Great Philosophical Puzzles

If you've read Ride The Movement page (and you really should've by now), you'll know all about The Movement. And you'll also have read the Fundamental Philosophical Laws page where I lay down some philosophical laws in a bid to solidify the philosophy upon which a system can be built.

The point of THIS page is to solve the topical, sometimes controversial, philosophical dilemmas holding the front pages today. These are puzzles, to me, that I haven't settled on a definite answer. By coming up with solutions to issues such as those below, we can start to come up with those fundamental laws that will form the tenets of a real system by which we can live with total freedom.

Let's crack on.

Remember, it's up to you to give your take. Think over the puzzles, see if you can come up with some solutions, ideas or suggestions and write them in the 'Comments' box down below.

Here goes…

Is The Marriage Contract Moral?

I've pretty much decided against ever getting married, being that I'm an atheist, and hence walking down the aisle would be a complete contradiction of that. But the irrational, religious, ceremonial nonsense aside - a bigger mystery entirely, and something that just doesn't sit well with me, is the concept of a contract between two humans in an indefinite, relationship capacity.

There are theories put forward that state that a man and a woman are meant only to remain together until offspring are conceived, born and raised to a self-sufficient age, at which point the father is free to 'spread his seed' elsewhere, thus ultimately stacking the odds in his favour that his genes will be passed on.

There is, indeed, logic, there.

But why is it, then - if not as prevalent in today's generations - that some couples can remain together for decades - sometimes life? Is it forced, unnecessary and pointless? By staying having children with only one woman, is the loyal man reducing his chances of his genes continuing on?

Or in today's medically advanced climate, where people live longer, does it negate the need for a man to have multiple intimate partners, since there is greater chance that one or two children will be enough to secure his blood line?

Is Monogamy Right?

Men wander. That's what women will tell you But the statistics show women can be just as unfaithful as men. So why is that? Why do people have a roving eye? My 'Value' theory suggests that each person has his own value - a level out of ten - and that value is comprised of various traits and skills - all with their own, individual value, that contribute to and make up the overall value.

The more a person improves their value, the more value they attract into their life - including other people of like value. These people can be of a friend, romantic and professional capacity. Value attracts like value. It is possible for one to increase or decrease their own value, and become out of synch with their partner/s. And because value attracts equal value, it is only natural that a mismatch in value will favour an attraction of a more equal match.

All this makes sense, but who says we should have just ONE romantic partner? Is it natural to have just one? Is it natural to have more than one? In keeping with the 'Marriage' puzzle, are we supposed to only stay with one partner whilst bringing up a child to a self-sustainable age, and then move on to do it again, thus securing our genes' future? Is this more applicable to men? What about having multiple partners? Harems, concubines, boy toys, mistresses, bits-on-the-side - is it natural? Or is it a weakness?

This is an important issue, because society as a whole is dogmatic in its insistence that a person should only be with 'the one'. And those that favour more than one are typically scorned and labelled as immoral. This is especially relevant to women, who can be branded 'sluts' for having more than one male partner. Whereas the playboy gets high fives and legend status from the boys, and "naughty boy" shakes of the head from women. What's right?

Is It Right To Stay With A Romantic Partner In The Name Of Love - If They Become Ill?

Let's just say that you meet the one of your dreams. You click in every way, it feels right, you build a life together, and you plan for the future. You're dancing on air! You will never again be lonely. But then they get cancer, and are given eighteen months to live. It's a harsh example, but it happens.

My question is, should you stay with them? Most people reading this will probably want to kill me now, but I ask from a standpoint to reason. To this day, we only have proof that we have ONE life, ONE take, ONE chance to do all the things we wanted to do with our lives. With that knowledge, then, what are we to do when we know that eighteen months of that will be taken up caring for someone?

An illness decreases one's value, as it renders one physically unfit, and physical fitness makes up a large part of one's value as a human being. And as value attracts value, if your partner's value drops, you are left with a choice - stay with them and see your own value drop, or leave with your value intact. This, of course, is selfish. But selfishness is what I teach.

One's own life should be the most important to oneself. Eighteen months is a long time to be caring for someone, and a long time out of one's life. The question is, what if that sick partner is so special to you, that you just couldn't bear a life without them? What then? Does it behoove you in this instance, to help bring them back up to full health? Is the temporary drop in value worth it if it means picking up where you both left off before the illness? What do you think?

If Sex Is A Physical Sin, And Only Meant For Procreation - Why Is It So Fun?

Well, drugs are fun, but they're not good for you in the long run. Getting drunk's fun, but that's not too good for you, either. Eating sweets - mmm! - they're not healthy, though. But surely not everything fun is bad for you? No, of course, not. That's what life is all about. It's reflected in my personal mission statement: To live my life to maximum capacity as a human being. And that includes doing things which are fun, which takes care of my spiritual side.

The secret is to rationally decide which spiritual activities are bad for you in the long run. Driving fast cars fast is fun, as long as you're a good driver and can't harm others. Rollercoasters are fun, as long as the ride is safe. Watching a good film is good, as long as you don't spend your whole life on the sofa.

So who says sex is bad for you in the long run? The religious, that's who. Religion (some of them) teaches us that sex is a sin of the flesh, that it should only be practised in the name of procreation. But objectively, there is no evidence that recreational sex is bad for us. Sure, all day and all night, every day of the year is excessive, if only because it detracts from keeping the rest of you balanced. Bad balance equals - you guessed it: a decline in value.

