Why We Should Not Always Follow Our Instincts

If you have read my previous post, you would know that I try to make sure that my social media circles have a wide range of opinions and that it does not become an echo chamber. In light of this, I follow a certain twitter account called Queer Theology. I disagree with many of the things this account posts because I disagree with some of their preconceptions and beliefs; including, but not limited to, their twitter banner that says "the image of God is transgender." That phrase, however, is not the topic of this essay; rather, the topic of this essay is a tweet that they made on Sunday, February 12th.

"The day we stop resisting out instincts, we'll have learned how to live. - Federico Garcia Lorca"

I think this quote is falacious for many reasons, however, they fall into two main points: One, this quote goes against scripture; and Two, this quote presents a danger to society. First of all, this quote goes against scripture. This quote is, in essence, saying that we should live our lives by simply doing whatever our instincts tell us to. One must simply look to Romans 7 to see why scripture says that blindly following our instincts is foolish. Romans 7:18-19 (ESV) says "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing." Paul is saying in these verses that his spirit, and you can easily extrapolate this idea out to include your's, is inherently evil. The conclusion drawn from this is rather simple: why would we, knowing that our nature is not good, ever stop resisting said evil nature and/or the impulses, or instincts, that come from our evil nature?

Secondly, this quote presents a danger to society and one doesn't even need to cite scripture to prove why this quote is injudicious; one simply needs to apply a small amount of critical thinking. My reasoning is as follows: if the only way to live is to give in to our instincts, then this logic train thinks that truly living means throwing away basic civility and culture since we would be doing whatever our instincts tell us to; from taking a plate of food that somebody else already bought because we thought it looked good to stealing somebody's hat and then beating them half to death when they try to get it back. The implications to society are rather easy to see, though some might argue otherwise since society as we know it would cease to exist. If every being on this earth took this quote to heart, we would see a degree of lawlessness that even the most ardent anarcho-capitalist would distance themselves from. We would be no better, and the case could be made that we would be worse, than animals.

I understand that the person who is cited for this quote was a Spanish poet and might not have meant what I inferred his quote to mean, and if that is the case then I might have to change my stance towards this. However, until somebody can show me the context of this quote and/or why I am misinterpreting it, I will stand by what I have written, that this quote is false since it does not stand up to either scripture or basic scrutiny and that it presents a danger to society if taken to heart by even one person.

On the Topic of "EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES"

If you have not yet read the actual order, I would suggest that you do so, which you can find here.

As I'm sure you can tell from the title of this post, today I will be divulging my thoughts on President Trump's executive order refusing entry to the United States for people from certain countries. However, before I start with my opinions on the President's actions, I feel the need to write about another topic which seems to plague this nation: willful ignorance. I am of the school of thought that in order to have a well thought out and, dare I say, intelligent opinion on a subject, one must first have a proper understanding of said topic. That is why, in debate, for example, we quote "the experts:" people who have degrees and/or work in the field being discussed, people who have a deeper understanding of the topic at hand than the participants. I think Henry Hazlitt best articulates my thoughts on this matter when he says

"all this is so elementary that one would blush to state it if were not so constantly forgotten by those who coin and circulate the new slogans." (1)

Today, in this age of information, it has become increasingly more difficult to separate fact from fiction, truth from misinformation. This is an issue because it makes the old saying “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on” even more true. It also has an added effect of causing many people to become more intellectually lazy and stay within self-made echo chambers which causes them to believe their side is the last bastion of truth and their opponents are terrible excuses for people who lie and twist the truth to suit their vile purpose.

This brings me to the topic at hand: the President’s executive order. I will not be specifically quoting anything I’ve seen on social media recently, however, what I have seen there leads me to believe that very few people have actually read the executive order. There are accusations of President Trump issuing “a Muslim ban” or that he is banning “the Middle East” which are seriously misrepresenting the truth. First of all, this executive order is not simply "a Muslim ban." As it says in Section 3, subsection (c):

"To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)." (2)

This information is important for several reasons. First, it clearly states that this is a temporary restriction to persons from certain countries. This is important because it shows that this is not a blanket ban of Muslims, it is only barring entry to the United States for a select group of people for and there are even multiple exceptions listed allowing people with specific visas to enter the United States. Also, this temporary, it only lasts until approximately April 28th. Second, it gives a specific reasoning for this temporary restriction: to "reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsections (a) of this section." To fully understand this piece of information, however, we must first know what Section 3, subsection (a) is. It reads as follows:

"The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

In essence, this entire piece of legislation is simply attempting to reduce fraud, both in the distribution of visas and in the intake of refugees. This insight should change how we view this controversial executive order; no longer is it legislation that is simply "a Muslim ban" or even "a ban on people who might be terrorists." This is actually a piece of legislation that is working on making sure that the United States has a better understanding of who is coming into its land by finding what is needed to improve its vetting process. Do I think the implementation of this order was incredibly injudicious? Yes. Am I upset that the President decided to not go through the branch of government that was created to write legislation? Absolutely. However, to call this order the majority of the accusations being thrown at it is both foolish and, for the most part, fictitious.

This all brings me back to the subject I discussed earlier: willful ignorance. If you have read this far and have this information for the first time, I cannot really fault you. I would venture to say that the vast majority of your peers are ignorant on this subject. However, I would implore you to consider a change. I sincerely believe that if more and more people started to not take what they hear at face value; if more people started to go to original sources to get their information; if more people started to dismantle the echo chambers they have built for themselves on social media; then the United States would become a better country. We would be able to have more civil discussions on policy because not only would the populous be better educated but also there would be fewer buzzwords and knee jerk reactions and personal attacks being flung about since more people would have a more proper understanding of the topic. Just as a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, I urge you to stand with me and start taking steps to become a more educated voter, or even just a more educated individual. I do not care if you come to different conclusions than me, all I care about is that you are willfully knowledgeable and making an effort to know the whole context of an issue rather than parroting what you hear inside your echo chamber.