. That the woman must be believed and the circumstances of the case were that the jury must have been made to believe that the woman was making the whole thing up something again feminists believe is part of ‘rape culture’ that society sees women as unreliable liars.

Feminists believe in ‘rape society’ is that society is teaching women not to get raped rather than teaching men not to rape. This to me is where I find the stumbling block. Not that any sort of attack on a woman is abhorrent but that despite the calls of feminists to teach people not to rape there are ways that women should protect themselves but again I reiterate that feminist would say is part of rape culture and I am contributing to it by making sure a woman is keeping herself from harm.

I had to look further into this and see how ‘rape culture’ is viewed under various classifications of morality. The feminist view is an example of moral absolutism. The idea there shouldn’t be any way in which someone who has said that they have even raped could have contributed to it. Rape is if someone hasn’t given their consent. To me there are cases where the victim isn’t able to give consent such as age but what do we decide if a woman is so drunk she has sex but afterward saying that she wouldn’t have consented at the time.

Feminists argue that there shouldn’t be grey areas and that it is clear that all sex that hasn’t been consensual is rape. Is it really this clear-cut? We don’t hear of ‘murder culture’ or ‘robbery culture’ we look at the evidence to see if a crime has been committed and that is how the law and the courts deal with each case individually. As much as feminism would like to see perpetrators of rape be punished as they should it isn’t as clear as that. Sex is still sex and if you consent to it then it isn’t a crime. But how do you prove a crime has taken place when the evidence before a jury is that it is the word against another. There are no physical signs of trauma or force but the woman states she did not give consent.

A murder takes place and usually in most cases there is a body. Some cases have been prosecuted when there has been nobody found but this is rare. We have physical evidence in front of a jury if an autopsy has taken place and cause of death can be established. It is up to the prosecution to build the case for murder or if the death was unintentional manslaughter or culpable homicide as it is known in the USA.

A crime has a victim, a perpetrator, and evidence. Some will go to lengths to cover their crime and destroy evidence. A report of the crime of non-consensual sex or rape needs to have more evidence than saying I did not consent. If life wasn’t as clear-cut as this and crimes didn’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt then things would be different. That isn’t how things work in the UK. There are some societies where rape has been normalised in countries that are in the middle of civil war and rape has been used as a weapon and as a form of terrorist barbarism.

We know are those men who go out on a weekend with the intention of having sex with women. It happens. Men do that and so do women. On the gay scene, it’s no different. Men and women do go out on the pretence of a hookup.

I don’t believe a woman or a man should ever have to modify their clothes to justify not being attacked but both sexes do dress to feel and look good. We have all go out in the best clothes but it’s never so we feel good we do it so we get others to notice this is what makeup is for.

If you were on a desert island you don’t get dressed up just for yourself intention is their attraction is a part of life and the natural process of humans and animals. There are ways in which everyone should protect themselves that’s why doors have locks and cars have immobilisers. We don’t live in a society of absolute morals.