Every semester, I begin by asking my students to write an essay choosing one of the following statements:
How do you live your life? Every man for himself or Every man for the good of his community.
These statements represent [imperfectly] the two competing Codes of Ethics. There are only two, because only two are possible. They are opposites, like black and white. There is no “moral” gray zone. One is good. The other is evil. There can be no compromise between good and evil. Compromised truth is a lie.
Every action, moral or immoral, involves a choice. A moral code provides the standard upon which that choice should be made. I have already identified the standard I believe to be rational and appropriate. When I did so [see “My Top Shelf”], I was discussing the code of ethics defined for me by Ayn Rand:
Egoism: According to egoism, the moral purpose of man’s life is to live it, to set and achieve his goals, to pursue his own happiness. This does not mean that he doesn’t care about other people, but rather that his first responsibility is to himself. An egoist neither makes sacrifices nor demands them of others. He lives by trade. Self-reliance is defined as the “good.”
Not the one I was raised to believe:
Altruism: “The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value.” [AR] The most basic absolute of altruism is self-sacrifice. The self is the standard of evil; the selfless is the standard of good. If you benefit, your action is evil: if others benefit your action is good.
Like most Americans, I was raised by Christian parents. They baptized me a Catholic. I was taught to revere Jesus, learn his lessons, try to live them. For thirty years I was tortured trying to reconcile what I thought was right with what I was taught was right.
Christians like to focus on “love,” the panacea, the cure-all feeling at the heart of Jesus’ message. Love is the reason for the season, love your neighbor, love everybody…even your enemies. Christians believe unconditional love can cause good things to happen, make a better world. And how did the Christian Hero show his love? He made the ultimate sacrifice.
The Sisters of Mercy and Marist Brothers, who were my teachers K-12, probably focused more on Jesus’ sacrifice, how he gave up his life to save our souls. But, if I knew nothing else after my thirteen years in parochial schools, I knew my Jesus. Like all thoughtful, Christian youth, I wanted to be like Jesus.
Of course, I was unable to be selfless, unable to love people I despised, unable to turn the other cheek, unable to be meek, unable to be humble. I knew very early on that I could not be like Jesus. The result? Immeasurable GUILT. My solution? [The only one my parents and teachers ever taught me]: PENANCE. For twenty years I held self-flagellation seminars trying to exercise the demons that made it impossible for me to be like Jesus. I was doing to myself what Jesus allowed others to do to him. I was torturing myself with the knowledge that I deserved to suffer, that sacrifice is necessary if one is to become moral.
It did finally occur to me that in order to achieve moral perfection, like Jesus, I’d have to make the ultimate sacrifice, too. Nothing short of giving up my life would be sacrifice enough if I want to be truly like Jesus. This presented a huge problem for me. See, in spite of all of my misdeeds, failures, and miserable penance, I truly loved my life. I liked me. I had no wish to die.
I began to realize the problem was not me, but rather, the example set by my hero.
I was 39-years-old when I asked—and answered—a question I never thought possible to even ask. Was Jesus right? Is altruism, the creed of self-sacrifice, a proper moral code?
How can altruism be a proper moral code for man if in order to achieve moral perfection, I have to be dead? What good is a code of ethics to a corpse?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
To survive fires
Nine fire fighters were buried in North Charleston, SC, on Friday, June 22, 2007. They died trying to extinguish a fire in a furniture store. Many of our leaders—local, state, and federal officials—spoke at their funeral expressing for all those present the values they believe we all share. Everybody listened. Nobody questioned.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff read a message from President Bush: "Their willingness to sacrifice for others demonstrated the true meaning of heroism," Chertoff read. "Each of the fallen will forever hold a cherished place in our hearts."
Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. called the men heroes. “They did what they and every fire fighter is prepared to do every day they put on their badge: to risk their life, and if necessary, to give their life, to make their community safe.”
Do these words honor the fallen firefighters? Did these brave men make a sacrifice? Is it the perceived sacrifice that makes their actions commendable?
I think not.
None of the dead chose to give their life that day. Every one of them upon entering the burning building had every expectation that they would be sitting down to dinner with their family that night. They knew they had chosen to do dangerous work. Each had trained long and hard to master the necessary skills. Each was equipped with the best technology available for self-protection and for putting out fires. Each chose this dangerous profession for his own reasons. All were well-compensated.
All are heroes, but not because they’re dead, Mr. President! The fact that they are dead is most regrettable. There is nothing good about it. They are heroes because they did their important work. They earned their self-esteem doing the dangerous work they trained to do. They were courageous men who deserve to be honored and who should always have our respect and our thanks. But it is not their deaths—or any sacrifice you might think they have made—that makes them worthy of our gratitude.
The purpose of their training and their gear was to survive fires.
The Assistant Fire Chief Larry Garvin said it best: "We went, with the training we have, knowing we could put the fire out and it just went awry," Garvin said. "Things did not happen like they normally happen. If there had been fire rolling out of those back doors, I wouldn't have sent them in. I don't care anything about a building."
For what these men have done to be characterized as a sacrifice, they would have had to willing walk into the blaze in order to die. They would have had to willing given up their highest value, their life, for a much lesser value, a building. That is what a sacrifice is. That is not what they did. That is not what any of us would want them to do.
A thousand years ago in the jungles of Central America our Born Again President would have been that tribal chief who dragged you up the steps of the ziggurat, threw you down onto the slab, and cut your beating heart out of your screaming chest so that the gods of the harvest would be pleased and the community would not starve. He would have thanked your bloody corpse for the sacrifice. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford would have been standing right behind him saying something like: "Who we are crucially depends on what we're willing to stand up for in life. In short, are we willing to walk the walk?" he said. "They [the fire fighters] walked their walk right into the company of angels and to heaven's gate."
Anybody who chooses to do dangerous, necessary work [a fire fighter, police officer, or soldier] deserves our respect, our gratitude, and an excellent, tax-payer-provided salary and pension… something they can use while they live. Instead, our leaders glorify their unfortunate deaths, mischaracterize the nature of their important work, and offer their grieving families angels and heaven in compensation.
