The source of our morality

Inspired by a talk given by the notable and intrepid philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam Harris; my interest in evaluating the veracity of certain moral perspectives has been resuscitated.

There are two commonly circulated misnomers about the source of human morality. The first is that we were endowed with our moral sense by our creator which is revealed through the religious text. The second is that there is no objective appraisal of morality to be made, because we subjectively and arbitrarily ascribe moral value depending on our preferences. I contend that these are both false assumptions.
The worldview that states that morals are derived from our creator and standardized in the religious text errs principally in its historicity. It has been proven that civilization predated religious texts. For instance in the Torah, when Yahweh supposedly dictated levitical law to Moses which included the ten commandments. The most astoundingly obsolete commandment was, "Though shall not kill", namely, because it states the obvious. As if within the million or so years that humans have been on this earth non of those humans came to realize that killing was wrong before Moses chiseled this edict onto stone tablets. Not indiscriminately murdering people was a widely accepted principle throughout human history and prehistory( As evidenced by the enduring survival of our species). The fact that this precept predates its purported religious source precludes any causal relationship between religion and fundamental morals.

The other end of the spectrum of the misapprehension of the value of certain moral perspectives and their source of inception, is the willy-nilly appraisal of the moral relativist. They posit that objective morality doesn't exist and that everything is simply a matter of subjective preference. This is a nihilistic viewpoint which is a result of a refusal to acknowledge the link between morality and human well being. If the value of morals are assessed against a rigorous understanding of the universal components of human well being then objective morality can actually be understood and applied.

I hope this short analysis helped to elucidate the true nature of morality. I hope that it served to wrestle it from its religious and nihilistic captors alike. If the appropriate type of morality could be woven into the respective legislative frameworks of the world then I think the world would become one in which we would all feel like our best interest are truly being promoted.

I welcome any feedback or opposing ideas

Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney

The idea that people like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are considered to be viable canidates for the American presidency is terrifying at best. These are people who hold religious beliefs which are certifiably false. Sarah Palin ,for example, believes in the biblical time line which would place the earths age somewhere between 8,000 and 18,000 years old. Mitt Romney believes that the Native Americans are lost tribe of Israel cursed with red skin for their indiscretions. These are two examples from the litany of beliefs which these individuals hold which are demonstrably false. Why are these nut jobs canidates for anything other than psychological evaluations?

Their viability as candidates is reflective of the type of ignorance, and apathy which infects large swaths of our country's population.
People who I talk to about this issue often respond with a predictable: "you cant criticize them for their religious beliefs and faith, because its separate from their politics"
Is it not painfully obvious that people's beliefs, religious or otherwise, affects their behavior in very transformative ways?
There is no one on earth whose political views are not influenced by, if not direct extensions of, their religious beliefs.
Take Sarah Palin again, she along with most Christians believe that the return of Christ will be preceded by great turmoil and war, as according to biblical prophesy. A person like this who naturally desires to see the return of her lord has a vested interest in the initiation of global turmoil and war. Now give a person like this command of the worlds most powerful military, the nuclear codes, and a seat on the U.N security council and Ta Dah!! You have all the preconditons for a self-fulfilling prophesy.

This prospect is beyond dangerous, and anyone who is willing to support people like this as candidates are nihilistic whack jobs!!

A thought provoking poem

"A point of intersection on some temporal grid
Marks the origin of a tragedy beating its last.
Indignation mounts on our unchained id
Collective in its thirst to reckon its past.

This blood let man, a prism infrared
Burdened by the weight of his very breath
Who's words in tomes yet to be read
Subliminally demand recompense for his death.

Hung from a structure of Roman design
Marred by spears and splinters and thorns
Spoke to a father more human than divine
To no response, a dialogue forlorn.

Delayed. His revenge enacted vicariously
Filtered through time and the bricks of his tomb
Untold screams resonated merrily
From the walls of gas chambers and poisoned wombs.

Left to our own devices with lies from his legacy
Implanted in our minds, like recipes for war,
And slavery, and Holocaust, and endless lunacy
A darkness swept over like never before.

The enemy of science and logic and reason
The patriarch of ignorance and self denial
He calls for us to commit the greatest treason
Against the very thing that makes us smile. "

This was written by Rich Evans, who is an up and coming poet and philosopher what do you guys think of not just the poem itself but of the message it aims to impart?

