Category Archives: Political Theory

The New Deal, McCarthyism, & Christian Socialism

  By Paul admin | August 20, 2009 - 11:44 pm | Economics, Ethics, Political Theory, Propaganda, Religion
Leave a comment
  • The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming public support
  • Many conservatives at that time equated the [first] New Deal (ND) with socialism or Communism
  • How do you get OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT?  Should you appeal to their altruistic nature?
  • No.  There must be an evil enemy, upon which we can blame our problems, direct our hate toward.

Finding the Invisible Devil (aka, the Inquisition)

  • New Deal 3 Rs: Relief to the unemployed, Reform of business and financial practices, Recovery of the economy
  • Roosevelt believed severity of Depression due to excessive business competition lowering wages/prices
  • New Deal instituted banking reform laws, work relief programs, agricultural programs, and industrial reform
  • Roosevelt rejected spending cuts believing big business were trying to ruin the New Deal
  • This would cause another depression that voters would react against by voting Republican
  • 1939 Gallup poll asked, ‘Roosevelt administration … delaying business recovery?’
  • American people responded ‘yes’ by a margin of more than two-to-one (FUD >> intellect)

Who are the true believers in this devil?

  • Many (perhaps most) historians say the effects of Roosevelt’s work restored hope & self-respect to millions of desperate people
  • A 1995 survey of economic scholars asked whether “Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.” Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed ‘with provisos’ (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed
  • Fortune’s Roper poll found in May 1939 found that PUBLIC opinions on the issue were much different than the academic opinions (against New Deal efficacy), and were highly polarized by economic status and occupation.

The Inquisition

  • McCarthy dropped out of junior high school at age 14, but thanks to 61% support from Republicans, was elected Senator.
  • Primary targets of McCarthyism were government employees, entertainment industry, educators and union activists.
  • Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence
  • The level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated.
  • Conservative politicians referred to liberal reforms (child labor laws, women’s suffrage) as “Communist” or “Red plots”
  • Executive Order 9835 authorized firing federal employees believed “disloyal to the Government of the United States”
  • Once a person lost a job due to an unfavorable loyalty review, it could be very difficult to find other employment.
  • Review Board chairman said “No responsible employer would be likely to take a chance in giving him a job”
  • After the Hollywood mass firing, private loyalty-review boards and anti-communist investigators began to appear.
  • From 1951 to 1955, the FBI operated a secret “Responsibilities Program” that distributed anonymous documents with evidence from FBI files of Communist affiliations on the part of teachers, lawyers, and others. Many people accused in these “blind memoranda” were fired without any further process
  • The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to teach anti-US government material.
  • In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S.
  • The number of people imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.
  • Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism.
  • Importantly, Joseph McCarthy though now the poster boy, was NOT alone in this viral infection of paranoid ill-informed ignorance.
  • McCarthy, as a senator, had no direct involvement with the House Un-American Activities Committee and many other groups.
  • William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of the influential conservative political magazine National Review, wrote a defense of McCarthy, McCarthy and his Enemies, in which he asserted that “McCarthyism … is a movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks.
  • (Search YouTube and watch Noam Chomsky shred Buckley in a debate on politics, where Buckley’s command of historical knowledge proves weak)

The Ethics of Pro-Social Altruism

For all those who have exited the stone age of dog-eat-dog tribalism, and are ready to catch up to 2,000 yr old ethics, please stop waving your bible and read it.

First read: Acts Ch 2 verses 42, 44, & 45: (about the early Christians)

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

Next read Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version)

And Luke 1:49-53: (Mary describing the GOOD works of God:

52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Matthew 19:16-24 (the same event is also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25):

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The phrase “love thy neighbor”, repeatedly spoken by Jesus, is rather well known. Christian communists point out that Jesus considered this to be the second most important of all moral obligations, after loving God.