Everybody listens. Nobody questions.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff read a message from President Bush: "Their willingness to sacrifice for others demonstrated the true meaning of heroism," Chertoff read. "Each of the fallen will forever hold a cherished place in our hearts."
Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. called the men heroes. “They did what they and every fire fighter is prepared to do every day they put on their badge: to risk their life, and if necessary, to give their life, to make their community safe.”
Do these words honor the fallen firefighters? Did these brave men make a sacrifice? Is it the perceived sacrifice that makes their actions commendable?
I think not.
None of the dead chose to give their life that day. Every one of them upon entering the burning building had every expectation that they would be sitting down to dinner with their family that night. They knew they had chosen to do dangerous work. Each had trained long and hard to master the necessary skills. Each was equipped with the best technology available for self-protection and for putting out fires. Each chose this dangerous profession for his own reasons. All were well-compensated.
All are heroes, but not because they’re dead, Mr. President! The fact that they are dead is most regrettable. There is nothing good about it. They are heroes because they did their important work. They earned their self-esteem doing the dangerous work they trained to do. They were courageous men who deserve to be honored and who should always have our respect and our thanks. But it is not their deaths—or any sacrifice you might think they have made—that makes them worthy of our gratitude.
The purpose of their training and their gear was to survive fires.
The Assistant Fire Chief Larry Garvin said it best: "We went, with the training we have, knowing we could put the fire out and it just went awry," Garvin said. "Things did not happen like they normally happen. If there had been fire rolling out of those back doors, I wouldn't have sent them in. I don't care anything about a building."
For what these men have done to be characterized as a sacrifice, they would have had to willing walk into the blaze in order to die. They would have had to willing given up their highest value, their life, for a much lesser value, a building. That is what a sacrifice is. That is not what they did. That is not what any of us would want them to do.
A thousand years ago in the jungles of Central America our Born Again President would have been that tribal chief who dragged you up the steps of the ziggurat, threw you down onto the slab, and cut your beating heart out of your screaming chest so that the gods of the harvest would be pleased and the community would not starve. He would have thanked your bloody corpse for the sacrifice. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford would have been standing right behind him saying something like: "Who we are crucially depends on what we're willing to stand up for in life. In short, are we willing to walk the walk?" he said. "They [the fire fighters] walked their walk right into the company of angels and to heaven's gate."
Anybody who chooses to do dangerous, necessary work [a fire fighter, police officer, or soldier] deserves our respect, our gratitude, and an excellent, tax-payer-provided salary and pension… something they can use while they live. Instead, our leaders glorify their unfortunate deaths, mischaracterize the nature of their important work, and offer their grieving families angels and heaven in compensation.
Everybody listens. Nobody questions.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Common Sense?
How to develop a rational moral code?
Step 1: Develop a rational hierarchy of values.
My Hierarchy of Values:
My Top Shelf;
My parents, my brothers and sisters;
My extended family;
My best friends; people who post comments on my blog
My friends and co-workers;
Neighbors and acquaintances;
Strangers
Step 2: Never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one.
Step 1: Develop a rational hierarchy of values.
My Hierarchy of Values:
My Top Shelf;
My parents, my brothers and sisters;
My extended family;
My best friends; people who post comments on my blog
My friends and co-workers;
Neighbors and acquaintances;
Strangers
Step 2: Never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Step 2
A moral man does not go around looking for opportunities to fall on swords for people. A moral man loves his life. He knows it is right to live it. Any threat to his existence—to his top-tier values—must be answered directly, without reservation. The purpose of a code of ethics is to provide him with a consistent and rational framework for living well.
To manage life’s complexity, to ensure consistent and rational action, to protect that which matters most to me, and because I do not live on a desert island, it is necessary to create a hierarchy of values and:
Step 2: Never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one.
Would I not take a bullet for my own mother? What about mom and dad? Shouldn’t they be on my top shelf?
The answer: They used to be. Mom and dad and all of my brothers and sisters were my top shelf until December 7, 1990 at 9:02am. On that Friday morning I met my son, D, for the first time. There in the delivery room, holding him in my arms, I knew immediately that everybody else I know and love mattered less. I knew that if it ever came right down to a choice between mom’s existence and his, he would win. If it ever came down to a choice between my existence and his, he would win!
To demonstrate just how morally screwed up America’s educators, media leaders, and politicians are, I report now on a story of which I’m sure you are all familiar. The New York Subway Hero Story: First, let me say, the Subway Hero in this story is a “hero” for one reason and one reason only: He lived to talk about it. If he had died jumping down onto those tracks to rescue the stranger having a seizure, his actions would have been most immoral.
I listened carefully to the hero’s story. The oncoming train was some distance away when the man having the seizure fell onto the tracks. The hero left his two young daughters on the tarmac and jumped down onto the tracks to save the stranger. The stranger could do nothing to help himself, and the hero reported that he was unable to lift the man off the tracks to safety. The train was closing in on them. The hero said: I saw the train coming and I had this guy in my arms. I couldn’t lift him, so I held him down in the space in between the parked train and the tracks of the oncoming train. “I made a calculation.” I got on top of him and held him down while the train passed hitting neither of us.
When I heard the hero say “I made a calculation,” I knew why he was alive to tell the story. He did not jump down onto those tracks to die that day. He calculated that the train would pass over them both, harming neither. After making his calculation, had the man concluded that he would be hit and likely killed by the train, his action would have been wholly immoral. He would have died that day, abandoning his two young daughters for life! To save the life of a stranger? He would have sacrificed that which he values most in life, his life and the well-being of his children, for a much lesser value, a stranger.
Had he died, his actions that day would have been completely irrational and immoral. His daughters would be right to hate his memory. But I assure you, had he died, he would have been hailed by the media, by Washington, by the nation as an even bigger hero. Everybody would be praising him for making the “ultimate sacrifice,” for being selfless and Christ-like.
Bunk!
Of course, the Subway Hero wouldn’t know anything about what a hero he is. He’d be dead. His story would shrink off the front page in a couple of days. By the end of the week, 300 million Americans—strangers all—would recall vaguely the events of that day. By the end of the month…utter silence. Nobody even thinking about it anymore. Nobody, that is, but his two abandoned daughters whose futures have been cast to chance.
