I Do What I Want!!!

I have been known to say the above statement quite often. The purpose of this blog is to explain why-- so if that doesn't interest you, you might as well just move right along. For anyone who is planning to venture ahead into the thoughts and ideas of Chris Casler, be warned; the journey is likely to become overly philosophical and possibly nonsensical, and it will definitely be reminiscent of Ayn Rand.

First of all, this all stems from some discussions in Philosophy class in college, and reading a ton of books (mostly Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein). The concepts of duty, responsibility, sacrifice, selfishness, and morals are all involved with my little mantra. Oh yes, they all came out to play. So here's how it is in my book: I think it is morally right to make yourself happy. Now this simple statement can be complicated exponentially by pointing out that what makes some happy does not make all happy. And, what makes some happy will always make at least one person unhappy. So where do I draw the line?

I'm trying not to lead into a rabbit trail but I'm going to a little bit here. I personally draw the line when one person's actions are harming someone else. This harm could be physical, emotional, or economical. However, any system like that is going to be taken advantage of by whiners and looters, which is a topic for a different day.

So, please accept that I think it is morally right to make yourself happy, but there are certain responsibilities everyone has. These responsibilities arise from the possible consequences making yourself happy could have on the rest of society. There's a logical cause-effect chain. I think this is the main difference between a responsibility and a duty. A duty has no cause. Semantics aside, duty as I am using it here is when someone feels the need to take some action that does not make them happy, simply because they feel some societal necessity. Allow me to illustrate through use of a few examples:

A) A person(a) in the military call out another military member(b) for having a wrinkled shirt.
-Well (a) did this for (most likely) one of two reasons. Either they felt some duty driven need to call them out just because "that's what we do" or they did so because they were protecting their happiness. By this I mean maybe they take pride in their uniform, so (b) was harming that happiness. Or maybe (a) doesn't like seeing people get in trouble so they thought they were saving (b) some trouble. In the end, that is still looking after the happiness of (a) since they are stopping something that makes them unhappy.

B) Someone spends $1000 on a Coach purse.
-In this case, the person may just really like purses, thus they are making themselves happy. Maybe they collect purses, or even wanted it as a status symbol. Maybe they wanted it because they want to feel like a celebrity. All these things are motivated by a personal desire to provide for their own happiness. Now let's say they felt a "duty" to get the purse because everyone else in the neighborhood already had one. In this case, they wouldn't feel good about spending the money for it, or owning it, but they would feel a strong need to be seen with it. You could replace purse with tattoo or Christmas lights, or anything really.

Again, I want to stress this is all my own personal philosophy, and I am not trying to dictate as the Truth with a capital T. I think that people tend to think these "duties" make them good people, respectable people, or powerful people. In my book, doing anything for other than selfish reasons is probably not a good idea. That sounds bad, but think about it. If Mattson Mattson got in some trouble and needed cash quick, and he called me and said "hey! I need $10,000 you better sell your call and help me out or I'm going to be in some trouble!" I would do it in a second. It may not seem like that's selfish, but I am still looking after my own happiness. Personally, I kinda like Matt and I want to keep him out of trouble, so its going to make me happy in the end. Others may like to help people or may have any number of reasons that make them happy. The thing is, I would never consider that a duty, or a sacrifice for my friend. If I care about someone, then their well-being is what makes me happy. Therefore (cause-effect) it can be my responsibility. The point is, I've got a reason. That's why I do what I want all the time, because doing what I want means I have reasons behind my actions, and I (try to) never act based solely on what I think I "should" be doing (i.e. duty). I guess the ironic thing is that whatever the mentality, the action is usually the same. I just think that looking at it as I do is what keeps a smile on my face day in and day out-- because everything I do, I do to make my life better, or keep it good!

I really don't know if this all makes sense to anyone except me, so please comments and let me know what you think if you made it through that mess.

The End of Days?

Alright so this needs a small preface...

I have finally decided to start a blog, mostly in response to Josh and Mandi's postings about the various workings of our society. I've read pretty much all of Josh's blogs, and most of Luke's Blogerella, and I know upfront my writings will probably never have the poise and clarity of thought of those two fine gentlemen, who are my dear brothers. Another small disclaimer- the following may seem bitter, and I do promise to strive against that; but in my defense...to each their own.

Another of my brothers, Matt, sent me an email today describing a new video game (sweet!) based on the "Left Behind" novels. I actually read the first three (of fourteen) of these novels, and enjoyed them until they became entrenched in a soap opera-like plot that was already eleven books long. However, after reading up on the video game, I was absolutely shocked and disgusted. Apparently the goal is to control an army of Christian soldiers in a post-apocalyptic America, and convert the nation while installing a Theocratic government. Killing anti-Christians won't give you points, but forcefully converting them will!!!! And oh yes, killing them may be necessary too...the following is a quote from the game's website http://www.eternalforces.com/features.aspx, "Conduct warfare using the power of PRAYER and WORSHIP as more powerful weapons than guns." Ok, this upsets me so much maybe I should take it apart a piece at a time.

First of all, let's get this straight. This is a Christian video game about taking over the world. No ifs ands or buts, that is what it is, plain and simple. "But Chris!! It happens after the rapture when the world is in disarray and the Pure will need to lead the others out of darkness before the End!!!" Ok, believe it or not, I respect that many wonderful people believe this. However, maybe the developers of this game do not understand that many wonderful people also do NOT believe this. And I think anyone would be hard pressed to support the claim that Americans would willingly elect a Theocracy- not because it is wrong, but because it is so outrageously opposite the Constitution. But that doesn't matter, because this Christian army of soldiers would use their powers of prayer to recruit (or kill) everyone, and thus save humanity.

...

Ok, next-- I don't know whats worse--the fact that killing non-Christians makes you lose a point or that converting them gives you two. Am I the only one who noticed that these were the only two options available? In my (possibly warped and definitely biased) mind, a game like Grand Theft Auto (which is just pure violence) is not even as bad as this, because it is pure indiscriminate violence. In the Left behind game, it is very blatant that the Christians will live while the others will die.

This leads me to my conclusion. If anyone has journeyed with me in this emotional and bitter ride of mine, I hope you will at least concede this conclusion makes sense. The developers of this game, and those who consider it moral do not only believe in Christianity, they believe in forcing it down the collective throats of the rest of the world. How dare these people call anyone else a terrorist. Believing anything is a choice. Many people would say it is deeper than that; it is a feeling that emanates from a person's very soul. I'm OK with that too, but the fact is it that a belief is something that others could percieve as non-permanent. That is to say, some people will always try to change the minds of others because they feel that a) it is possible, and b) it is their duty. What this game says to the often inaccurate yet slightly overactive mind of Chris Casler is this: We Will Change Your Belief, Or You Will Die. Dramatics aside, I still want to look out for a pixelated version of myself to some degree.

Yes, I did start with "To each their own," and I stand by that statement. However, there is only one way to answer violence, and that is with more violence. So if a catastrophic religious army of any sorts ever tries to change my belief, well then my "own" will change drastically. I would share a beer with any person of any faith any day, but if anyone tries to take mine away...then as Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or give me death."