Thomas Hobbes's theory of fear, boiled down, is that the power of a government is not only a source of fear, but it's tool. But what if fear is lost? What becomes of the government then? Revolution?
Here in the US there are nightly protests in over 170 cities because several grand juries have failed to indict police officers when there was certainly enough evidence. In the US system, an indictment simply means there may be attributable guilt. Putting aside the Ferguson fiasco, in NYC the coroner labeled the death of Eric Garner a homicide. And still the grand jury did not indict.
Black persons are 21x more likely to be shot than whites. This is not a coincidence. Minorities in the US have never enjoyed the freedoms of white persons. By not indicting police officers, the government increases the fear, hence the control. It makes people more distrustful of the justice system. Makes white persons dependent on the divide. Fear.
Except that fear is crumbling. These protests are not violent, but could turn that way very quickly. If it does what then?
Curiously the President, and even Congress, have been mostly mute. Its as though they realize that their hold on the reigns of fear are now tenuous. The protests grow. The government is taking the wait and see stance, because it is a proven tactic. Ignore the problem long enough and the media will too. That is the fear they use now to maintain control.
Showing posts with label good and evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good and evil. Show all posts
04 December 2014
08 January 2013
Genocide can be a good thing
There are new problems in society, such as reactive attachment disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder, that all stem from abusive childhoods and such childhoods are producing adults who perpetuate the damage that was applied to them. The thesis here is what do we do with said individuals after we have identified them? Do we allow them to breed? To continue to exist?
In theory we are all born as blank slates and our mores and actions are learned from our caregivers. This is not to deny inherited traits whatsoever. Part of who we are is genetic. Much of who we become though is learned. And in the latter is where the issues arise. To borrow from Draper, what we become is directly related to the humans we deal with, not non-human entities. There is no interference from some "Creator" being.
A child born of parents who have one or both as alcoholics will most likely become one themself. That is the simple genetics of the situation. Only a genetic miscue would prevent it. The point of this is that there are matters where pure genetics influence the outcome. And this will dissuade an argument for a "Creator" being.
Back to my thesis, children are not born evil. That is a moral imposition. A parent, or both, then directly influence the progression their child has along the moral "norm" scale. While many try to ingrain positive moral basis in their child, a rare few do not, and in fact do the opposite.
A person that abuses a child, either physically or mentally, destroys the delicate threshold one has over learning what is right and wrong, well before one must make those decisions. That person did learn from another to be the way they are. That is the nurture argument in a bullet-proof shell. But at the same time they also know that they were created to be the way they are. And then they choose to create others as such.
What I propose is the removal of such individuals from society. Yes, a form of genocide if one will. Because these individuals actively perpetuate cruel acts and train others to do the same, they are not worthy of remaining in society (insert Rorty argument here). A society without those that have learned to abuse should be free of it. And one can only imagine what such a society was able to accomplish, now free of the threat of physical/emotional pain...
In theory we are all born as blank slates and our mores and actions are learned from our caregivers. This is not to deny inherited traits whatsoever. Part of who we are is genetic. Much of who we become though is learned. And in the latter is where the issues arise. To borrow from Draper, what we become is directly related to the humans we deal with, not non-human entities. There is no interference from some "Creator" being.
A child born of parents who have one or both as alcoholics will most likely become one themself. That is the simple genetics of the situation. Only a genetic miscue would prevent it. The point of this is that there are matters where pure genetics influence the outcome. And this will dissuade an argument for a "Creator" being.
Back to my thesis, children are not born evil. That is a moral imposition. A parent, or both, then directly influence the progression their child has along the moral "norm" scale. While many try to ingrain positive moral basis in their child, a rare few do not, and in fact do the opposite.
A person that abuses a child, either physically or mentally, destroys the delicate threshold one has over learning what is right and wrong, well before one must make those decisions. That person did learn from another to be the way they are. That is the nurture argument in a bullet-proof shell. But at the same time they also know that they were created to be the way they are. And then they choose to create others as such.