Atheism vs Antitheism

Just to clarify, the argument that I asserted in our fervent debate in class was an atheistic position not an anti-theistic position. There is a difference, that difference primarily being the fact that the word atheist simply means one who lacks belief; which is a neutral position reflected by my advocation of government mandated activities being sterilized from religious influence and practice. Because this is a staunchly constitutional position I don't understand how the bulk of the class could so vehemently disagree with me. Unless you have problems with the provision in the first amendment for the separation of church and state there is really no authoritative basis for a counter argument against my position other than the fact that I may have offended your personal sensibilities.
I am an anti-theist as well but I keep that perspective compartmentalized from my beliefs about the necessity of a secular government which are based on an understanding of the dangers created by a government that allows for an atmosphere of religious contention in our public schools. Our deistic founding fathers, who authored the constitution, understood that danger as well; which is precisely why they made provisions in our founding document to prevent this from occurring.

The state of the union

Any criticism of the way things are must necessarily be predicated upon a set of expectations, derived arbitrarily or otherwise, that make allowances for the existence of better alternatives. Thus it follows that the alternative which is to be pursued by the leadership of an organization should be one that has measurable and lasting benefits for their respective constituents. Why then do the republicans continue to propose alternatives which have demonstrably negative consequences? This question would be entirely unproductive if the one who poses the question is not willing to concede the existence of an objective reality of some sort. I do concede the existence of objective reality and will critique the proposed republican alternatives to some prominent democratic initiatives according to the standard necessitated by the existence of an objective reality.

1. Health care
The republicans are almost categorically opposed to the type of health care reform which would allow for the government to interdict health insurance entities from denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions. Their reasons for this opposition, simply put, are to allow for the insurance industry to generate the maximum amount of profit possible. This position seems righteous enough doesn't it? I mean who is the government ( an entity formed by the people to act on behalf of people for the purpose of pursuing the peoples best interest) to interfere with a corporations ability to make a profit? This position is laughable when pitted against an objective hierarchy of values that categorically deems sustaining human life as a higher priority than generating profits. That is why the democrats proposed a bill that would unburden the insurance companies from the unwanted task of canceling the coverage of cancer patients because their treatment is too costly. Let the government handle it. There will never be a clause in a corporate charter which directs the corporation to execute a principle purpose of promoting the general welfare of the people. That sounds more like the constitution to me. A document that was authored by individuals who intended for government to be a benevolent and empathetic entity. What set of values could possibly prioritize the welfare of an artificial entity over real human beings? This is my chief concern when I think about the state of the union: a large segment of our population embraces a core value system which prioritizes the general idea of profits over the general idea of helping people live long healthy lives. The type of value system that calls for the unnecessary eradication of human lives for the sake of maintaining hegemony. The type of value system that places the Q4 earnings of oil companies over maintaining a sustainable environment. The systemic shortsightedness of the republican party, their passionate embrace of illogicality, and their complete inability to care for the welfare of those who are not "able" to create a decent standard of living for themselves concerns me to no end.

An incredible disply of apathy...lets laugh about it!

Something profoundly interesting happened to me yesterday while I was riding the bus. Allow me to expound. So there I was sitting diagonally across two seats, partly because my legs are too long for just one seat, and partly because I didn't want anyone sitting next to me.Tapping intently on the screen of my IPOD, I was close to breaking my all time record in tetris. Suddenly the bus stopped and I looked through the window to see a man lying in the middle of the road, surrounded by onlookers who were screaming that he had been struck by a car. So as this guy is lying on the road breathing what could have been his last few breaths. The mob of apathetic drivers who were inconvenienced by his immanent death began to incessantly honk their horns and squeeze their way around the sphere of onlookers. With frustration and irritation etched into their brows some of these cars came within a few feet of the man who was now convulsing on the ground. While trying to suppress my hero reflex which beckoned me to get off the bus and try to assist this guy, I simultaneously wondered what was going on in the minds of those drivers who were beeping and driving past him.

Help me to try and fill in the caption bubbles of the people who obviously didn't give a shit about this guys welfare. What do you think are the contents of these peoples inner monologue?
I'll start with a few of my guesses.

"Couldn't you die just a little further to the right you're gonna make me miss the new episode of House"

" This ass whole should have looked both ways"

"This guy's fat so it doesn't really matter anyways"


Lemmie hear some of your guesses.