To manage life’s complexity, to ensure consistent and rational action, to protect that which matters most to me, and because I do not live on a desert island, it is necessary to create a hierarchy of values and:
Step 2: Never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one.
Would I not take a bullet for my own mother? What about mom and dad? Shouldn’t they be on my top shelf?
The answer: They used to be. Mom and dad and all of my brothers and sisters were my top shelf until December 7, 1990 at 9:02am. On that Friday morning I met my son, D, for the first time. There in the delivery room, holding him in my arms, I knew immediately that everybody else I know and love mattered less. I knew that if it ever came right down to a choice between mom’s existence and his, he would win. If it ever came down to a choice between my existence and his, he would win!
To demonstrate just how morally screwed up America’s educators, media leaders, and politicians are, I report now on a story of which I’m sure you are all familiar. The New York Subway Hero Story: First, let me say, the Subway Hero in this story is a “hero” for one reason and one reason only: He lived to talk about it. If he had died jumping down onto those tracks to rescue the stranger having a seizure, his actions would have been most immoral.
I listened carefully to the hero’s story. The oncoming train was some distance away when the man having the seizure fell onto the tracks. The hero left his two young daughters on the tarmac and jumped down onto the tracks to save the stranger. The stranger could do nothing to help himself, and the hero reported that he was unable to lift the man off the tracks to safety. The train was closing in on them. The hero said: I saw the train coming and I had this guy in my arms. I couldn’t lift him, so I held him down in the space in between the parked train and the tracks of the oncoming train. “I made a calculation.” I got on top of him and held him down while the train passed hitting neither of us.
When I heard the hero say “I made a calculation,” I knew why he was alive to tell the story. He did not jump down onto those tracks to die that day. He calculated that the train would pass over them both, harming neither. After making his calculation, had the man concluded that he would be hit and likely killed by the train, his action would have been wholly immoral. He would have died that day, abandoning his two young daughters for life! To save the life of a stranger? He would have sacrificed that which he values most in life, his life and the well-being of his children, for a much lesser value, a stranger.
Had he died, his actions that day would have been completely irrational and immoral. His daughters would be right to hate his memory. But I assure you, had he died, he would have been hailed by the media, by Washington, by the nation as an even bigger hero. Everybody would be praising him for making the “ultimate sacrifice,” for being selfless and Christ-like.
Bunk!
Of course, the Subway Hero wouldn’t know anything about what a hero he is. He’d be dead. His story would shrink off the front page in a couple of days. By the end of the week, 300 million Americans—strangers all—would recall vaguely the events of that day. By the end of the month…utter silence. Nobody even thinking about it anymore. Nobody, that is, but his two abandoned daughters whose futures have been cast to chance.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
My Top Shelf
If a free man cannot accept dictatorship and a commanded code of ethics, how does one know what is right and what is wrong? As has already been said, because a proper code is necessary if man is to live a successful life on Earth, man’s life is the standard upon which that code is based. What is right supports my life. What is evil destroys it.
How to develop a rational moral code?
Step 1: Develop a rational hierarchy of values.
I am my number one value. Everything that I am—my every thought, memory, dream, and ambition—lives between my ears. I am my brain and my brain will not function properly under any kind of compulsion. My liberty and my life are two sides of the same coin. But there's more.
Because I have to look in the mirror every day and like what I see, the definition of my life also includes a profound respect for the truth. To deny or compromise the truth is to sacrifice my integrity. This would be destructive to my life. Integrity, therefore, is a top-tier value.
Every year I ask my students to describe what they think Heaven would be like. They never mention going to work or doing anything productive. I ask them: Wouldn’t I have to go to work in your Heaven? Invariably they say no…that there’s no working in Heaven. It is then that I tell them that their Heaven would be my Hell! I explain how my work, my productivity, is as important to my life as food and shelter. What good is my life and liberty if I am not free to pursue my happiness, to produce, to create, to achieve my self-esteem? A sedentary existence in some Paradise, no matter how many virgins I get, would be destructive to my life. My work is a top-tier value.
On my top shelf stand the values I will defend with my life. I would fight to the death to defend my life, my liberty, my integrity, my self-esteem. Still, I am not finished.
I am a father. I will protect and defend my children with my life, not because I have any desire to take a bullet, cease to exist, or be called “hero,” but because I can’t imagine waking up tomorrow without any one them if there is something I can do about it. So, for purely selfish reasons, if I have to choose between my heartbeat and any one of theirs, I’m toast.
I’ve been a husband more than once, so I know it may not always be advisable to place one’s spouse on one’s top shelf. I don’t think my first wife ever made it to my top shelf; however, I can’t imagine that I would have used her as a human shield in the event we were being mugged by an armed thug. I probably would have thoughtlessly taken the bullet [at the time]. She was, after all, the mother of my only son.
My current and final wife, L, was very much distressed a few years back when I told her that for the first few years of our marriage she was not on my top shelf. She couldn’t have been. I’d been married before. I knew marriage isn’t always forever. Besides, I had my son to care for. I could not take a bullet for her. I’d be abandoning my son, sacrificing a top-tier value. That would be irrational, destructive to my life. When L gave birth to my first daughter, when she became a loving parent to my son, she joined me on my top shelf.
And that’s it. That’s my Top Shelf. These are all the values I might have to kill for or die defending. Are you, my dear friends and family, not on my top shelf? Would you like to know why?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Immoral Commands
I believe there are moral absolutes, that there is good and evil, that man can determine what “the good” is through reason with proper respect for individual rights. A moral code must begin with man’s absolute right to his life and liberty.
I live on Earth. My life is my responsibility. A proper moral code recognizes this reality. The dead and the gods have no need for moral codes. Neither do slaves nor subjects. A man who is not free to choose cannot be held responsible for his choices. Without choice there is no morality.
I accept no “commanded morality,” no moral code claiming to be of divine origin. A free man cannot accept a commanded code of ethics. My unalienable right to liberty guarantees [if nothing else] at least my freedom to think for myself.
Liberty, of course, does not mean that I am free to do whatever I want. I can’t kill or steal from people if I am a rational, moral man. How do I know this? The thinking goes like this: Because I recognize each man’s unalienable right to his life, I will not kill. To do so would be to deny that I have a right to my own life.