What I propose is the removal of such individuals from society. Yes, a form of genocide if one will. Because these individuals actively perpetuate cruel acts and train others to do the same, they are not worthy of remaining in society (insert Rorty argument here). A society without those that have learned to abuse should be free of it. And one can only imagine what such a society was able to accomplish, now free of the threat of physical/emotional pain...
15 October 2012
Right and Wrong as language constructs
Earlier today I made the claim on my Twitter (@anthalus) that without religion there would be no such thing as evil. Of course that brought about a lively debate and many attempts to tell me I am wrong. And of course it lead here.
To put a sharp edge on the discussion, my position is this: that without the burden of religion good and evil simply would not exist. They can be viewed as a non-cognitive extension of right and wrong, which are cognitive (Hume, Moore). Yes, this is meta-ethics. Normative ethics are simply flavors that compose meta-ethics, much like the differing branches of religion are just different sects of Judaism.
So, that out of the way, on to the fun. A Biblical claim is that it is evil to covet a neighbor's wife, to lust for her. Now let's toss away the concept of evil. If one does covet one's neighbor's wife, what is the meta-ethical stance? How do we define "covet"? Is it wrong?
To covet one, we must desire one. That one "belongs" to another does not mean we can not covet this one. Our need to procreate is ingrained into our own RNA. By denying our desire we desire our own genetic drive. We do wrong by our own selves. From an Existential standpoint we deny our own genuineness.
A more extreme take could be that of killing another. Again it is an evil in religion. In some instances it is a forfeiture of one's mortal soul. But is killing another, taking a life, always evil, wrong? If it isn't then religion exists only at a normative ethical level.
So is it possible to kill someone and have it be right? The death penalty itself supports this position. So does vigilantivism. Is it more wrong, evil, to allow a serial killer to operate outside the law, or to find this one and take one's life? Or is it right?
The major difference between religious good/evil and meta-ethical right/wrong is the interpretation of the actions. Theoretically, in religion there is no interpretation. One does good or evil based on one's wants/needs. As is the case of non-cognitive ethics. But my argument is such: the actions of one is soley owned by the one, makes one genuine, and what one does is not subjective. The action itself draws the label. The reasoning/desire behind it are arbitrary.
We do what we do. It is either right or wrong. But it is always both good and evil because religion is ambiguous.
To put a sharp edge on the discussion, my position is this: that without the burden of religion good and evil simply would not exist. They can be viewed as a non-cognitive extension of right and wrong, which are cognitive (Hume, Moore). Yes, this is meta-ethics. Normative ethics are simply flavors that compose meta-ethics, much like the differing branches of religion are just different sects of Judaism.
So, that out of the way, on to the fun. A Biblical claim is that it is evil to covet a neighbor's wife, to lust for her. Now let's toss away the concept of evil. If one does covet one's neighbor's wife, what is the meta-ethical stance? How do we define "covet"? Is it wrong?
To covet one, we must desire one. That one "belongs" to another does not mean we can not covet this one. Our need to procreate is ingrained into our own RNA. By denying our desire we desire our own genetic drive. We do wrong by our own selves. From an Existential standpoint we deny our own genuineness.
A more extreme take could be that of killing another. Again it is an evil in religion. In some instances it is a forfeiture of one's mortal soul. But is killing another, taking a life, always evil, wrong? If it isn't then religion exists only at a normative ethical level.
So is it possible to kill someone and have it be right? The death penalty itself supports this position. So does vigilantivism. Is it more wrong, evil, to allow a serial killer to operate outside the law, or to find this one and take one's life? Or is it right?
The major difference between religious good/evil and meta-ethical right/wrong is the interpretation of the actions. Theoretically, in religion there is no interpretation. One does good or evil based on one's wants/needs. As is the case of non-cognitive ethics. But my argument is such: the actions of one is soley owned by the one, makes one genuine, and what one does is not subjective. The action itself draws the label. The reasoning/desire behind it are arbitrary.
We do what we do. It is either right or wrong. But it is always both good and evil because religion is ambiguous.
