NOTE: I prefer to use the male gender in literary analogy and example statements rather than a genderless pronoun (as in the phrase “one’s self”), or more inclusive phrase which includes male and female (such as the phrase, “he or she”). If you can’t get past that and still understand my meaning, please do not procreate.

Intro

Preferences leading to prejudices, biases leading to loyalty, patriotism leading to nationalism; all of these are similar and may rest along various points on a similar single scale of measure. What if they all collude and combine at one extreme into something called racism?

Preference & Morality

Isn’t it natural to prefer to sleep and have sex and eat all day long without end, and to indulge every whim and fancy without hesitation at every minute of the day? Isn’t everything in nature good and morally right? How can the beautiful natural world be separated from the moral world? If we natural physical beings are not moral agents, then there would not be any immediately obvious reason to believe in morality at all, would there?

Let us not descend into epistemological chaos though. Let us overlook the many imperfections in our current assumptions, and start half-ass without perfecting them, and see where they lead us, and at least we shall not go quietly into the night. If there is an ultimate Good that exists, then the will and thought of that Good, must be ultimate Truth, if for no other reason than that it is willed into existence, and thus becomes ultimate Truth, by virtue of infinite Goodness. Do we need a separate definition of truth other than perfect existence – that state of being in which no falsehood or deceit exists? In that way, there is a great beauty to great Truths, and every great Good, is a great Truth, and every great Truth, is Good.

A finite creature may not ‘will’ anything infinitely, or know anything infinitely, but may happen across streams and fall prey to their currents, and taste their waters, and be impressed with some perceptions and opinions of them, which is a dark reflection of their ultimate true essence and material being. A being may be innocent, and as a young child horribly suffer because of natural events, not initiated by mankind, but completely coincidental with regard to any human intention. No, I do not think that nature is always good. Not every natural physical being is good. Some humans are bad. It is the will of the ultimate Good, which imbues goodness. Being outside that Will imbues moral ambiguity. Being directly against that Will, either through commission or omission, imbues evil.

Preferences and Property

When you purchase an item, in human law, you alone then hold the right and authority to give it away. If the item is stolen, someone may advocate on your behalf, but no one may claim a ‘right’ to that item, but the person who paid the price for it. Wealth which is distributed as gifts is the same. The question as to human rights then becomes, “do we own our own bodies?” If we are the owners, we alone should have rights to our own bodies, unless there is some strong argument to the contrary. Do I show preferences or prejudices for my own property? Shall I have the right to burn my house down, or to burn my baby alive? More on that later…

Preferences within the body, are natural, but may not always be good. Even though we may prefer to grant our own selves pleasure over giving others pleasure, to do so at all times, to the exclusion of caring for our children for instance, would probably be considered immoral, and not morally good. Preferences themselves may not always be good, and whether the preference is natural and has evolved as part of the true human nature, from our first ancestors, does not satisfy all criteria we might decide on as qualifying that preference to be good. It is too difficult to say whether or when masturbation, or any other inclination which may start at a pure and natural motive, becomes immoral, even if only perpetrated upon ourselves (or our property). Whether small animals are lives which can be made property is another matter altogether in carnivorous societies.

For the matter of moral preferences, merely having an opinion of the good, is very similar to having a preference for one type of good over another. In one case, a particular preference may neither be good nor bad, and this at all times may be the case. Alternatively, some preferences it would seem may at one time be good and at another time be morally bad. We should probably consider the context in moral preferences (for example, telling a lie to save a life). But a preference for chocolate may not be morally bad. In fact, some preferences alone may never be bad, or rarely, right? It is the choice and the actions taken, such as indulging that preference to the exclusion of caring for one’s own children. So the context, as when there are competing preferences, should be taken into account. Preferring the company of one type of person, to the exclusion of all others, taken to an extreme — could that possibly carry a moral value (for example “all my friends are proud white trash”)?

One’s opinion of the Good, can never be infinitely known, beyond all possible doubt, and with complete certainty, because of the limitations of the human mind. We can at times be fallible, we can at times be deceived by others, and we can at times be sick or otherwise not capable of healthy reason (such as brain damage). We humans can only attempt to attain some reflection of the Good, and to entertain what the Truth might be.

Preferences & Human Rights

Harming another may violate their right to health, but only if they truly own their own body. If the State owns our bodies, then you have transgressed only the rights of the state, the true owners of that property. If the Creator owns our bodies, and rightly constructed them from materials willed into pre-existence at some point billions of years in the past, by some fantastic plan set in motion with infinite foresight, then the only transgression of rights, was by the guilty party against that Creator’s rights. In fact, that would to some degree correspond to that person being morally ungood, if such as Creator did not will that you should harm the other person, because as we mentioned before, the will of that Creator might be defined as the Good (moral good).

