Moral Luck

If a person is born poor, and has no choice but to steal food, are they morally responsible for their actions? In other words, is what they did wrong? Should they be considered thieves or criminals? Will they be held accountable on the day of judgment? I think not. Think now of a rich person, someone who never has a need to steal or commit any un-moral act. Is this person more morally responsible for their actions?

Why should a poor starving individual be punished for fighting for survival? They had a choice, steal food or die. Nobody, not even the most moral people on the planet would choose to die. Does that mean that morality is relative? No. It means that when it comes to survival perhaps morals must be applied in a different way.

I, in no way, believe that morality is relative, based on the times, and on what is publicly acceptable. I believe that morals are eternal truths and behaviors, what is right will always be right. It will not change every year or so like social circumstances of relativists. They would have you believe that what is socially acceptable is okay. No matter what that is.

Style vs. Substance

Is style more important than substance? No. Why? The answer to that is a bit more complex. People tend to put more weight in style than in substance, but in reality substance is what matters. A politician could say that he would end the war in Iraq and he could say it in the coolest way and be the most charismatic politician around but in the end will he end the war? Probably not.

Style is often used as scam, a charade put up to convince and, possibly, to deceive. Style is our way to show our personality, our inner self, but who is that inner self? That is what matters. The way that inner self is expressed isn't important. People of substance know who they are and what they will and will not do. People of style will do whatever someone suggests. They are controlled by the whims of others, the stylish live to please, to portray the image that they think others want to see. People with substance are true to themselves they are individuals.

Politics are all about style, the most charismatic man or woman tends to be the one in charge. Granted, politicians need other talents but style is paramount in gaining public office. This type of politician plays on the whims of the people, he doesn't stand for what he believes, he stands for what he believes that people want him to stand for. This is where substance becomes important. Style is useful, yes, but when is comes to leadership substance is far more important. Especially when that leadership is in a position to enact change and make decisions. Only men of substance should be placed in a position of responsibility, they will make choices based on what they believe, men of style will do what the people want, even if public opinion is wrong.

We like style and we usually make decisions based on what "looks better" but the question we ask as we are making a decision should be, which is better? What is important is what something is, not what is appears to be.

The Indie Invasion has come!

Indie Invasion, the world's greatest radioshow (period) has launched a new website. It's great. For those of you who don't know Indie Invasion is an online radioshow that features all different kinds of Independant (ie. indie) Artists along with all the artist info you know you love. Check it out at indieinvasion.wordpress.com.