Passion

People believe that ideas can be dangerous, and being passionate about an idea can be even more dangerous. Because we have seen and learned about innumerable horrifying crimes committed by people with incredibly strong conviction about their ideas. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the Cultural Revolution are just 3 examples that come to mind immediately. As a result, we are told by today's society that we should be tolerant of other ideas and not be too "arrogant" as to think that we are right and others are wrong. It seems that if we say to ourselves that there is really no one right answer, then we're bound to build towards a more tolerant and peaceful society.

But is passion dangerous per se? Sure, if you are passionate about a belief that tells you to kill people who didn't do what you tell them to do, then that is dangerous. If you act on a belief that tells you to enslave people of a different race because they're sub-human, then that is dangerous. But what if you believed in freedom, reason, and respecting other people? What if you believed in living an independent life of happiness? Is passion about these ideas dangerous too? Socrates believed in reason so strongly that he was willing to die for his belief in it. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in freedom so strongly that they risked their lives to gain and protect it. How can you equate these men with the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

It is ideas that are dangerous, not the passion. Holding evil ideas, even if very weakly, can be dangerous. Would Hitler have been able to succeed had he not had the acquiescence of the general German public? Would the extreme part of Islam today succeed if the rest of "moderate" Islam is largely silent as acts of unspeakable evil are committed? If you hold a dangerous idea, then even if you don't act on it, you are still dangerous. That's because you will simply acquiesce to those who would act on it.

Why would people think that passion is dangerous? Because passion makes people ACT. So to tell people "it doesn't matter WHAT you believe in, just don't be too passionate about it", is to say that the only good idea is to not act on your ideas. To believe in an idea so stupid would be funny if only it wasn't so sad.

Three Huzzahs for SIR Rushdie

For those of you who have not heard, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. Of course, this promptly incited groups of Muslims in Pakistan to burn effigies of both Rushdie and the Queen in protest. Even Pakistan's national government is getting involved. Pakistani Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Khan Niazi told the National Assembly, "The 'sir' title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world. Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred."

I'm sorry Mr. Niazi, but my respect is not granted causelessly. You want my respect, you better freaking earn it. When your Minister of Religious Affairs says that "If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title", he is telling the world that you don't really want respect, you want fear. When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa that ordered Muslims around the world to kill Rushdie for the perceived injury that his words have done to Islam, that is also telling the world something. It says that the Ayatollah feared Rushdie's words so much that he was willing to resort to violent and terrorist tactics to try to silence the author. Please, Mr. Niazi, tell me how I can give my respect to someone who does not even respect the basic right to life of another person? How can I give my respect to someone who resorts to violence whenever he or she is insulted? How can I give my respect to someone who asserts that the mere existence of another person creates "religious hatred"? Have you no shame?!

Congratulations Sir Rushdie. I hope you live a peaceful and prolific life. And kudos to the U.K. -- for a country that is afraid to teach kids about the Holocaust because it fears offending holocaust deniers, I'm glad you've finally grown a bit of a backbone. I hope that in the future people all over the world will have the courage to fight, not for Queen and Country, but for Life and Liberty.

人之初

生命和理性是道德的充要条件。也就是说，道德并非社会关系的产物。就算世上只有一个人，他也需要在生活中做出选择。换一句话说，道德其实是人类自我保护及延续之本性的产物。社会关系只是这种本性的另一个产物。既然道德是建立在生命之上，那么就不可能对生命本身定下善或恶的结论。人之初，没有善和恶。一个人不能选择是否出生。没有了选择也就没有善和恶之分。如果可以对一个刚出生的婴儿甚或是一个未出生的胎儿定下善或恶评论，那么就也可以给凳子椅子铅笔钢笔甚至是每一个分子原子定下善恶来。这很明显是一种吃饱了撑着的行为，毫无意义。

道德的源泉

何谓道德？道德是一套用来衡量行为的准则。人在生活上永远会面临多个选择。但是人不是机器，不能自动地做出选择。所以才需要这么一个标准来帮人决定取舍。

这个道理很简单，但是有的时候简单的东西反而更难充分的理解。理解道德的关键就在“选择”这两个字上。这两个字是道德的来源，也注定只有人才会需要道德。一张板凳不需要道德。 你踢它它不能不动；你拿它打人它不会跟你说“施主且慢放下屠刀立地成佛阿弥陀佛”。可见活着是道德的必要条件。可是光是活的还不够。一棵树是活的，但也不需要道德。风吹过来它不能不动。你砍它的枝节它不能躲闪。它对外界变化的反应是完全自动的。

人能够有选择是因为人有意识和理性。感性认知让人有了对存在的意识，然后理性认知帮人了解宇宙的规律。有了理性才有选择。有了选择才需要道德。所以说，生命和理性是道德的充要条件。正确的道德必须以这两点为基础。