Regardless, preferences are not always good, and often can be quite bad, when taken within the context that they are expressed. If a man never acts on his preferences, but is secretly and quite craftily concealing his preferences, either because he loathes them and feels great shame and guilt over them, or because his society shuns them, there may be some other moral problem with such preferences. A preference which draws a man sexually toward pre-pubescent little girls, may be a morally evil preference in some society (but not others), even if not acted upon, right? What about a preference, which is engaged through fantasy, to do great bodily harm to some other person? Certainly some preference may seem to be potentially bad morally. I would personally be concerned with the character of my heart and soul, had I such preferences in such a continual and persistent manner, being a 37 year old white male living in the southern United States in 2007.

Preferences and Accountability

We are often fond of defending our preferences. Why shouldn’t we like one flavor over another in ice cream, or one particular time of the day, mornings over nights for instance? Whether a person is exclusively attracted to brunettes over blonds, or whites over blacks, or large women over very thin women, is partially just a pattern of his DNA, isn’t it? Are child molesters and psychopathically violent people not morally bad, if their DNA is to blame? To this question, I would suggest that two people who are alike in every respect, who both stand by and do nothing to assist a woman lying in the road in pain, may not be equally guilty. One person may have prior knowledge that this woman has a heart condition and may be dying. The other may be a stranger, with a morbid fear of others, based on some prior unfortunate incident of torture.

The point here is that we are each morally accountable individually on a sliding scale, each according to our own prior knowledge and understanding of the moral status of our choices. I would imagine that, if there is a Creator, and if that Creator has not deceived our minds which so earnestly want to believe in a just Creator (looping argument or not), that justice would dictate opportunities to gain such knowledge would also be considered. A criminal on the cross, born into misery to a prostitute, who makes one small kind statement, may be judged less harshly than a king who provides alms for the poor (aka., campaign contributions) only so far as it is tax-deductable, and then even ensure that a paid-for press release spreads the word. Morality is relative, not because of ‘fit’ to personality, lifestyle or preferences. Morality is relative to one’s knowledge and ability, and to the circumstances which dictate the greater good and may include competing and incompatible choices.

Yet in man’s law, ignorance is no excuse in many cases, particularly where malice and forethought were part of the crime. Again, this only serves to magnify the importance of individually carrying our own karma, because certainly intentionally avoiding the emotional growth of facing reality and honestly self-reflecting on our own internal motives and character, is but one layers of the enormous complexity a good judge would need to take into account, along with some infinite knowledge of the many opportunities we may have passed up, at the prompting even of loved ones, to get honest and introspect. Yes, preferences for remaining ignorant, and thus comfortably free of the stress and strain of a deeply affected and sensitive conscience, can be morally bad.

Prejudice and Biology

There is however a difference between a preference and a prejudice. A prejudice is a special type of preference, and should rightly be placed beneath it as a subset of preference. Whereas many preferences are emotional and/or biological, most of our prejudices are ultimately cognitive and are subject to cognitive examination at some point in our lives if we have the courage to do so. Prejudice is more likely to take place apriori to some event or choice, if emotional biases are in place before one is presented with the need to judge one’s choices. Sometimes this is called loyalty or nationalism. That will lead us toward patriotism and then racism later. For now though, let us move the conversation into the subset of preferences, which can be called prejudices.

Prejudices allow us to discriminate. It is not coincidental that we evolved to dislike the extreme bitterness (or other unpalatability) of poisons. If we were unable to discriminate between colors for instance, then we would die by eating the wrong roots or berries, or make other grave mistakes. All I am doing is establishing that the ability to discriminate can be good. Prejudices are sometimes naturally produced by strong influence of our DNA or society, thus at times they also enhance our social and individual survivability. Prejudice (before the fact or experience) for the company of our own species (social needs), as well as our own children to those of other children has been good for our species in some respects.

It is the high resolving power of male attraction to those females most likely to be sexually inviting and reproductive and of those females toward those men most likely to fiercely protect and intelligently gather resources which allows for the exclusion of mates who are less desirable and therefore elimination from the gene pool, and overall success of the species (in addition to out-competing other species). However, merely to deconstruct how discrimination works in humans is not an affirmation that it is never morally wrong or good. Discrimination (like sex) is critical to survival, but not always appropriate or good.

Prejudice and Heuristics

Let us suppose for a moment that you are among a group of elite soldiers, in a very small and highly selective team. All of you are ‘lifers’ meaning that you love your country and you love your job. Almost every single movie I have ever seen regarding these lifers portrays them similarly, in that there is a good guy and a bad guy (sometimes the same guy may be good and bad). At some times, the situation may call for bending the rules a little, in order to ‘get the job done’. The problem is often made grotesquely obvious by a ‘bad’ guy bending these rules further and further until eventually, even the MOST patriotic person must admit that the lunatic must be stopped, though all admit this person is only trying “to do their job”, by any means necessary.

Now I ask you, why is this such a fuzzy grey area? You can also trade this story, for one about police officers who do not ‘rat’ on each other, but hold loyalty to each other or to their overall local force, in higher regard than the law itself, which is often flawed, ineffective, and contra the best interest of the people it seems. Everything is much more comfortable as long as we have cognitive balance. Once dissonance or paradox creeps in, we squirm until we reach balance again. We much prefer for people to easily fit into the categories we have created for them.

