8. Absurd Questions Asked and Answered
Towards the end of the Middle Ages,self-proclaimed religious, social and intellectual leaders were asking absurd questions and people actually believed there were relevant answers that affected anything. A typical question was "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" There was an easy answer in the then current intellectual paradigm: Since God and his minions were claimed to be omnipotent, the answer must have been "as many as want to".
Today, self-proclaimed "experts" in the humanities, leaching off the well earned credibility of the sciences by pretending to use scientific methodology are our modern priests. The questions they pose are equally absurd and irrelevant. The purpose of these questions is to introduce ambiguity and uncertainty into the affairs of man and to pretend that their opinions have some value and therefore they are actually necessary in the grand scheme of things. As proven by the definition of reality (relationship between action and consequence in an environment), nothing is real until a force is exerted in the real world. Belief, incorrect or not can cause some very powerful forces to act in the affairs of man. Ask any "witch" burned at the stake or victim of the inquisition or Iraqi citizen.
8.1 What is Good and Evil?
Mankind has had this proven knowledge throughout all of recorded history. It once formed the basis of civilization and is deeply embedded in our language and was once acknowledged by our highest laws:
Evil is the opposite of life. Evil spelled backwards is Live.
Thus, everything in support of the requirements of life and living are Good and all things working against life are Evil or Bad.
Is this absolute truth, or is it a contextual truth that depends on environment?
Every single intelligent person on the planet wants to survive and can thus agree on this definition of good and evil, at least regarding their own persons in their own environments. Thus, all men subjectively agree that life in good and death is evil. All honest, morally aware men and civilized law throughout recorded history have considered "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as the highest law, meaning that mankind acknowledged the right to life of others even before Christianity. Thus, you will not get disagreementn from honest men on this general point.
Since all generally agree that life is good, under what environmental conditions can Evil (anti-life) be justified as Good? Or, in other words, is "necessary evil" a justification for anything, under any conditions? To answer this question, we must be able to objectively measure good and evil to see whether the sum of the two is positive (life) or negative (death) for all parties involved.
Consider the right to kill in self-defense using life as the moral (good) measure. Assume two parties, one intent on killing the other and the other intent on living in an environment with no possibility of aid for the defender. Whichever one succeeds in living, the death of another has occurred. Life and therefore good has been reduced by one life, a direct consequence of one person not respecting the right to life of the other.
If the defender lives, the life of the offender is lost. When the legitimate survival interests of society is considered, this is good, since a risk to all men has been removed from society. The offender who, by his actions has proven that he considers it legitimate to kill others in pursuit of his goals thus proves a willingness (or consents) to live or die by the law of the sword. Success of the offender, since he depends on predation to meet his goals is a very strong indication that there will be future victims to the detriment of society as a whole. Thus, when the interests of society in general is considered, defensive violence, including the killing of predators (if no other choice) who threaten life is good and morally legitimate, since the offender has, by his own actions consented to be judged by the moral code of violence and a source of bad (reduction of life) has been removed.
If the offender lives, he also achieves whatever his goal was in killing. A profit has occurred (from the perspective of the offender) at the loss to society of an innocent life. If there is no cost to the offender for this, the rewards say that this is a good thing from his perspective, since his life has been enhanced by the profit. From society´s perspective, this is a bad thing, since collective life has been reduced and, unchecked, the offender will re-offend in pursuit of further profit. Should the offender be willing to honestly express his views, I am sure he would claim his act was "necessary evil", since he considers his survival to be more important than survival of his victims
Thus, in the example above, the right to kill in self-defense, if no other choice exists is good and not "necessary evil", for the simple reason that one is doomed to die anyway and getting rid of predators of man is a net benefit to life, when society, time and inevitable future acts are considered.
When the good and evil portions measured by the standard of life of any situation or environment is considered and summed, the concept of "necessary evil" really means that the resulting sum is a negative or loss of life for society as a whole. When you incorrectly consider society as a subset of mankind, such as a nation, what you are really doing is limiting perspective and environment. Only under these conditions, where the lives of those excluded are not equally valued, can you make plausible "necessary evil" arguments based on my life is more valuable than yours arguments. Only then, can you make it sound plausible to those whose perspectives are limited to consider Muslims, rag heads, blacks, chinks, Jews, wogs, gays or any other target group as subhuman and therefore legitimate prey.
People who seriously think call fallacious arguments which exclude environmental factors and complete facts "Falsely Framed", meaning that the issues and options are incompletely presented, to achieve the desired outcome of those who are presenting false, contrived arguments in hopes of manipulating you to agree with their desired conclusion.
