Posts Tagged ‘morality’

Recently Scotland apologized to people who practice homosexual behavior for historical laws which criminalized that behavior in the distant past.

The story is at:  https://ca.news.yahoo.com/scotland-apologizes-gay-men-historical-convictions-153855710.html

My initial response to the headline is that I wasn’t aware Scotland had recently convicted anyone of homosexual behavior. Why apologize to people who have never been directly affected for actions done by people who are all deceased to people who are all deceased?

Oh, yeah, because politically correct people hate the West, including the self-guilty, politically correct current leadership of Scotland.

This leads me to a great point:  It’s ironic when people with blind populism condemn their forebears for their forebears’ blind populism. And the biggest irony is that usually the faults of the blind populisms across generations are related. You know, like how the active racism of today (anti-white) condemns racism in the past that no one alive today has ever been involved with (anti-black, in the case of the long past British and American chattel slavery).

The same principle also applies to how the active religious populism of today (pagan metaphysical naturalism) seeks to condemn the active religious populism of yesteryear (pagan monarchical application of Judeo Christian concepts).

True Judeo Christian morality upholds the non-fault rights of individuals in their own private homes.  Judeo Christian morality is the very reason modern populists are, in this case erroneously, condeming Judeo Christian morality.  The condemnation is based on a mis-application of Judeo Christian sentiment in the past by what was then still a historically pagan, monarchical society. 

And now the same paganism revamped with modern terms such as “multiculturalism” and “tolerance” is seeking, just as it sought to condemn individuals based on private actions in private homes in the past, to strip all people today – including those who practice homosexual behavior – of individual rights to life, liberty and property.  Rights which originated with Genesis 1:28 in common law.

So blind populism is still violating people’s rights.  Blind populism is still the problem.


Read Full Post »

It’s tragic that a bedroom community of San Antonio experienced today a death toll almost half of that which occurred in the city of Chicago just last month. The 53 deaths in Chicago, while less than the mass shooting in Vegas, go largely unaddressed by the left leaning national media. Chicago’s worst monthly death toll this year, June, exceeded the Vegas shooting toll by 27 souls lost. Again, this is almost never addressed by the left because I’m convinced the thinkers in media care more about symbolism and socialism – and the disarming of the citizenry necessary to impose socialism – than they care about the actual lives involved. Of course this is rationalized to the point of convincing one’s self it’s for other, nobler reasons. But when push comes to shove I believe it boils down to cold, hard logic for them. What they believe is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Socialism in the former Soviet Union took tens of millions of it’s own citizen’s lives in “peace” time. It’s ironic that almost 20% of millennials today view the Soviet Union favorably, and many more view Communism in general favorably. They’ve come to this under the socialist teachings of leftist educators such as former Communist terrorist Bill Ayers who was a primary contributor to common core, and Howard Zinn who started the Marxist apocryphal anti-American history movement which dictates most of the contents of school history texts today, etc.

This really is a values issue. Many of those in leadership on the left who want gun control don’t truly believe in morality apart from class warfare. They believe God is unknowable, or even that belief is God is some kind of tragic psychosis. In the end they cannot condemn murder apart from some form of arbitrary rationalization. Who is to say that will to power isn’t noble, even if the one wielding power has to “crack a few eggs” to “make an omelette”. Isn’t that survival of the fittest?

Well, I have a solution to the problem of mass shootings in America these days.

1. Bring back voluntary recitation of the Regent’s Prayer in public schools every day

2. Bring back the pledge of allegiance in public schools every day

3. Bring back voluntary posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms

4. Immediately stop all welfare programs which reward or encourage fatherlessness in poor communities until such time as the programs are amended to encourage two parent homes with a father and a mother. Having a father and a mother in the home is the number one indicator of future mental and financial success for children, and a number one indicator of future adherence to the law

5. Immediately do away with the Howard Zinn “history from below” (i.e., anti-American socialist propaganda) model of history in public schools, and re-implement true American history and civics. Teach the founding principles.