I can arrive at a couple of the same truths presented on the stone tablets, but only by means of reason. Unlike the flawed, Judeo-Christian commandments, however, I know that there is one instance where, not only am I not forbidden, but I am required to kill: To protect and defend my life and my freedom. To protect that which I cherish most, my top-tier values, I may have to kill. Why didn’t Moses [or God!] include this one, crucial exception to the rule?
Thou shalt not kill, except when some mindless, Bin Laden is trying to destroy you, your liberty, and your loved ones.
Who am I to edit God?
The religionists believe the Commandments are the word of an omniscient, all mighty God. The laws of an omniscient, all mighty God must be as perfect as their author. If God’s laws are not perfect, then God is not perfect. These laws—even the ones that sound pretty good, like Honor your mother and father—are flawed. Sure, I honor my parents: I was fortunate enough to have good ones. But, what about that 12-year-old girl being raped by her despicable father? According to the ancient God, she must honor him. No American, however religious, would ever argue that this little girl should honor her father. They would argue that God never intended for us to honor disgraceful parents, that there are exceptions to the rules.
Now, the entire meaning of the divine commandments is rendered wholly subjective. People are left to pick and choose which commands apply to them and to what extent. This subjectivity within, between, and among every faith ever invented by man is one of the principal causes for every bloodbath in the name of God through history. By what standard are individuals to define which commands apply to them and to what extent? God offers no answers. Irrational men turn to clubs, spears, guns, and Boeing 767s, each certain his interpretation of God’s revelation is the true faith.
Objective law is not subject to such disputes: Objective law is arrived at by means of reason, not divine revelation. Objective law begins with the recognition that each man owns his life and his freedom.
So, why are there no exceptions written on the stone tablets? They are flawed. God erred? How do religionists explain these errors? They don’t. They ignore all inconsistencies when it comes to their faith.
I can explain the errors. A man, Moses, who lived over three thousand years ago, when the world’s word for philosophy was “religion,” wrote The Ten Commandments. Moses’ laws may have been acceptable to ancient people living in the shadow of authoritarian governments, but they are not acceptable to a free man with his brain intact.
I live on Earth. My life is my responsibility. A proper moral code recognizes this reality. The dead and the gods have no need for moral codes. Neither do slaves nor subjects. A man who is not free to choose cannot be held responsible for his choices. Without choice there is no morality.
I accept no “commanded morality,” no moral code claiming to be of divine origin. A free man cannot accept a commanded code of ethics. My unalienable right to liberty guarantees [if nothing else] at least my freedom to think for myself.
Liberty, of course, does not mean that I am free to do whatever I want. I can’t kill or steal from people if I am a rational, moral man. How do I know this? The thinking goes like this: Because I recognize each man’s unalienable right to his life, I will not kill. To do so would be to deny that I have a right to my own life.
I can arrive at a couple of the same truths presented on the stone tablets, but only by means of reason. Unlike the flawed, Judeo-Christian commandments, however, I know that there is one instance where, not only am I not forbidden, but I am required to kill: To protect and defend my life and my freedom. To protect that which I cherish most, my top-tier values, I may have to kill. Why didn’t Moses [or God!] include this one, crucial exception to the rule?
Thou shalt not kill, except when some mindless, Bin Laden is trying to destroy you, your liberty, and your loved ones.
Who am I to edit God?
The religionists believe the Commandments are the word of an omniscient, all mighty God. The laws of an omniscient, all mighty God must be as perfect as their author. If God’s laws are not perfect, then God is not perfect. These laws—even the ones that sound pretty good, like Honor your mother and father—are flawed. Sure, I honor my parents: I was fortunate enough to have good ones. But, what about that 12-year-old girl being raped by her despicable father? According to the ancient God, she must honor him. No American, however religious, would ever argue that this little girl should honor her father. They would argue that God never intended for us to honor disgraceful parents, that there are exceptions to the rules.
Now, the entire meaning of the divine commandments is rendered wholly subjective. People are left to pick and choose which commands apply to them and to what extent. This subjectivity within, between, and among every faith ever invented by man is one of the principal causes for every bloodbath in the name of God through history. By what standard are individuals to define which commands apply to them and to what extent? God offers no answers. Irrational men turn to clubs, spears, guns, and Boeing 767s, each certain his interpretation of God’s revelation is the true faith.
Objective law is not subject to such disputes: Objective law is arrived at by means of reason, not divine revelation. Objective law begins with the recognition that each man owns his life and his freedom.
So, why are there no exceptions written on the stone tablets? They are flawed. God erred? How do religionists explain these errors? They don’t. They ignore all inconsistencies when it comes to their faith.
I can explain the errors. A man, Moses, who lived over three thousand years ago, when the world’s word for philosophy was “religion,” wrote The Ten Commandments. Moses’ laws may have been acceptable to ancient people living in the shadow of authoritarian governments, but they are not acceptable to a free man with his brain intact.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Number One Value
Debating Christopher Hitchens in May, 2007, Al Sharpton made the following argument to defend—if not the existence of God—the necessity of God:
“If there is no God, if there is no Supreme Mechanism that governs the world, what makes right, right and wrong, wrong?”
“Who decides what is wicked, what is right, what is ethical?”
“Whoever’s in power at the time would decide what is wicked and what is not wicked, because there’s no real moral code because there’s nobody there to judge that.”
I’ve created no straw man here. These are Sharpton’s best arguments in his own words. Sadly, Hitchens failed to adequately address these arguments, and Sharpton probably won the debate by default.
“If there is no God, if there is no Supreme Mechanism that governs the world, what makes right, right and wrong, wrong?”
“Who decides what is wicked, what is right, what is ethical?”
“Whoever’s in power at the time would decide what is wicked and what is not wicked, because there’s no real moral code because there’s nobody there to judge that.”