And in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, the poor and the sick, and states that good or evil done upon “the least of [God's] brethren” will be counted as good or evil done upon God himself. It is argued that Jesus is saying that nations, rather than individuals, would be judged according to the characteristics of their societies. If that is the case, this could imply that political and economic systems were being heavily critiqued

Leviticus 25:35-38: “If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.” and Acts 4:32-35, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need.” As well as Acts 2:42-47, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] ”

Historical Christian Socialism

There is in fact a rich history of Christian socialist teaching throughout the history of the church. In Catholicism, the Rerum Novarum encyclical letter of Leo XIII (1891) was the starting point of a teaching on social questions that was expanded and updated all through the 20th century. Though avoiding the word Socialism (as the Socialist movements of the day were anti-religious) the encyclical promotes a kind of corporatism based on social solidarity among the classes with respects for the needs and rights of all. In the more Catholic countries of Europe the encyclical’s teaching was the inspiration that led to the formation of new Christian-inspired Socialist parties.

A number of Christian socialist movements and political parties throughout the world group themselves into the International League of Religious Socialists. It has member organizations in 21 countries representing 200,000 members.

For more on this theology, read Frederick Denison Maurice (The Kingdom of Christ, 1838), Charles Kingsley (Water-Babies, 1863), Thomas Hughes (Tom Brown’s Schooldays, 1857), Frederick James Furnivall (co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary), Adin Ballou (Practical Christian Socialism, 1854), and Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister and the author of the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance). You can also simply reference the teachings of Liberation theology or of the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM).

The British Labour Party and Australian Labor Party have both been influenced by Christian socialism, and some figures from both parties could be considered to be Christian socialists, depending on the definition of “socialism” used. Former British Labour leader Tony Blair is a member of the Christian Socialist Movement although his adherence to Christian Socialist ideals is highly disputed. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd identified himself as an “old-fashioned Christian socialist” in a 2003 interview with the Australian Financial Review, later writing in 2006: “A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere.” However he also described socialism as an “arcane, 19th century” doctrine and stated that “I am not a socialist. I have never been a socialist and I never will be a socialist.”

But if you have graduated to context-relevant ethics created in this most recent century, and instead revere those Europeans who first settled America, or just prefer a more “American” (patriotic to the US) you need only look to the Plymouth Colony. They were a community practicing communist-like principles used by the “primitive” Christian Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles (“all things be held in common”) was used as a basis for the contract agreed upon by the venture and its investors. Although each family controlled their own home and possessions, corn was farmed on a communal plot of land with the harvest divided equally amongst the settlers. In fact, before Karl Marx ALL communism was rooted in religious principles. His only revelation was basing his theory on logic and historical science rather than 2,000 year old religion.

The Essence of Christian Socialist Ethics

In short, the views of these Christians can be summed up in three quotes:

  1. If we all came of the same father and mother, of Adam and Eve, how can they say or prove that they are better than we, if it be not that they make us gain for them by our toil what they spend in their pride? (John Ball)
  2. Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian’s faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the “will of God.” (George Lansbury)
  3. Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society. (Hugo Chávez)

Conclusion?

What does all this mean? I am personally averse to most religions, including Christianity. But there is definitely some grain of logic in the Christian socialist quotes above (at least, in their end result). If you are a Christian, and you are content to “join the crowd” in frenzied paranoia, essentially behaving like a mindless puppet under the hand of greedy rich business owners and bankers, then you should at least know that they are NOT actually promoting ideas that are consistent with those of Jesus and the early Christians.

If you are like me, and have already stepped away from the “opiate of the masses” bong, start watching videos by/about Noam Chomsky and exit Plato’s Cave completely.

Taxonomy of Philosophy of Education

  By Paul admin | April 22, 2009 - 4:41 am | Philosophy of Education, Political Theory
Leave a comment

How would you taxonomize the proper and best methods for a field of study called “Philosophy of Education”?

Before you answer that question, consider another (even shorter) question: “What is the meaning of life?” (don’t think Hitchhiker’s Guide here) Are the best questions really this easy to ask? Here’s another: “What is most important in life?” But wait, these questions may be shorter and use simpler terms, but they are actually much harder and complex to answer. In fact, they are so extremely general, and non-specific, as to be nearly useless, other than as Philosophy of Educationbasic invitations to unorganized random chatter.

