Morality, ethics and...stuff like that

Dear reader,








My new Moral Studies lecturer thinks he's a philosopher. But that's okay, since I think I'm a philosopher, too. What's not okay is he thinks he's smart. I think I'm smart, but at least I'm aware that I think I'm smart. He, on the other hand, is so unaware. Ignorance isn't always bliss, at least for the people forced to put up with the ignorant one's ignorant, blissful shenanigans. When he enunciates his points--which he does very often...at least once every 30 seconds--he will squint his eyes and cock his head upwards a little. As if he's enjoying the sound of his own voice so much he has to take a moment to savour it. Like you do with really good wine. He speaks with a slight but noticeable accent and sometimes, with mistaken pronunciation, but overall very good English. He just uses too many big words in one sentence; it makes him sound preachy and condescending. 




I don't really like him. He reminds me of this guy who was in the same orientation group as me. Man, was he a piece of work! A over-competitive show off, to put it simply. And he showed off about the stupidest things. For example: during one of the many 'welcome to Swinburne' speeches we had to endure in order to be 'oriented', I was doodling on a scrap piece of paper. As per usual. He spotted me scribbling away and proceeded to whip out his own piece of paper to follow me and doodle. Ah, but that's not all. Another orientation buddy looks at my doodles and says something to the effect of 'nice drawings'. He peers over and says, and I quote, "Oh, she beat me. She drew six and I only drew five." Right. I didn't even know we were in a contest. And the list goes on. He just loves to draw attention to himself. And when he tries to tell a joke or something, it's like watching one of those furry little animals being mangled and devoured by a pride of hungry lions on the Discovery channel. So embarrassing, it's almost physically painful. He was, of course, oblivious to his obviously lame sense of humour. And he had this smug look on his face, like he expected everyone to just burst out in paroxysms of uncontrollable laughter at his comedic genius. And guess what. This undesirable individual happens to be in my group for Moral Studies. Happy, happy...joy, joy.




Right, back to the subject at hand. Moral Studies is one of two compulsory subjects I have to take in order to be eligible for a degree, in Malaysia anyway. The other is Malaysian Studies, pretty much the history and politics of Malaysia. So anyway, I expected this Moral to be like the Moral we learnt in secondary school; memorizing wordy definitions and convoluted answering formulas, pure head-knowledge with no heart-wisdom. And when I say memorizing, I mean word-for-word. One word missing, or even replaced with its exact synonym, and you're outta there! No marks, no cigar. But, to my moderate delight, I was wrong. It's more like a philosophy class than an all-you-can-memorize fest.One downside, though...come exam time, I'll probably be sporting a caffeine-induced migraine, a pimple the size of a golf ball, and a severe case of writer's cramp. There's a lot of heavy stuff to wrap your head around in this subject, no getting away with last-minute cramming. Dang. And the upside? I'll...get to learn something new. And I'll be challenged. Yup. Great.




We'll be covering four topics during our seven whole weeks of intensive morality: Suicide, Abortion, the Death Penalty, and Euthanasia. Wonderful conversation starters, don't you think? I'm just glad a certain debate-crazy, argumentative guy isn't in my group this time. I swear, that boy argues for the sake of arguing. I hope some sort of Argumentative Boy Mach 2 doesn't make an appearance. I don't know most of the people in my class, it's a mixture of different foundation courses. Which should make discussions and such very interesting...or very hazardous. We'll just have to see.




Anyway. The lecturer and the show-offish-orientation-nerd-boy: they share a few common characteristics, disturbingly. They both love the sound of their own voice. They both have a faintly effeminate way of speaking, you know, with that almost-a-lisp thing going on--although the lecturer's effeminate streak is considerably more apparent than nerd-boy's...which is probably a bad sign. They both think they're funny; in fact, they share very similar senses of humour. Brusque, harsh, choppy. Like. This. And they're both Chinese. That's not really relevant, but I'm just listing down all their similarities. Covering all my bases or whatever. So I'm just waiting to see if he's anything like nerd-boy in real life, or if he just comes across that way when he has his lecturer 'hat' on. I have an inkling that it's the former. He claims to be a 'religious man'. No arguments there; Catholic and narrow-minded. Contrary to popular opinion, the words 'religious' and 'Christian' are not synonyms. And you know what the worst part is? He thinks he's open-minded. Of course, I disagree with almost everything he says. Almost.




He gave us examples, you know, to try and explain ethics and morality. One example was, if he left our midterm papers in the classroom accidentally, would we look at them? "Don't tell me you'd be so moralistic and honest to not look" he says, articulating the words as if they were insults. "Because if you don't look at them..." pause for effect "...then you're a fool." Well, it's not a direct quote. I don't recall if he said 'fool' or just 'stupid'. So in conclusion, being righteous is being stupid, is that it? He also said that there is a time to be morally upright and a time to be smart. Sorry, but I disagree. Oh, by the way, do you think it's funny that he said that, dear reader? The whole "if you don't, you're a fool" thing? Because when he did, the class burst out laughing. I didn't get what was so funny about it...I still don't get what was so funny about it.




Ah, another example: a friend dies. Before his demise, he bequeaths a certain amount of money (RM 100,000 or something) to a friend of his, entrusting you to deliver said money to said friend. On your way to deliver said money, you walk by a building. On this building is a poster that says: 'Money urgently needed for tsunami victims. Any cash donations would be much appreciated for us to reach our goal of RM 100,000'. What do you do? Do you ignore the sign and deliver the money like you promised, or do you donate the money to help the hordes of tsunami victims just waiting for a knight in shining armour to deliver them? His answer: both decisions, when you consider all the factors, aren't wrong. Maybe the friend who's going to receive the money is already rich, maybe he doesn't need the money. And by giving it away, you'll benefit hundreds or even thousands of people, not just one. My answer: it doesn't matter. The money doesn't belong to you. It doesn't even belong to the dead friend; it belongs to Mr Lucky, the guy you're on your way to meet. You are a steward, not an owner. You have no say in how the money is used, that's up to the fortunate friend who gets it. Giving it away--even if it's for a good cause--is wrong. If you want to be charitable, do it with your own money.




And so on and so forth. I don't like confrontation, so I just kept quiet during the lecture. But on the inside I was seething. How dare he try to twist and complicate moral principles willy-nilly! Is he serious? Does he even know what he's saying? But then, in the midst of my mental writhing--actually physical writhing, too...the classroom was too cold--the thought struck me: what do I care? So what if he thinks and speaks nonsense? It doesn't affect what I think, what I say. It won't influence me if I won't let it.




So, to conclude: I can't stand him, but I have no choice. I'll just have to deal with it. And get a warmer jacket.


I guess that's it from me, dear reader. I've officially run out of things to say. I'll see you on the other side. Byeeee~












Yours,






Figgy the [Half Baked, Self Proclaimed] Philosopher