I’ve created no straw man here. These are Sharpton’s best arguments in his own words. Sadly, Hitchens failed to adequately address these arguments, and Sharpton probably won the debate by default.
http://www.slate.com/id/2166143/
Like all religionists, Sharpton creates a world consistent with the views of the ancients regarding the nature of a proper society. As all ancient books profess, a proper society is one governed by some absolute authority, a king or pharaoh, and that a just society is one ruled by some wise man, like Solomon or Mohammed. The ancients had no knowledge of the concepts crucial to liberty…popular sovereignty, limited government, individual rights; so, of course, the only structure for a society they could conceive of was authoritarian dictatorship. Is Al Sharpton attempting to preserve the ancient model here in the 21st Century? in America?
Surely, Sharpton understands limited government and individual rights. Is he arguing that man is unfit to determine what is good and what is evil? “Who decides what is wicked, what is right, what is ethical?” [Incidentally, this is not even a question…Who decides? What am I to do here, name someone? Right and wrong are not determined by anyone, divine or otherwise, by decree.]
“If there is no God, if there is no Supreme Mechanism that governs the world, what makes right, right and wrong, wrong?” Is Sharpton arguing that authoritarian government is good? Of course, this “Supreme Mechanism,” this decider of what is right and what is wrong, is a benevolent and good God. God’s a good dictator. But, that man is ruled over, that moral codes are handed down to unworthy man who is forbidden to judge, for Sharpton is self-evident.
Man, according to the religionist, is incapable of determining what is right and what is wrong, and that is why we need God. To judge.
Is there no Earthly standard upon which man can base a rational moral code? There is. The standard is your life. That which is good preserves your life. That which is evil destroys it. [Much more about this later.]
Funny thing is Sharpton nearly stumbled on the correct answer when he joked:
“If there’s nothing there to govern humanity, then what is ethical is whatever we decide is ethical because we’re in charge.”
That’s right, Al! Each of us is in charge of one thing…our lives. It is our Number One Value. It is the standard by which we are to judge all that we encounter while we live. Each man rules only one life: His own.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Epistemology 2: Review to Conclude
Last year I learned a valuable lesson about sharing my views with my predominantly southern, Christian students. Before my students had even a firm grasp of how to pronounce my last name, I had given them my views on evolution, abortion, gay marriage, and the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Literally, within the first two hours of our meeting, I had expressed powerful views on each of these issues that completely conflicted with probably everything they’d been taught to believe for the past seventeen years. I had created a monster of protest against my teaching, and against me personally, that stretched its ugly paw all the way home to their parents and back again, landing me in my principal’s office one week into the school year with some explaining to do. The first thing my principal asked was: “Why am I getting so many complaints about your class this year, when I didn’t get any complaints at all last year?” I was surprised when the answer [I suspect I’d been pondering subconsciously for days] popped right out of my mouth: I think I shared too much, too soon.
I told my principal the truth. I hadn’t changed my views since last year, and I’ve never shied away from sharing my views, however unpopular I knew them to be. The problem was this time it had all come out before my students knew anything about me, my thinking, my epistemology.
I fixed the problem the second day of the new semester, with a ten minute lecture on my epistemology. I’d like to share it with you.
“I’m going to teach you a big word today…EPISTEMOLOGY. It’s a big word, but it’s very easy to understand. Your epistemology answers the question: ‘How do you know what you know?’ There are two kinds of epistemology, rational and irrational. I teach my own children my rational epistemology. I wrote this story to help them understand:
The Keepers of the Zoo
By Donn
How do you explain
the sun in the sky,
the wind in your hair,
the beat of your life?
How do you explain lightning
and thunder,
the warmth of a touch,
the taste of cucumber?
How do you explain cold rain
or wet snow,
the bang in a drum,
the crow of a crow?
How do you explain
anything you know?
How do you explain an eclipse
of the sun,
the moon and the stars,
or the lottery you won?
How do you explain
the green-ness of a leaf,
the smoothness of a rock,
the sting of a bee?
How do you explain the thorns
on a rose,
the bones in your fingers,
the shape of your nose?
How do you explain
anything you know?
How do you explain
the bark of a dog,
the strength of good steel,
or anything you feel?
You think and you dream
while you live on the Earth
of flowers you've seen,
of music you've heard.
You think day and night...
All the others do it, too...
we share our insights...
we're the keepers of the zoo.
So, how do you know
the apple is sweet?
Take a bite little human,
share what you think.
"All of us are born with a brain…a brain that has experienced almost nothing at all before the day we are born. It’s like a powerful computer with its operating system in place, but few programs installed and no data. From the day of our birth we begin the process of inputting data. Everything we know enters our brain through one or more of our five senses. Everything we know starts on the day we first open our eyes and see the light of the delivery room, hear the voices of our ecstatic parents, and feel the icy coldness of the air-conditioned room against our naked body, the warm touch of human hands and of mother’s breast.
"I am someone who believes in that which is known to exist. I am a deeply spiritual man, but my spirituality lives in my boots and is firmly planted on this Earth, in its people and our history. For me, listening to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is a spiritual experience. Studying a Picasso or a photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope also qualifies. Playing catch with my daughter or listening to my son practice his bass or returning a great book to the shelf in my study…all of these are spiritual experiences. I am moved by life.
"I have great respect for the ancients and for their contributions to the well of human knowledge. Where we may differ is simply in the fact that I think the best answers human beings have ever come up with to explain our existence and its purpose are being made today. Contemporary humans have better answers, in my view, because the ancients were good enough to write their ideas down. For thousands of years we’ve been building on the work they started. Early anatomy lessons performed by Egyptians making mummies of their dead Pharoahs, for example, were the first steps in the human journey to modern medicine.
"But today we have much more powerful tools for making the observations. Before our ancient eyes, we have placed microscopes and high power computers: Where the ancients saw skin, for example, we can see skin cells, their nuclei, our DNA, nucleotides, proteins…even atoms. We can see atoms! We can take pictures of atoms. We can manipulate individual atoms on our computer screens. We can build things one atom at a time. Do you know what that means? That means we can repair things one atom at a time. Do you know what that means? That means eventually we will be able to repair damaged cells and all of their components. We will literally cure every disease known to man…including the biggest killer, old age! We will fulfill the hopes and dreams of the ancients. We will achieve our immortality. Right here on Earth."
I told my principal the truth. I hadn’t changed my views since last year, and I’ve never shied away from sharing my views, however unpopular I knew them to be. The problem was this time it had all come out before my students knew anything about me, my thinking, my epistemology.