If questions are to be useful, they need to be specific, otherwise they are probably best considered high level goals, or general aims, rather than well constructed questions. At the very least, they need clarification. Now we have arrived at one of the uniting principles of all sub domains of philosophy. That is, for those who propose to ‘do’ philosophy, there is a need for a high degree of resolution and precision in identifying and distinguishing concepts, relations, and the other constructors of meaning.

Even when the question is enticingly simple (and they often do begin as such), the ability to even attempt an answer may demand clarifications and divisions of the question, possibly deconstruction, etymological analysis or other close examination. Let me therefore assist those who might consider engaging the question I began with, by clarifying in some small degree the meaning of the question.

What I am asking essentially is that the answerer unlearn everything that may have already displaced their conceptual openness regarding the philosophy of education, and instead start again as if innocent of prior knowledge. For instance, those familiar with this field of study likely know that several researchers have indicated that the predominant paradigms within the history of educational philosophy include: (1) functionalist theory, (2) conflict theory, and (3) interpretivist (DiGiulio, 2001, Feinberg,& Soltis, 2004, and McLaren, & Giarelli, 1995).

In general, these 3 views can be summarized as follows: The functionalist theory views each individual in terms of contribution to the whole, the individual’s function and purpose within the system and how that evolves over time. The conflict theory assumes an existing tension in society based on competing interests of the individuals involved and often includes economic ideas descendant from Marxism. The interpretivist point of view emphasizes a scientific approach which examines the context of social behavior and the implications of rules and meanings in a specific group.

When I first began to realize how prevalent these frameworks or paradigms are in the philosophy of education, I was intrigued. I asked myself, did someone come to ask questions designed for the toolset they already have? Were they putting out theoretical fires, or taking the long view? Was it all time and chance, or were these 3 camps a product of western dominance of post-industrial educational policy development, and indirectly mere reflections of the changes in their societies? In other words, to what degree was the economic dominance of each ideology, a product of supply dynamics (prevalence at time X, place Y, for scientist type Z), or a matter under demand control (urgency of educating baby-boomers, emergency of knowledge worker occupations, etc.).

We sometimes like to believe that self-directed passionate curiosity drove most theory development, rather than merely picking the lowest hanging fruit in the nearest general vicinity where an academician is standing. But that’s mere displaced longing for something to believe in firmly, as less perceptually and individually constructed, and more a product of tiny ant scientists circling and characterizing great structures of truth in the sand. In his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Thomas Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:

  • what is to be observed and scrutinized
  • the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
  • how these questions are to be structured
  • how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

By now you hopefully are seeing an underlying theme to my question, which is that the question itself, determines a lot. Formulating the question with ever so slightly a different set of terms, can have dramatic influence on the answers proposed. In fact, the taxonomy of how philosophers of education might be grouped together, might possibly depend very heavily on the selection of those questions deemed most important to the field.

For instance, history’s philosophical questions tend to look like this: “What is the proper unit for the study of the human past; the individual, the polis, the civilization, the culture, or the nation state?” and “Are there broad patterns and progress? Are there cycles? Is human history random and devoid of any meaning?” If the birth and development of philosophy of education had been more influenced by historians than by sociologist (imagine a snowball effect, beginning with one great, ground breaking scientist), how might the major questions sound? Surely we would all agree that the future is often predicted by the past, and to best plan the future we should understand the past, and how it relates to the present?

Each of the fields typically associated with the ‘humanities’ has its own set of major and minor theories, tool sets for analysis and investigation, and frameworks which divide the practitioners within it. One way of answering the question I began this with, might be to take a look at some of the major humanities, and ask new, different questions, than those which are being answered (or attempted at answering) by our 3 traditional branches of philosophy of education. Some potential options are listed below:

POLITICAL SCIENCE:

Political science is methodologically diverse. Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, interpretivism, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science has several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national politics, international relations, and comparative politics.

COMMUNICATIONS:

In the United States, the National Communication Association (NCA) recognizes 9 distinct but often overlapping sub-disciplines within the broader communication discipline: Communication & Technology, Critical-Cultural, Health, Intercultural-International, Interpersonal-Small Group, Mass Communication, Organizational, Political, and Rhetorical.