02 July 2009
The existence of good and evil
One of the commonplace arguments in Philosophy of Religion is the existence of good and evil. Cicero once wrote that "The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil." The Marquis De Sade urged people to explore their darkest nature to truly understand it. This seems a groundwork for Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". In a nutshell, Nietzsche wondered what good and evil would be if we dropped those words, and also all religious connotations to actions. What really is evil? What is good?
Now the PoMo philosophers have warped this argument to their idea of public and private language. I am fairly confident that Wittgenstein would be appalled by what Rorty and his group have done to his original ideas.
In the classic sense, good is something that does not harm and is approved by the current social mores. To quote Blaise Pascal "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." But even the definition of evil is obscured in religious context. In the bible, god slays entire villages, has named Gabriel as the angel of death, and has vast armies. Many people are damned to eternal torment simply because they are not specified on a list of names. Are these good things? Is it even possible?
There is an argument that evil must exist in heaven if heaven allows for free will. But it goes well beyond that. In the Hindu religion there are numerous deities (almost all I think) that are dualistic in their ability to preserve/destroy. It is this nature that blurs the definition of good and evil. The instance of Kali comes to mind. She is the great earth mother and eats her children to maintain the world. Is it evil that she eats her children, or is it evil that she maintains the world? Is it good she eats her children or good that she maintains the world? Is it both? Or is it neither?
To me, good and evil do not exist. Actions exist. We act as we do, and the repercussions of our actions reflect upon us. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks." I state that she was wrong. I could quote the Existentialists in my argument, but it is not necessary. A person who does a thing, for whatever reason does so for a need. That thing is an action and that action produces a result. When a person adds 1 and 1 together, the addition is an action and that action ends in a result (2). Stripping morality and religion from action, we are left with result. Hegel understood this better than most.
To use an existential argument, you are starving and your family is starving. You walk by a window where there is food. You take the food to feed your family. Where then is the evil? Is it in your action? Is it in your result? Is it applied to the person who put the food in the window knowing that hungry people could walk by? Or is it just food in a window that you took to feed your family?
Good and evil do not exist when morality, which is bourne of religion, is tossed on the garbage heap. All that remains is actions and results.
Now the PoMo philosophers have warped this argument to their idea of public and private language. I am fairly confident that Wittgenstein would be appalled by what Rorty and his group have done to his original ideas.
In the classic sense, good is something that does not harm and is approved by the current social mores. To quote Blaise Pascal "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." But even the definition of evil is obscured in religious context. In the bible, god slays entire villages, has named Gabriel as the angel of death, and has vast armies. Many people are damned to eternal torment simply because they are not specified on a list of names. Are these good things? Is it even possible?
There is an argument that evil must exist in heaven if heaven allows for free will. But it goes well beyond that. In the Hindu religion there are numerous deities (almost all I think) that are dualistic in their ability to preserve/destroy. It is this nature that blurs the definition of good and evil. The instance of Kali comes to mind. She is the great earth mother and eats her children to maintain the world. Is it evil that she eats her children, or is it evil that she maintains the world? Is it good she eats her children or good that she maintains the world? Is it both? Or is it neither?
To me, good and evil do not exist. Actions exist. We act as we do, and the repercussions of our actions reflect upon us. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks." I state that she was wrong. I could quote the Existentialists in my argument, but it is not necessary. A person who does a thing, for whatever reason does so for a need. That thing is an action and that action produces a result. When a person adds 1 and 1 together, the addition is an action and that action ends in a result (2). Stripping morality and religion from action, we are left with result. Hegel understood this better than most.
To use an existential argument, you are starving and your family is starving. You walk by a window where there is food. You take the food to feed your family. Where then is the evil? Is it in your action? Is it in your result? Is it applied to the person who put the food in the window knowing that hungry people could walk by? Or is it just food in a window that you took to feed your family?
Good and evil do not exist when morality, which is bourne of religion, is tossed on the garbage heap. All that remains is actions and results.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)