This begs the question of why the question of good and evil, right and wrong is even being asked, who benefits from the destruction of this social consensus, what are their goals and what happened to the answer to which we all, including the law, socially used to agree? Since civilization was based on the previous answer to this question, what is really being asked is what will be the moral basis of the next civilization, once the present one is destroyed by removing the very basis of its existence. It appears the desired answer is "might is right", which has already been refuted countless times throughout history by collapsed civilizations and devastated peoples.
8.2 What is Right and Wrong?
Objective questions such as what is the size of the earth clearly have right and wrong answers, verifiable using the proven laws of nature and factual observation.
If the objective definitions of good (in support of the requirements of life) and evil (opposing life) are accepted and good is the value consensus, right equals good and wrong equals evil. In the absence of this or any objective standard, the concepts of good and evil become subjective. Good becomes what is in support of your life and evil is whatever detracts from your life, with no consideration for others. It is every man for himself, a fairly accurate description of the primitive chaos and barbarism which we, as a species came from and appear to be heading back to.
8.3 Is Mankind Good or Evil?
This is an excellent example of a falsely framed question, making it absurd with no possibility of a reasonable yes or no answer.
Per the definition of good equals in support of life, mankind is morally neutral in the same sense that a rock is morally neutral until some action is performed. Until mankind actually makes a choice, resulting in action and consequence which can be evaluated by the moral standard of good and evil, mankind is morally neutral. If the choice (assuming all of mankind makes it) is evil, is it accurate to say that mankind as a whole is evil? What happens when mankind by some fluke makes a good choice? Would it be accurate to say that mankind is now good? Does mankind flip between good and evil as choices are made? Must we watch mankind for all of eternity, adding the plusses and minuses of good / evil and only knowing when the final tally is in?
It is not mankind that can be judged; only the good or evil of particular choices (actions) can be morally judged. The same is true of any individual or group. Until a choice is made, they are morally passive and cannot be judged except by their actions. It is actions and not people that can be morally judged.
Mankind is thus morally neutral, neither good nor bad. It is only our individual actions that can be evaluated, by whatever the moral measure of the day is.
For the same reasons it is absurd to ask or to claim answers to questions such as: are women better than men, black better than white, my god better than yours, ad-infinitum.
8.4 Is Money Good or Evil?
In an honest civilization, money is true information representing the market value of the time and energy spent in providing goods and services to those you trade with and a claim on the time and energy of others in return for your efforts. Thus, money is a measure of life expended contributing and a claim on the life contributed of others. Money is an information tool which any good or service may be represented in. This allows commerce and avoids the problem of sellers being able to trade only with those who want their specific good or service. Money is a tool representing the life force of all who engage in honest trade. It is thus a measure of contribution to society. Under these conditions, the richer you are, the more you have contributed and can thus ask in return.
In a dishonest civilization, money is no longer a tool representing objective value. Those who print it do not earn it. Money is commodity which can be created and destroyed at will, using the law of supply and demand to establish a perceived value based not on intrinsic value, but on the trust of those who use money that it will be redeemable and maintain value. Unsecured currency is a future promise that will most likely (by historical experience) be broken. In addition, when dishonesty is tolerated, money is a measure of successful frauds, market machinations and crime in general. As a consequence, money no longer represents productive value and becomes objectively worthless, since its definition is ambiguous. This is why our far wiser ancestors established the Gold and Silver standards for money, since peoples throughout history were left with worthless and irredeemable fiat currencies from dishonest trading partners and governments. Those of us who were alive in the 1960´s and 1970´s observed the value of silver in coin exceeding the currency value it represented (and thus being removed from circulation and sold for the metal value), removing the last vestige of objective value from money. It was at this point in time that our civilization was stripped of objective wealth. If money is backed by real value such as precious metals (secured), criminals cannot create nor play with its value in their elaborate frauds as they do today. The instability and lack of objective worth of money has a lot to do with the instability and periodic economic collapses of civilization.
Having defined money, we can now consider its moral merit or lack thereof. A non-living thing, independent of its nature cannot be good or evil, since things do not have the ability to initiate actions (volition) which results in their inability to cause consequences, resulting in them being morally neutral since they cannot cause moral, immoral or any consequences. Thus, money, guns and all non-living things are morally neutral, neither good nor evil by whatever standard one may care to judge.
However, when coupled with human action (choice), money, guns or any material thing can be used as a tool to achieve good or evil. Just as in the question of humanity´s moral nature, it is only the choices of individuals that may be evaluated as good or evil.
Similarly, was Nazi Germany good or evil? When adding the plusses and minuses of all German choices during this period, it appears Nazi Germany was evil. On this incorrect generalization, rather than judging individual acts, all of Germany was collectively punished, including those who did not vote for the Nazis and fought them and their policies.