I fixed the problem the second day of the new semester, with a ten minute lecture on my epistemology. I’d like to share it with you.
“I’m going to teach you a big word today…EPISTEMOLOGY. It’s a big word, but it’s very easy to understand. Your epistemology answers the question: ‘How do you know what you know?’ There are two kinds of epistemology, rational and irrational. I teach my own children my rational epistemology. I wrote this story to help them understand:
The Keepers of the Zoo
By Donn
How do you explain
the sun in the sky,
the wind in your hair,
the beat of your life?
How do you explain lightning
and thunder,
the warmth of a touch,
the taste of cucumber?
How do you explain cold rain
or wet snow,
the bang in a drum,
the crow of a crow?
How do you explain
anything you know?
How do you explain an eclipse
of the sun,
the moon and the stars,
or the lottery you won?
How do you explain
the green-ness of a leaf,
the smoothness of a rock,
the sting of a bee?
How do you explain the thorns
on a rose,
the bones in your fingers,
the shape of your nose?
How do you explain
anything you know?
How do you explain
the bark of a dog,
the strength of good steel,
or anything you feel?
You think and you dream
while you live on the Earth
of flowers you've seen,
of music you've heard.
You think day and night...
All the others do it, too...
we share our insights...
we're the keepers of the zoo.
So, how do you know
the apple is sweet?
Take a bite little human,
share what you think.
"All of us are born with a brain…a brain that has experienced almost nothing at all before the day we are born. It’s like a powerful computer with its operating system in place, but few programs installed and no data. From the day of our birth we begin the process of inputting data. Everything we know enters our brain through one or more of our five senses. Everything we know starts on the day we first open our eyes and see the light of the delivery room, hear the voices of our ecstatic parents, and feel the icy coldness of the air-conditioned room against our naked body, the warm touch of human hands and of mother’s breast.
"I am someone who believes in that which is known to exist. I am a deeply spiritual man, but my spirituality lives in my boots and is firmly planted on this Earth, in its people and our history. For me, listening to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is a spiritual experience. Studying a Picasso or a photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope also qualifies. Playing catch with my daughter or listening to my son practice his bass or returning a great book to the shelf in my study…all of these are spiritual experiences. I am moved by life.
"I have great respect for the ancients and for their contributions to the well of human knowledge. Where we may differ is simply in the fact that I think the best answers human beings have ever come up with to explain our existence and its purpose are being made today. Contemporary humans have better answers, in my view, because the ancients were good enough to write their ideas down. For thousands of years we’ve been building on the work they started. Early anatomy lessons performed by Egyptians making mummies of their dead Pharoahs, for example, were the first steps in the human journey to modern medicine.
"But today we have much more powerful tools for making the observations. Before our ancient eyes, we have placed microscopes and high power computers: Where the ancients saw skin, for example, we can see skin cells, their nuclei, our DNA, nucleotides, proteins…even atoms. We can see atoms! We can take pictures of atoms. We can manipulate individual atoms on our computer screens. We can build things one atom at a time. Do you know what that means? That means we can repair things one atom at a time. Do you know what that means? That means eventually we will be able to repair damaged cells and all of their components. We will literally cure every disease known to man…including the biggest killer, old age! We will fulfill the hopes and dreams of the ancients. We will achieve our immortality. Right here on Earth."
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Metaphysics + Epistemology = Philosophy
Do you live in a world where bread falls from the sky for you because you’re hungry? Where dead relatives rise from their graves because you love them and miss them? Your answers to these questions define your metaphysics. If you are rational, and you understand and accept the nature of the world you live in, your answer to both questions is obviously “no.” So when a rational man is confronted with starvation or the pain associated with the death of a loved one, he knows he can not wish or pray his hunger or pain away. He knows he has to act to preserve himself and he must do so in a very real way: He must wake up in the morning, shake off his pain, go to work, and bring home the groceries. The thinking of the man with an irrational metaphysics is clouded by promises that his daily bread will be given to him, that his dead relative is not really dead.
He argues these beliefs are a comfort to him.
Notice: The irrational is easier, more seductive. This is why faith [the irrational] has been accepted by men of all cultures and through all of time…it’s a short-cut, it’s easier. You don’t have to get up, you don’t have to work, and you don’t have to face death. You can lie in bed all day and pray for pain relief. But, know this; if somebody [some living loved one, perhaps] doesn’t come to your aid, you will eventually starve to death.
Fortunately, most Americans, however faithful, have the common sense to get up and go to work. They get up and go to work and thank God for the strength to do so. The irrational beliefs they cling to for whatever reason serve only to cloud their thinking, like OxyContin, while subconsciously they do the real work of solving their problems.
Because the Laws of Nature are immutable, hard to explain, and do not change to serve the whims and wishes of man, the epistemology of the irrationalists worldwide is stored on the pages of ancient “holy” texts, man's thinking long before he actually explained a Law of Nature, e.g. Newton/gravity. The ancient texts [ALL] are a reminder of the ambitions of our ancient ancestors…How they wanted to fly, how they wanted to cure disease and extend life, how they wanted to never go hungry. How they explained a moral life at a time when men knew only authoritarian governments. [Big collective ambition requires human sacrifice, they thought.] Of course, the modern men who developed the first flying machines, “miracle drugs,” and 21st Century agricultural techniques shared the ambitions of the ancients. All men do. But not their epistemology. Free men, pure and applied scientists, for generations now have been working to transform the ambitions of the ancients from dreams and atrocities to reality and morality.
How have we achieved the modern world? 1. Meta- physically: By understanding the real nature of the world we live in; and 2. epistemologically: By developing ideas that work within the parameters of reality. For example: 1. Pasteur and others discovered the nature of disease, i.e. hostile, mindless, microorganism invading our bodies. 2. Armed with the truth and reason, their protégées developed the means to destroy the invaders while preserving the host, i.e. modern medicine.
So...when a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?
The modern world was built by men who answer "of course!"
He argues these beliefs are a comfort to him.