But a few times a week, as long as the rest of you is balanced, is a good thing, surely? Sex is a spiritual act, a celebration of appreciation of all those involved. Surely it was meant to be enjoyed? Why do women have a clitoris? The clitoris actually comes from the same tissue that develops into the glans of the male penis. It has twice the number of nerve endings as the penis and, because it is so much smaller, it is ultra sensitive.

Women's orgasms can last minutes, or much longer, compared to a man's, which can be over in seconds. Men have one orgasm and then lose their arousal. Women can have orgasm after orgasm - and many different kinds, too. Doesn't it makes sense, then, that women would want to enjoy sex as much as possible on a recreational basis?

Or was the clitoris developed to make sex more pleasurable to women, and hence make them less reluctant and more willing to submit to the man, thus ensuring the human seed is spread? If that is the case, is it a sin to enjoy sex on a recreational level? Is it wrong to use condoms? Is it wrong to waste potential sperm? Or are humans an amazing race that has invented a way that allows us to enjoy sex without having to bear unwanted children?

So many questions, but what is the truth?

How Would Health Care Run In A Purely Free Society?

Imagine a completely free society. Nobody is forced to part with their money to contribute to organisations they don't want to support - and oftentimes, NEVER use. Every institution that today is run by the state, for the public, via involuntary contributions (theft) is, in our visionary world, privately run. I.e., private companies that are funded by those that choose to use them - just like any other company providing products/services.

Here, the people are blessed with freedom of choice with how they spend their money. And, since nothing is provided free, the onus is on every individual to use his innate, infinite, human potential, to work hard, to become something, to be able to afford the normally-free services, to increase their quality of life, thus improving the overall state of the human race.

Now consider this hypothetical event. You're out and about, enjoying your day, getting things done, etcetera, etcetera. You turn the corner, and are met with a man, crumpled in a heap on the pavement. He appears to be in a lot of pain. Agony, in fact. You reason that if this man doesn't receive help shortly, he will die.

What do you do? Who do you call?

Would he be carrying a 'private health care' card that you can whip out and call, thus summoning an ambulance, funded by members such as him, that will whisk him off to the comfort of his private membership hospital?

What if he hasn't got a card? Should you help him? You don't know him. What if you're super-busy? How about if countries and cities were split into zones, where only private membership allowed you in certain areas where they had private health care, included in the membership - like an autonomy. Would that work?

Is it your fault for leaving your house, knowing full well that this is one of things that can happen to you? Is it the man's fault for not taking care of himself? His fault for leaving his home? His fault for not being a private health care member?

Private health care is without question the answer, for the reasons given implicitly at the beginning of this dilemma. Noone should be made to part with money unless they are trading for a product or service they actually requested. But there are clearly things that need to be sorted.

Is Big Brother Destroying Our Privacy?

Today, closed-circuit television (CCTV) is used abundantly for many different reasons. Home owners and business owners use it fir the same reason: to ward-off and to potentially aid in convicting potential/criminals.

But more recently, it is being installed by councils in towns and cities for the same reasons. Even more recently, internet giant, Google, has begun a program to introduce their own street-level, static camera functionality on their map facility. Many are complaining that this is an invasion of privacy. But is it?

Does it come down to the whole freedom of choice thing, again? I.e., if you leave your house, you do so in full knowledge that you may be on camera? Or IS it a step too far? Or is it fine as long as the next step is not taken, like spying on you in your back garden, for instance? Is there a line and has it been crossed?

Or should it be something that you are made aware of and then, free that you are, able to move somewhere devoid of CCTV? Should one have the option to pay for their exclusion from the tape? Or should one have the ability to charge for their INCLUSION on the tape?

Where do YOU stand? Where SHOULD we stand?

Is It Right To Kill - Directly Or Indirectly - Animals In The Name Of Human Advancement And Survival?

We are constantly bombarded with news reports of animals threatened with extinction across the globe. A lot of the time, humans are either directly or indirectly the cause. Before I go on, I should point out that I'm pro-human, in that I hold our race in the highest esteem over any other, and I would fight tooth and nail to see ours the last race standing.

I would hope you feel the same.

But that doesn't mean it's right to go killing other forms of life without agenda. The thing is, human survival and advancement is a very real and rational agenda. We're talking about the survival of our race. It's no question we should be doing everything, individually, not only to survive, but to advance ourselves. There is no shame in this - as long as it's rational.

The question is, when animal rights activists are burning down laboratories, do they have a case? When they campaign for the protection of the dwindling numbers of polar bears on the melting ice caps, do they have a case? When vegetarians label farming as murder, do they have a case?

Well, let me be the voice of reason, here. It's really not okay to be irrationally harming humans in any way. To do so in the name of 'animal rights' is insane, and anti-human. The truth is that those guys in the white coats in the animal testing laboratories are not just messing around with rats and rabbits for fun. They're trying to find ways for humans to survive. That's called advancement.

Polar bears? Sure, studies show that the ice caps are melting, purportedly due to the effect of harmful, gaseous emissions from the earth depleting the ozone layer, the earth's shield from the sun, leaving the polar bears with less land to roam. Undoubtedly, some of the emissions are irrational waste. But most of it is surely the result of economic progression? Should we slow human advancement (ultimate survival) to keep a few polar bears alive?

What about meat-eating? Is it murder? Is a diet devoid of meat really as healthy as one containing it? As a race capable of rational thought, should we abstain from any form of animal suffering whatsoever?
We, as humans, have to progress. If we don't, we will eventually overpopulate and eat ourselves. I guess my real question is where do you draw the line? Is there a line?