8.5 Is Abortion Good or Evil?
This is an action which has direct consequences for life and, given the moral standard that life is good and death bad, there must be an objective moral verdict on abortion within this standard. Our courts, religious "leaders" and ethical "experts" claim that abortion is one of the most difficult moral questions of the day. At a minimum, this is an admission of their incompetence.
I prove the abortion argument is falsely framed, a contrived argument, part of a larger strategy to deny that future generations of human beings have any rights. If they did, governments would not be able to run deficits, pollution would be seen as murder of the unborn as would the rape of natural environments, extinction of species (we´re just last), waste and misallocation of the earths resources.
First, the arguments. On the one side, we have the right to lifers, who say it is morally wrong to kill fetuses and claim a say on the unborn´s behalf. On the other side, we have those who claim an unwanted child is a burden and will destroy the life and opportunities of mothers who are not prepared for the responsibility and care required. In addition, since the fetus is a totally dependent part of the mother´s body, it becomes a matter of a woman´s right to control her own bodily parasites.
Note that the arguments are presented as a conflict between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Only two possible outcomes are allowed. Either the fetus lives (no abortion) and the mother is trapped in a role she does not want (she did choose not to take preventive measures unless rape has occurred) or the fetus dies and the mother lives with no consequence of this minor inconvenience. The scope of the argument (or how it is framed) has been restricted to fetus versus mother and the larger environment is not considered.
In the larger picture, by the definition of good and evil applied to the life of the fetus, the "right to lifers" have a morally correct position. It is just as wrong to take life as it is to destroy the ability of unborn generations to survive by debt and destruction of our only ecosystem
When the cost to the mother is considered, is it really true that the mother must lose so her child can live? Who says that as a result of an unwanted birth, a mother is doomed to losing opportunities in life? Who says that parents must take care of their unwanted or unaffordable children if viable alternatives exist? Who says that children must suffer in inadequate environments where they are not wanted or able to be cared for? I am not suggesting welfare.
It is a fact that fertility is declining in our so called advanced civilizations. It is a fact that there is a very large market for fertility clinics and adoption. It is a fact that the legal profession has priced adoption into an unaffordable luxury for most. It is a fact that it is deemed illegal to pay an expectant mother expenses or a fee for her unwanted baby, which is incorrectly framed as a moral issue of human trafficking.
The only impediment to childless people temporarily adopting and caring for a pregnant mother with the expectation that they can call the resulting child their own is that the legal profession demands unaffordable tribute to "bless" what can be a mutually advantageous association, a "good", by the moral standard of life. This begs the question of whether it is good or evil to construct an environment, backed by force where evil appears necessary and good is prevented.
In the above arrangement, there will still be women with unwanted pregnancies, who for reasons of their own, such as rape, vanity (not wanting long term physical changes resulting from childbirth) or immediate career or social cost, want an abortion. In this case, the argument becomes a balancing of 100% loss of life for the fetus versus a nine month burden for the mother, during two of which she is incapacitated and unable to work until birth and adoption. The moral mathematics (maximum life) still favors the fetus. In addition, in my experience, every woman who has had an abortion and later had children carries a lifetime of regret and wondering who the aborted child would have become and wonders if the abortion was a wrong choice. In general, what seems like a reasonable choice under limited circumstances may not be reasonable when the larger picture is considered.
There are still other people affected by this issue who have not been considered
What about the father? The child is half his responsibility. He may want an abortion to avoid paying child support (entrapment may have been the reason for the pregnancy). He may be morally opposed to abortion or want the child just to have a reason to associate with the mother (perhaps against her will?).
What about population control, assuming Malthusian theory is correct (linear increase in food, exponential increase in population), resulting in overpopulation and mass starvation
What about loss of freedom by giving the law power over choice in this area?
What about this legal opinion being generalized to mean all unborn have no rights, therefore making consideration of the survival of future generations a matter of choice and not law?
In conclusion, by the morality of life, abortion is not a "necessary evil", since there are suppressed alternatives making it unnecessary. We are left with plain old evil – a reduction of life within the context (framing of arguments) presented.
The question still has not been answered: should abortion be legal or not, despite being a loss of life and thus evil? For whatever reasons, some women will still want abortions, even ifm the cost is reduced to carrying a child to term prior to adoption.