6. Teach money management in schools. Every child should come out of their education with a strong dislike of debt and a strong affinity towards hard work and saving

7. Do away with draconian gun laws and encourage hunting and knowledge of self-defense. This goes hand in hand with encouraging having a father in the home

In short, we need to go back and do the things we’ve done in previous generations before leftists did away with Judeo Christian morality, the same leftists who today act shocked that people are getting used to hearing of mass murders in our communities.

Read Full Post »

Recently I was in a discussion about morality in which someone suggested that morality can indeed be scientific. I reminded the person of Hume’s Guillotine, which eviscerates the idea of secular ethics. Hume’s Guillotine basically states that a person cannot derive values from facts alone, only other facts. To derive values, one must first arbitrarily adopt an over-arching moral framework, and then evaluate the facts in light of the framework.

Still, the person persisted and linked to a commentary by someone claiming that systems of morality can be rationally evaluated using Game Theory, such as the famous test Prisoner’s Dilemma. In Prisoner’s Dilemma a situation is introduced where two prisoners are taken together in relation to the same crime. Both have to decide whether to testify against the other. If A testifies against B, and vice versa, both get two years. If neither A nor B testifies against each other, both only get one year. But if A testifies against B and B stays silent, A goes free and B gets three years. Interesting to think about.

Prisoner’s dilemma itself is an amoral, arbitrary test. It can be used to observe and quantify a set of results but does not clarify morality, nor make predictive results for a previously untested population, especially when a new version of the dilemma is rolled out with different trade-offs.

The article they linked to was posted at Scientific American, at the url:  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/game-theory-and-the-golden-punishment-rule/

Here is why the article’s conclusions are non sequitur logic fallacies:

Testing a given moral framework would necessitate adjusting the dilemma itself to be in line with that framework. What’s good and bad would be different so the system of justice and types of payoffs involved would be different.

Even if the system of justice & payoffs remained situationally the same across the different moral frameworks being evaluated, the moral interpretation of whatever result was produced – what would be considered a good outcome and what would be considered a bad outcome – would also need to be changed to be evaluated according to the given moral framework being considered.

For example, if a moral framework valued telling the truth and punishing criminal behavior, then two people covering up the wrongdoing and therefore serving minimal time would be considered a ~negative~ outcome.

But if someone had Humanist values – the ideas that truth is secondary to manipulating outcomes and that crimes should only be punished if the perpetrator gets caught – then covering up the wrongdoing and serving minimal time for it would be considered a ~positive~ outcome.

Because of these differences it’s impossible to dispassionately ~morally~ evaluate the outcomes of disparate moral frameworks. They will always be evaluated according to whatever happens to be the moral framework of the person doing the evaluating.

This exposes the main non sequitur logic fallacy with rationalism itself. Rationalism pretends to be scientific and objective, but it ~assumes~ it’s own subjective morality as much as any other arbitrary moral framework. And because the scientific method is limited to the realm of facts, the moral conclusions reached are ~not~ scientific at all but purely philosophical.

Yet rationalists try to sell their moral conclusions as somehow being scientific, just like the article we’re discussing is trying to do.

Rationalists pretend all morality is relative, yet what they value is whatever leads to their own empowerment over others and personal enrichment. So their morality is that it’s moral to subjugate others and live off the efforts of others. Their morality boils down to: themselves as gods.

This is why every attempt to “scientifically” create a utopia by rationally manipulating people – such as in game theory – has wound up empowering and enriching the endeavor’s leaders while subjugating and impoverishing everyone else involved.

It’s sad but not surprising that such a commentary would be posted by Scientific American.   Much of the scientific establishment in the West is guilty of confusing arbitrary secular ethics with science, and for the same reasons- They are trying to help usher in that utopia they think we’re always on the verge of but which, sadly, we will never realize because of mankind’s selfish nature.  Hopefully one day they will become scientific enough to actually see that morality and science are separate entities.

In the meantime, when it comes to applied Prisoner’s Dilemma, the test subject is always the prisoner.

Read Full Post »