First they sampled classics from the 60’s. Then they started sampling themselves. And now the new big thing is to sample indie bands. Here’s some of my favorite ones out out there. I only picked ones where I liked the remake and the original song.
Last week, I presented an article about why homophobia does not make sense from an economic point of view. If it hasn’t become obvious yet, I am pro-gay rights. As a psychology student and #yourtypicaleverydaycollegephilosopher, I’ve been wondering where (or if) the line is drawn for sexual preferences. For example, why are necrophilia, pedophilia, and zoophilia (beastiality) generally seen as “wrong?” In the following paragraphs, I’ll very briefly summarize why necrophilia and pedophilia are morally wrong, whereas zoophilia may be morally permissible. All of the following arguments are built on the argument that sex is not only for reproductive reasons anymore.
I am not advocating any of these acts. The thought of each of these sexual preferences actually disgusts me, which is precisely the reason I wanted to think about them from a morality perspective.
Pedophilia is morally wrong due to the fact that a child is not of able mind to truely provide consent. A child is capable of making their own moral choices once they have come of age and their brain has fully evolved.
Necrophilia is morally wrong because human beings at their inner-core show respect for the dead. It can be argued that it is a biological drive due to the fact that animals, such as elephants, show respect for the dead and are even seen doing “funerals.” Out of respect for the dead, we should honor their inability to consent. If an individual “okays” the act on their corpse before death (maybe in their will), then the act becomes morally permissible. We would have two consenting adults and nothing else.
Zoophilia is much more complicated. The primary issue is: do animals have rights? I’ve done some research on this; the most beneficial were the two extreme arguments . Peter Singer argues for the equality of animal rights, whereas Tibor R. Machan believes animals do not have rights. Of course there is no way to truely argue for either side without having some debatable arguments. From what I’ve read and think, I do believe animals do not have rights. Rights are for beings that are capable of being morally responsible. Human beings posess the autonomy to do morally correct or incorrect things, whereas animals are biologically driven with all of their choices. There are instances of animals showing morality, but as a whole they operate without the ability to do so. Thus, a being that is unable to operate with morality is not entitled to the same rights as human beings who are able to do so. Machan discusses how one counterargument is that sometimes children or mentally disabled individuals are unable to make moral choices. This may be so, but as a species humans are capable of making moral choices. Thus, every human being is entitled to those rights, because eventually they will be capable or they are mentally handicapped.
Other than rights, the biggest issue with zoophilia is ability to consent. One very selfish way to look at consent is that if animals do not have rights, it should not matter if they can or cannot consent. Another way is to respect animal’s ability to consent by whether they allow it or show signs of fighting. As a result, I believe it is possible to argue that zoophilia is morally permissible.
I wrote this very briefly, which is why my arguments are not written very well. The point of this is to get people wondering why is that certain things seem disgusting and whether it should be that way?
This article was written by my friend Brad Calder. I thought it was an interesting viewpoint and I agree with everything written. If you enjoyed this, check out his blog: http://acmereport.blogspot.com/
As most of us know, it is generally considered an insult to call someone gay. Furthermore, many people harbor feelings of distrust, resentment, or even hatred towards gay males. These sentiments are more often than not held by straight males. It is my opinion that not only are these feelings totally immoral (naked prejudice is immoral), but more interestingly, totally irrational.
Consider the following argument.
Argument for the irrationality of straight male homophobia directed at gay males:
1. If you are a rational straight male then one of your primary goals is to seek a female to sleep with/date/marry/etc.
2. If you are a rational straight male then you want to spend the least amount of energy (have the lowest search cost) when seeking a partner.
3. If every other male was gay besides yourself, then the cost of finding a partner would be close to zero considering the fact that there would be no competition what so ever to find a partner. (Assuming that the current female population did not change, as in most of them were straight)
4. Because a rational straight male would want to find a partner at the lowest possible cost, the rational straight male should hope that EVERY other male was gay besides himself. As he would not have to compete even for the most desirable mate. He would essentially have a monopoly in the market for straight males.
5. Therefore, being homophobic (resenting gay people, or in other words wishing there were less gays) is totally irrational.
This logic is strikingly obvious to me. Of course this analysis is constrained by the fact that it also implies that homophobia against lesbians is quite rational. Although this fact makes the present state of homophobia more problematic. This is because most straight males wish there were MORE lesbians, or at least enjoy thinking about them. It seems weird to me that many homophobic straight males do not recognize the irrationality of their position.