It is clear that abortion is a loss of life and therefore evil. As evil, it should be minimized by making the alternatives, such as easy adoption and care for pregnant women available, thus increasing pregnant woman´s choice. In situations where abortion is still desired or necessary (no adoptive prospects), allowing abortion seems to be a lesser evil than allowing the law to control a woman´s life to this degree. It should also be legally acknowledged that this issue has been resolved based on limited scope and does not imply that future generations have no rights and we can therefore engage in behavior they would never consent to such as putting them in debt and ecological destruction
This is a typical falsely framed argument of the legal profession, where their contrived reality (background environment) is unmentionable in the falsely framed debate and assumed to be immutable and fixed, a fact of life. The conflict is contrived, to establish false moral points such as the unborn have no rights, a key element in the larger machinations of The Powers That Be who attempt to define our intellectual environment as a method to control our choices (and thus their survival) by controlling the perceived or allowed alternatives.
8.6 Are Terrorists Good or Evil?
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."
- Webster´s New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a) The system of the Reign of Terror. b) A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c) Any policy of intimidation.
- The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins: Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term ´terrorism´ is avoided and something more friendly is substituted. In short, one person´s terrorist is another person´s freedom fighter.
I am pleased to note that the above dictionary definitions have not yet been subverted to suit the wants of the PTB´s in defining reality (intellectual concepts) to a form more advantageous to themselves.
It is no accident that "terrorist" has no objective definition among those who claim a monopoly on the use of force, ie; states. They and the United Nations have been unsuccessfully searching for years for a definition that cannot be applied to themselves without making it too obvious that they are claiming to be exempt from the definition by who they are. This would be an admission that states believe they are exempt from the law, by the legitimacy they claim as "public servants". Since the "War of Terror" is a very real thing and states refuse to fess up with a definition of terrorist, it can only be concluded that, in the opinion of states, terrorists are those who cause them terror. When states shortly achieve the absolute power and unaccountability they are grasping for, I, for one, fully intend to terrorize them. It is hoped that this work will have the effect of enlightening people enough that states will be terrified of citizen reactions to the point that states acknowledge that democratic will counter-balanced by the equality provisions of the "rule of law" are in charge, a fact they ignore at their own peril and have throughout history.
In reality, anyone, state or otherwise who attempts to coerce people by terrifying them is a terrorist. Many a reader will be willing to concede the point that they are terrified of their own government, especially the tax department, a law unto itself.
To unbiased people, someone who you are in terror of, or one who invokes the response of terror or overwhelming fear for life is a terrorist. Neglecting terror which is a bluff, real terrorists must actually follow through sometimes or their threats become ineffective. By this measure, since life is lost (either by death or imprisonment), terrorists, whether self-legitimized in government or otherwise are evil. The question becomes is terrorism exercised by states "necessary evil" (overall loss of life) as states claim or just plain evil?
A more realistic view of terrorists is as wannabe politicians and political parties. They sniff (or create) the winds of discontent in a population and promise to address the grievances. Some are honest and committed to the cause of freedom, some are opportunists, seeking power over others, some are just in it for a job.
From this, it is apparent that without oppressed populations, terrorists would be out of a job and would join other sane people in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It should also be apparent that if "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are denied us, we must also become "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" from the perspective of those who oppress us.
As an example of a word lacking precise or having contradictory meanings, consider "anarchy".
- From Merriam Webster online "anarchy":
1a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order: DISORDER<not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
Thus, "anarchy" cannot be used to accurately describe any state of affairs and those who have concluded that the use of force to do anything except retaliate (defend) against those who harm their fellows is morally illegitimate and uncivilized have no word to accurately describe their position.
The powers that be have subverted this word to introduce ambiguity, such that those who believe in un-coerced, harmonious co-existence with their fellows are associated with a state of disorder and therefore appear to pose a threat to survival which is assumed to depend on a hierarchy of masters and slaves, with the PTB´s control incorrectly defined as a fact of life or reality which restricts our possible choices and thus survival. In other words, anarchy is defined by our self-proclaimed "masters" as "absence of them".
8.7 Is Gay Marriage Good or Evil?
I leave this as an exercise for the reader. Hints: Is anyone harmed apart from offending the claimed moral sensibilities of those who incorrectly believe they have a say in the peaceful choices of others? Who loses or gains based on the outcome of this argument? Are lawyers creating a lucrative market for gay divorce? Why are gays so foolish and insecure that they believe they need or want the moral sanction of others?
8.8 Individual versus Group Rights
Some claim that the equality rights of some individuals and groups must be violated for the good of some other group which is suffering from some disadvantage, requiring the playing field to be leveled using the pretext of fairness.
Since there is so much of this kind of argument going on, I will not name any of the claimed oppressor and victim groups apart from noting that oppressors and victims must be periodically re-defined because the "oppressors" become impoverished and this social cost needs to be hidden.
