Hello, strangers!

This has been the longest I've gone without posting a single thing since I first purchase this domain and switched over my Instagram account to What John Wrote. I could make a dozen excuses, but I don't see the need. I just didn't post anything. I wrote things--in fact: I think I was writing more than ever.

...That might not be true. Who knows? Who cares?

Point is: I'm writing another one of these Sunday Posts, and I'm going back to the initial spirit of avoidind the delete key. I'm even using my old distraction-free writing program that doesn't underline a single thing.

All right, back on the horse:

I wrote a post...a year ago now(?) about focus and attention, the point being: it's not your job to STAY focused; it's your job to RETURN your focus to whatever demands it. I suppose that's questionable advice when it comes to driving, but the main message was: we often can't control when distractions pull our attention away from what we're "supposed" to be doing. (There's a whole other post on the phrase "supposed to" somewhere.)

It's not an active decision to get distracted; we often don't choose to stray from the thing we're trying to work on. It just kind of happens, and carries on a few moments (or minutes) before that active/aware part of our brain flickers back on and says, "heyyy wait a sec!" Since it wasn't an active decision, our immediate reaction shouldn't be to scold ourselves for it. If you're going to beat yourself up over something, let it be for active decisicions to conciously make. (Also: don't beat yourself up; it's counter-productive.)

Anyway, I made that post. And then there I was: VERY distracted from this act of sharing my thoughts and random snippits of creative writing. And now I'm going to treat it the same way I would a micro-distraction. I'm going to shrug off the part where I strayed, and just get back to it.

'Cause the number of times you return to something you get pulled away from is far more important than the number of consistent days you put in.

...that doesn't sound right.

They're both important. Let's leave it at that.

Now, there was something else I wanted to write about today.

Almost forgot it, but I got it back. Nice.

The Trolley Problem! (With real-world applications!)

One of the first philosophical ramblings I posted was on the Trolley Problem. No idea if there was any merit to it and I'm not in the habit or re-reading old posts. So, let's just recap.

The point of the Trolley Problem is to put Consequentialism up against Deontology; is it morally right to pull a lever and send a trolley towards a guy tied to the track if in doing so you redirect a train away from five people?

I ended that post (which I admittedly did just go read while writing that last paragraph) by asking questions about inaction to really muddy the waters. Is ignoring the lever the same as flipping it away from the one man and into the five? The dedicated consequentialist would say they're the same: whether you took deliberate action or willfully ignored the whole problem, the same outcome occured; five people died and the blood's on your hands.

I find myself liking this argument more and more lately. To me: deontology (or doing the "right" thing in the moment, ignoring the consequences) is selfish. You're keeping your own conscience clean at the expense of the greater good. Think the five people on the track care about what actions you take/don't take to save/doom them? They don't. Only you do. Your morality arguments don't mean jack shit to them or their families.

So, to me (as of now): doing nothing to prevent/alleviate harm is as morally wrong as actively participating in causing harm. Hoarding wealth or witholding aid is as wrong as actively stealing.

That's what I think from a strictly logical angle, at least. In practice, it gets a little muddier. I could, for example, give up all my organs and save a dozen lives. Trade my one life for twelve? Sounds morally right. But I'm not going to do that, and I don't think the world would be a better place if each and every one of us were martyrs. I don't even think we should be obligated to donate all our wealth and forego the pleasures life offers.

So I'm going to make this easy on myself: witholding that which we could reasonably afford to spare is morally reprehensible.

Real-world time:

We ignore a lot of trolleys in our lives, and based on my new embrace of consequentialism-based inaction-is-akin-to-negative-action view on morality: we're doing a terrible job.

The fact that a single person dies of hunger in the world while billionaires exist is mind-boggling. I'm guilty of not doing enough, myself, of course, but I also hold Jeff Bezos personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people he could save with the snap of his fingers. Based on my new way of looking at things: his greed and/or apathy is akin to mass murder.

Another example I've thought a lot about lately is the general notion of equality.

Preface: I think this is probably based in/explained more thoroughly in critical race theory, but I'm going to just go off on my own anyway.

Have you heard people say things like, "if you're not anti-racist, then you're racist?" Have you perhaps heard one of my favorite songs of the last year, Chapter 319, where the hook says, "if you vote for Donald Trump again, you're a white supremecist."

It's a confusing time to be apathetic when it comes to racism and equality, and for a while, I was on the side of "you're just redefining racism to make all white people guilty!"

But no, racism wasn't redefined, people are just taking a consequentialist view instead of a deontological one.

We used to think: as long as I don't say the wrong words or actively discriminate based on race, I'm good.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is: do our actions (or inactions) contribute to racist outcomes.

And boyyyy do they. You only have to look at three stats to see that: family wealth, education, and incarceration rates to know that race-based consequences exist.

A lot of people (*cough* Fox News) will say the evil actions were fifty years in the past and nothing more has happened since. While that's a lie, it is at least true that the prevelence of overt and deliberate evil actions has dramatically lessened.

Yet the consequences persist, so from a consequentialist view: the willfull ignorance and apathy that allows those consequences to persist are in themselves evil. The refusal to acknowledge and help alleviate racial inequality is racist.

And that's not a radical-liberal theory. That's not being woke. That's just an application one of the most popular moral philosophies.

You're allowed to disagree with it. The debate between consequentialism/deontology has been going on for centuries. Thing is: a lot of people who might skew to outcome-based morality simply apply it selectively.

And that, my friends, is racist.

I think that's enough for today. Sure is a lot for today. I guess that's what happens when I write on a patio with wings & beer.

Hopefully I'll talk to you again next week.

Until then, and as always: love ya.