Notice: The irrational is easier, more seductive. This is why faith [the irrational] has been accepted by men of all cultures and through all of time…it’s a short-cut, it’s easier. You don’t have to get up, you don’t have to work, and you don’t have to face death. You can lie in bed all day and pray for pain relief. But, know this; if somebody [some living loved one, perhaps] doesn’t come to your aid, you will eventually starve to death.
Fortunately, most Americans, however faithful, have the common sense to get up and go to work. They get up and go to work and thank God for the strength to do so. The irrational beliefs they cling to for whatever reason serve only to cloud their thinking, like OxyContin, while subconsciously they do the real work of solving their problems.
Because the Laws of Nature are immutable, hard to explain, and do not change to serve the whims and wishes of man, the epistemology of the irrationalists worldwide is stored on the pages of ancient “holy” texts, man's thinking long before he actually explained a Law of Nature, e.g. Newton/gravity. The ancient texts [ALL] are a reminder of the ambitions of our ancient ancestors…How they wanted to fly, how they wanted to cure disease and extend life, how they wanted to never go hungry. How they explained a moral life at a time when men knew only authoritarian governments. [Big collective ambition requires human sacrifice, they thought.] Of course, the modern men who developed the first flying machines, “miracle drugs,” and 21st Century agricultural techniques shared the ambitions of the ancients. All men do. But not their epistemology. Free men, pure and applied scientists, for generations now have been working to transform the ambitions of the ancients from dreams and atrocities to reality and morality.
How have we achieved the modern world? 1. Meta- physically: By understanding the real nature of the world we live in; and 2. epistemologically: By developing ideas that work within the parameters of reality. For example: 1. Pasteur and others discovered the nature of disease, i.e. hostile, mindless, microorganism invading our bodies. 2. Armed with the truth and reason, their protégées developed the means to destroy the invaders while preserving the host, i.e. modern medicine.
So...when a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?
The modern world was built by men who answer "of course!"
Friday, June 8, 2007
Integrity: A Family Value
I’m not looking for a way to make what I think fit the data. The data determine what I know. Reason determines how I think. I am not prejudiced by any unsubstantiated “favorite ideas” or beliefs that others use to guide their research. I know that reason is the only path to the truth in existence.
[My epistemology.]
This is what I teach my children.
I reject all faiths on principle. It is immoral for a man to give up his rational mind. The true lovers of humanity are not the people of faith who say that man is nothing, that man can know nothing, that morality is something commanded from above, that men are born sinners, that self-sacrifice is a virtue. The true lovers of humanity believe in man, believe that man must be free, believe in man’s ability to rule his own destiny by the only method suitable to man: science [i.e. rational thinking].
All faiths are irrational in that they ask man to believe that which cannot be proven. Every faith known to man was invented by ancient people who knew far less about “everything” than we know today. Yet, despite all of the achievements of man through science since Colonial times and the creation of the first free society in the history of the world, most Americans still view faith in some un-provable, un-testable god as a virtue. I do not.
People of faith claim to have "special knowledge" about life before and after death [among other things]. When you ask them how they know these things or how the laws of physics change to satisfy their wishes, they say only their god knows these things, and he has told us all we need to know. They say their holy book has all of the answers and that it’s a sin to ask these questions. They threaten me with hell for all eternity, never realizing that eternity is life on Earth and that hell is life without freedom.
I answer to no authority higher than the truth. I have something far more valid than faith to guide me. I have integrity. Integrity is a profound respect for the truth, like it or not. It is a top-tier family value.
I trust the scientific method and the validity of peer review and replication. Through the scientific method, only, man may define reality: data must be collected and evaluated; data must be tested and tests must be replicated; conclusions about what is and what isn't may be drawn, finally. Any conclusion not consistently supported by the data remains a hypothesis.
Nothing exists that cannot be known to man while he lives. As our tools improve, so too does the data, so too does “what I know.”
A man of faith hopes [as virtually all men always have] to live forever, but he ignores the means by which that dream will one day become reality: science.
[My epistemology.]
This is what I teach my children.
I reject all faiths on principle. It is immoral for a man to give up his rational mind. The true lovers of humanity are not the people of faith who say that man is nothing, that man can know nothing, that morality is something commanded from above, that men are born sinners, that self-sacrifice is a virtue. The true lovers of humanity believe in man, believe that man must be free, believe in man’s ability to rule his own destiny by the only method suitable to man: science [i.e. rational thinking].
All faiths are irrational in that they ask man to believe that which cannot be proven. Every faith known to man was invented by ancient people who knew far less about “everything” than we know today. Yet, despite all of the achievements of man through science since Colonial times and the creation of the first free society in the history of the world, most Americans still view faith in some un-provable, un-testable god as a virtue. I do not.
People of faith claim to have "special knowledge" about life before and after death [among other things]. When you ask them how they know these things or how the laws of physics change to satisfy their wishes, they say only their god knows these things, and he has told us all we need to know. They say their holy book has all of the answers and that it’s a sin to ask these questions. They threaten me with hell for all eternity, never realizing that eternity is life on Earth and that hell is life without freedom.
I answer to no authority higher than the truth. I have something far more valid than faith to guide me. I have integrity. Integrity is a profound respect for the truth, like it or not. It is a top-tier family value.
I trust the scientific method and the validity of peer review and replication. Through the scientific method, only, man may define reality: data must be collected and evaluated; data must be tested and tests must be replicated; conclusions about what is and what isn't may be drawn, finally. Any conclusion not consistently supported by the data remains a hypothesis.
Nothing exists that cannot be known to man while he lives. As our tools improve, so too does the data, so too does “what I know.”
A man of faith hopes [as virtually all men always have] to live forever, but he ignores the means by which that dream will one day become reality: science.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
A Footnote
Those of you who have read Ayn Rand will undoubtedly recognize her ideas in my writing. I have studied her philosophy, Objectivism, for the past five years. I own my lessons, now, well enough I think to write them down. I won’t be quoting Ms. Rand, at least not deliberately; but because I’ve studied her books so thoroughly, I’m sure I will slip into her words from time to time. Let this one footnote serve to acknowledge the beautiful mind and magnificent thinking of my greatest teacher.
Metaphysics and Family Values
I know that I exist.
I believe there is objective, knowable reality. Only that which exists, exists. That which is not real does not exist and will not exist no matter how much you wish it, no matter how many of you wish it. Your wishes do not have the power of creation.