Heuristics are mental short cuts. Like stereotypes, they allow us to divert mental resources to other tasks, because once we match a new pattern to a previous pattern, all the prior situational rules can then be applied to the new pattern and we know what we are ‘supposed’ to do. If it sounds like a broken axle, feels like one, smells like one, tastes like one, etc., then it may have a high probability of being a broken axle if for no other reason than Occam’s razor. Now imagine a microscopic bug on a beach in North America, travelling south. For millennia, this bug, and all its ancestors and for many generations prior, may have travelled in one particular direction, and actually have made their trek through millions of millimeters of rough terrain. The great forefather bugs in their wisdom through great intellectual inquest, have deduced many facts about the “known universe”.

Bug scientists have conducted experiments that recreate the hypothetical beginning of the world, and have determined that mere millionths of microseconds before the very first primordial bug emerged from the dust of the past to begin this trek, that the known universe was very different indeed, and that there may not have been a beach at all. There was instead, something known as grass. Irreverent younger bugs would be flabbergasted to imagine a world where not only did the beach suddenly veer (perhaps near the gulf of Mexico), but that it disappeared completely under a great and mighty ocean which has no bottom. In such cases, logical deduction and generalization from their narrow past experiences outward to the vast “known universe” would be still be only a glimpse of all that is.

Prejudice and War

A rich man will quickly tell the masses that it is their obligation to protect his wealth from an invading army, because of love for their country. If they are not willing to die for love of country, then they are unpatriotic, and should be hanged, or at least ridiculed. For those who own no property though, what have they to loose if they go from one master to another? Yet the property owners do not die, they merely send in the slaves to die. If the property owner is a kind and good master though, they will not castigate those who do not want to die to protect their property, and instead, they will only label their political enemies as unpatriotic. If you criticize the system, then you are unpatriotic. If you advocate political reform, then you are unpatriotic.

What then is patriotism? Is it a love for the physical geographic land and environment? No, tree-huggers are unpatriotic because they ridicule the giant corporations who are killing the ozone layer and all species who depend on glacial ice. That cannot be the definition of patriotism. Is it a love for the original values and ideas upon which a country is based? Yeah, let’s all start beating our wives, burning those with epilepsy because they must have demons, and teaching our children to hate!

I say no to that also, because blind allegiance and loyalty to an unwavering position, means that you don’t want things to ever get better, even if you later discover that you were wrong (unless you are already perfect). I personally wish to be loyal only to the method and the process, not to the product. It is more important that you carefully select and continue to refine your METHODs of discerning truth, than it is to stand strong and continue to salute a leaking ship. If I have guests in my house, and I treat them better than my own family, then I am a jerk. I will grant that (I do love my family, and some things about my country). By the same token, if I have a guest in my house, and I treat them worse than my own family, I believe I am equally a jerk (respect ALL peoples). I will feed them from the same stock as my own.

Conclusion

We are all brothers in this world. Although we may have greater trust and have won a greater intimacy with some people over others (such as our own family members), and will consequently inevitably be more willing to provide for, protect, and love those we trust more and to whom we are closer, it makes no rational or logical sense (in my system of ethics) to PREJUDGE someone based exclusively on whether they share the same country or culture. There are good and there are bad people in every country and we should each be judged individually on our own.

Military regimes come and go. Values, beliefs, and morality overall CAN be improved upon, especially when sciences helps us see the physical and non-spiritual aspects of the problem and thus discriminate better between which part is a moral issue and which part is a spiritual or ethical issue (as in the case of learning that primitive tribal peoples in some areas of the world, are in fact genetically the same species as Anglo-Europeans).

Poor people who are choosing to die in wars fought to protect only those peoples who are sitting on top of natural resources which will make our masters richer (who do not participate in the war directly themselves, but benefit financially in great degree from that war) may be patriotic. But they may also be mere pawns who equally buy into the statistical error of generalization from their narrow little beach-front existence, to the greater world of foreign cultures and peoples. They bravely die, and yet they cowardly refuse to question tradition. We should limit war whenever possible, to protecting and doing good, rather than securing the wealth of a few.  Help that is not wanted, is not help at all, but more than likely a charade of crafty land-owners who preach endless sermons of patriotic duty. Vengence (you hit my sister, now I will hit you) is not the equivalent of protection (I will block you from hitting my sister) and may be a better description than patriotism in some cases.

Resources:

• Samuel Johnson “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”
• George Bernard Shaw “Patriotism is a pernicious form of psychopathic idiocy”
• Thomas Paine “My country is the world, all men are my brothers and to do good is my religion”
• Right-Wing Conservative argument:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/16/france-love-it-or-leave-it/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/25/destructive-tolerance/
• Left-Wing Democratic arguments:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/AmericaLoveIt.htm
http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=213