ANTHROPOLOGY:

Anthropology has many subfields, including: Biological anthropology, Cultural anthropology, Linguistic anthropology, Social anthropology, Archaeology. Some of the Methods and frameworks include: Applied anthropology, Ethnography, Prehistory, Participant observation, Qualitative methods, Cultural relativism, and Holism.

PSYCHOLOGY:

Modern researchers are interested in a many phenomena, but attribution, social cognition, and the self-concept are perhaps the greatest areas of growth in recent years. Social psychologists have also maintained their applied interests with contributions in health and environmental psychology, as well as the psychology of the legal system.

HISTORY

Historians debate the nature of history and the lessons history teaches. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyze the sequence of events, and it often attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events. Philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history. Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history.

References

DiGiulio, Robert C. (2001). Educate, Medicate, or Litigate? What Teachers, Parents, and Administrators Must Do about Student Behavior. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. (2004). School and society. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaren, Peter, & Giarelli, James M. (1995) Critical theory and educational research. SUNY Press

Wikipedia  (duh!)

911 & WTC Conspiracy Theories

  By Paul admin | November 30, 2007 - 4:51 pm | Political Theory, Propaganda
Leave a comment

I generally get a good chuckle from conspiracy theories. I see them in a similar light to all the UFO and faith healer folks. But every once in a while, I’m given cause to raise an eyebrow in curiosity.Most people on the internet who propose conspiracy theories have “issues” in my opinion (like many improbable event beleivers or magical thinkers). That does not mean however, that that a very small number, perhaps in rare cases, are not true.

If you get a chance I would recommend watching the following documentary (it may take several sessions if you are a busy multi-tasker like me, as this video is like 1.5 hrs long): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480 (called “Painful Deception”). If you pay close attention and listen intensely, there is some very good logic and evidence presented. Interestingly, there are also some rather sound-minded people who seem to support similar views… see here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ The other side of the story is equally strong through, and best represented by the primary source here: http://wtc.nist.gov/ At first, I when I saw the documentary above (“Painful Deception”), I was curious. It seemed calm, logical, and more rational than I had expected. That of course faded quickly after I started reading the materials at the NIST site, by the folks who did the actual investigation. At that point, I was just perplexed. There was still a somewhat weird question in the back of my head as to how anyone could examine all the reports and evidence by NIST, and still remain to unwavering in their position that there was massive government cover-up or complicity.

A few days later, I watched this interview with Noam Chomsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM Let me just say that Noam Chomsky is one of the people who has had a lot of influence on me as someone I admire in certain ways. He is a very famous conspiracy theoriest, and yet, he is a true universally recognized scholar (and probably a genius). The problem with Chomsky is that he is not radical enough to satisfy crazy people, but he is just enough anti-establishment and libertarian to piss off most of the conservatives. In fact, given enough time listening to him, he’s likely to eventually say something that is insulting to almost everyone (I’ve seen and read A LOT by and of him).Anyhow, after the Chomsky’s response to the 911 Conspiracy Theorists, I was definitely moved to begin suspecting a strange and sufficiently widespread phenomenon of paranoia. With such a high prevalence among the public, this trend might deserve more serious study on it’s own (the tendency, capacity for, and sophistication with which the human nature tends to invent theories to satisfy it’s own agenda, without regard to the actual empiracle world). Although it can be quite humorous and a target for even angry rebuttal (for example, see this Penn & Teller clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I).I think that we should not look at this as another opportunity to deride the ignorance of the masses. We should merely seek to understand this as a human frailty and vulnerability we all share to some extent (some more than others, for various reasons). I think we should approach this phenomenon with empathy and sensitivity given that often it afflicts those with high moral intentions and great courage — who tend not to be so quick to to general public opinion but rather tend to be independent thinkers and critical thinkers (or try to be).

Patriotism and Prejudice

  By Paul admin | October 5, 2007 - 8:48 pm | Political Theory, Racism
Leave a comment

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