I have a right to my life
I am a free man. I have a right to my liberty. A free man can dream-up projects, and he can carry them out. He can think in many directions and pursue his happiness in any number of professions and arts. When a free man succeeds, he does so by virtue of his own ability. He owns his success. When a free man fails, he has no other to blame, and therefore no escape. There’s no escaping the truth when you are free.
I have a right to pursue my own happiness.
As a man, I seek the truth. Truth is not determined by majority vote. Truth is that which exists in reality. It is identifiable. It is definable. If the majority fails to see the truth, the truth remains, still, unaltered. Truth is knowable. It stands firm, unchanging, uncompromising. Man can know truth and falsehood—like good and evil, like black and white. If something seems to be "a gray area" that is only because presently we may lack some knowledge essential to full understanding or we may have erred in our interpretation of the data. Our failure presently to solve the problem does not alter the solution. The solution—the truth—is there for us to discover. In other words, whether we know the facts of reality or not, the facts of reality do in fact exist.
I have a hierarchy of values. I will never sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one. For example: Some argue that faith and a belief in life after death is comforting to mankind, that the belief [however unsubstantiated] gives man hope. They argue that hope is the greater good. I disagree. They have sacrificed a high value, truth, for a non-value, their wish. Truth is what I aspire to. To seek the truth is what I teach my children. To exist in reality, to exist as free people, to be happy through the achievement of real self-esteem… these are our family values. The well being of my five children and my wife ranks as high as my freedom, my happiness and myself. In fact, they are integral to my definition of “my happiness,” and therefore, it is my right and my self-imposed responsibility to protect their lives and their liberty as I would my own.
I believe there is objective, knowable reality. Only that which exists, exists. That which is not real does not exist and will not exist no matter how much you wish it, no matter how many of you wish it. Your wishes do not have the power of creation.
I have a right to my life
I am a free man. I have a right to my liberty. A free man can dream-up projects, and he can carry them out. He can think in many directions and pursue his happiness in any number of professions and arts. When a free man succeeds, he does so by virtue of his own ability. He owns his success. When a free man fails, he has no other to blame, and therefore no escape. There’s no escaping the truth when you are free.
I have a right to pursue my own happiness.
As a man, I seek the truth. Truth is not determined by majority vote. Truth is that which exists in reality. It is identifiable. It is definable. If the majority fails to see the truth, the truth remains, still, unaltered. Truth is knowable. It stands firm, unchanging, uncompromising. Man can know truth and falsehood—like good and evil, like black and white. If something seems to be "a gray area" that is only because presently we may lack some knowledge essential to full understanding or we may have erred in our interpretation of the data. Our failure presently to solve the problem does not alter the solution. The solution—the truth—is there for us to discover. In other words, whether we know the facts of reality or not, the facts of reality do in fact exist.
I have a hierarchy of values. I will never sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one. For example: Some argue that faith and a belief in life after death is comforting to mankind, that the belief [however unsubstantiated] gives man hope. They argue that hope is the greater good. I disagree. They have sacrificed a high value, truth, for a non-value, their wish. Truth is what I aspire to. To seek the truth is what I teach my children. To exist in reality, to exist as free people, to be happy through the achievement of real self-esteem… these are our family values. The well being of my five children and my wife ranks as high as my freedom, my happiness and myself. In fact, they are integral to my definition of “my happiness,” and therefore, it is my right and my self-imposed responsibility to protect their lives and their liberty as I would my own.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Opening Prayer
Dear God,
If I am wrong and you do in fact exist, then this post is for you. I've been listening for some time now to those who claim to know you and what you want, and I reject the philosophy they claim is yours. If they’ve got it all wrong and what I have rejected is theirs and not yours, please accept my apologies: I have rejected you when, in fact, it is they I have turned my back on.
The Christians among them claim it was your son, Jesus, who brought your message to the Earth. Did he get it right? Was Jesus teaching your philosophy? I have two teen-age sons of my own, and I know how often children act on ideas alien to the lessons their parents have taught. If he got it all wrong and what I have rejected is Jesus’ and not yours, please accept my apologies: I have rejected you when, in fact, it is him I have turned my back on.
If you do exist, and you do have a philosophy, and you do decide to send one of your children to Earth to teach it, next time…
Next time, please send one who loves his life on Earth.
Send one who fights to defend his life.
Send one who understands freedom.
Send one who understands his right as an individual to live his life in the pursuit of his own happiness.
Send one who understands science and respects the growing body of hard-earned, human knowledge.
Send one who understands that love is earned.
Or do nothing at all [which is what I expect you have always done]. We can figure things out all by ourselves. We don’t need commandments; we have discovered individual rights and objective law. We don’t need miracles; we have discovered science. We don’t need promises of an afterlife; we need to start really living our lives on Earth.
Sincerely,
Donn
If I am wrong and you do in fact exist, then this post is for you. I've been listening for some time now to those who claim to know you and what you want, and I reject the philosophy they claim is yours. If they’ve got it all wrong and what I have rejected is theirs and not yours, please accept my apologies: I have rejected you when, in fact, it is they I have turned my back on.
The Christians among them claim it was your son, Jesus, who brought your message to the Earth. Did he get it right? Was Jesus teaching your philosophy? I have two teen-age sons of my own, and I know how often children act on ideas alien to the lessons their parents have taught. If he got it all wrong and what I have rejected is Jesus’ and not yours, please accept my apologies: I have rejected you when, in fact, it is him I have turned my back on.
If you do exist, and you do have a philosophy, and you do decide to send one of your children to Earth to teach it, next time…
Next time, please send one who loves his life on Earth.
Send one who fights to defend his life.
Send one who understands freedom.
Send one who understands his right as an individual to live his life in the pursuit of his own happiness.
Send one who understands science and respects the growing body of hard-earned, human knowledge.
Send one who understands that love is earned.
Or do nothing at all [which is what I expect you have always done]. We can figure things out all by ourselves. We don’t need commandments; we have discovered individual rights and objective law. We don’t need miracles; we have discovered science. We don’t need promises of an afterlife; we need to start really living our lives on Earth.
Sincerely,
Donn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)