The stakeholders in these arguments are members of the accused oppressor groups, the self-proclaimed leveler groups, the self-proclaimed victim groups and society as a whole.
For arguments sake, I assume that the legal environment is such that equality of opportunity and not results is the moral measure. If this is not the case, the law already provides special advantages to some and discriminates against others. Under this condition of biased law, the problems can be fixed by restoring the equality of treatment provisions of true law.
The stakes for the alleged oppressor groups are that they will be deprived of equal opportunity by legally imposed handicaps and/or having their property redistributed to others. The rewards for their productive activity will be reduced, reducing incentive to be productive. In addition just the fact that their property is under attack and at risk means they must shift resources from productive activity to defense, a further loss of productivity.
The stakes for the leveler groups is the commission they can achieve by property re-distribution and the jobs and infrastructure of redistribution (enforcers, legal conflict, intellectually creating rationalizations, convincing the public, evaluating need and distributing rewards) and the self-esteem of believing they are doing good by fighting evil oppressors. In addition, if the majority of the population can be convinced that they are oppressed, political power can be achieved and held until it becomes apparent that only the redistributors are prospering and social wealth is generally declining. Note also that it is the leveler groups who control all aspects of choice in this area. I.e.; they define (create) the problem, propose the solutions and profit from the implementation.
The stakes for the victim groups are that, in exchange for whining and claiming to be needy or historically disadvantaged as opposed to contributing, they can have a life of reduced or no effort required to survive.
The stakes for society as a whole is loss of productivity from the alleged oppressor groups, loss of potential productivity from the leveler groups (do not contribute, only redistribute), loss of potential productivity from the self-proclaimed victim groups plus the cost of the entire infrastructure of redistribution and conflict due to biased law. Unaddressed, these costs inevitably result in social and economic collapse (USSR). A further cost is the general decline of the moral values required for survival such as work ethic, honesty and the peoples hope that by contributing, they can achieve survival and get ahead. If people cannot survive by contributing, the only alternatives are joining victim groups or crime.
8.9 The Good of the Majority
This argument and effects are identical to the individual versus group rights above with the victim group replaced by a group claimed as majority. There are still alleged oppressors, self proclaimed leveler groups who are the only ones who prosper and a vague definition of majority who are also impoverished by the general decline in productivity and social wealth.
This argument requires some scapegoat group such as the Jews in Nazi Germany who were demonized and problems blamed on as a prelude to depriving them of equal protection under law. In Nazi Germany, this resulted in a social policy of extermination, completely legal according to the Nazi courts. Today´s governments are more practical. It is politically messy and costly to exterminate and more profitable for leveler groups to enslave.
8.10 The End Justifies the Means
This is easily refuted. We live in an action precedes consequence reality. The End (consequence) cannot happen before the Means (action) occurs.
This statement is therefore a prediction, a sales pitch, based on the assumption that the claimed knowledge relating Means and End is true. It is intended to convince people that some nasty deed must be done for some claimed good to be achieved.
Take socialism as an example. It is claimed that if all income and property is placed (forcefully, if necessary, from the unwilling) under the control of those professing altruism that the End will be a Utopian workers paradise and heaven on earth. Unfortunately, the claimed knowledge relating action (Means) and consequence (End) of socialism is a lie. Without property rights and ability to keep what one earns, all productive activity ceases, for the simple reason work does not contribute to survival and it is easier and just as rewarding to be lazy.
More recently, consider the Iraq war. Neglecting the false pretexts for war, it was claimed that the Iraqi people would treat their liberators from the evil Saddam with open arms and rose petal showers, out of sheer gratitude. In this case the means was the utter destruction of Iraqi civilization (yes, Iraq was very civilized) and the claimed end was Iraqi gratitude. The absurdity of assuming the Iraqi people would be stupid enough to believe altruism on the part of the US and not view this as an imperialist resource grab and be grateful for the destruction of their country is beyond belief.
I am not aware of the predicted end coming to pass where the cost of the means has been justified in all of history.
8.11 Might is Right
"Might is Right" is easily refuted. The point is conceded that disputes can be easily and quickly resolved by a sufficient amount of force and killing. If the solution is fair, meaning that neither side has an advantage over the other (all are equal under the law), this can be a stable solution, since balance of power is maintained. However, disputes are rarely forcefully resolved without a disadvantage to the losing side. The resentment and survival loss of this disadvantage will fester and breed malcontents, requiring an ongoing application of suppressive force, a cost to both winner and loser. When the stabilizing force is removed, the conflict flares anew. Thus, force can only suppress and not solve problems. Might is therefore wrong.