John C. Wright's Blog, page 130

When I went to go talk at Franciscan University

… I did not realize that it was the last time that prestigious institution would be allowed to offer insurance to its faculty.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/15/obama-mandate-forces-catholic-college-to-drop-insurance/

The world is attempting, and with nearly unopposed success, to drive all religion, especially Christians, and most especially Catholics, out of the public square. Our Elite Masters have been willing, in times past, to allow Christians to do the works of charity, care for the poor, see to the sick, educate the ignorant, free the slave.

But no longer.Charities not willing to help freed slaves have free abortions are defunded; institutions not willing to fund and celebrate aborticides, sterilization, contraception are being forced to give up their conscience and their rights of conscience or else give up their insurance.

It is not that these who are in need will have their needs filled by that secular church we call the State — that they will suffer does not come into the calculus of the compassionate and reality-based community. They want to smite their fathers, and we are a convenient stand-in. That is why the Church is being driven away.

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

If any of you who like Science Fiction books

Or any books for that matter, want to help the publishing industry from being bureaucrated to death, you may read the following letter, and send comments to the Department of Justice:

http://aardvarknow.us/2012/05/09/letter-to-the-department-of-justice/

Anti-trust laws are anti-just. If you set your price even with your competitors, that is price fixing; if above, that is evidence of monopoly due to market dominance; if below, that is evidence of predatory pricing.

Anti Trust Law was the Progressive Movement first, greatest, and most utterly illogical victory in legislation coming back to bite us.

 

 

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

I cannot believe we are still having this discussion

Note: I had thought this topic long dead, as the title indicates. Since someone brought it up again, I reprint my previous thought on the subject, not seeing the need to add or subtract any words.

A reader who, on other topics, I deem worthy of respect, has ventured the following comment in regards the Iraqi war:

“When we invaded, freeing the Iraqi people was not anywhere near the top of the list of reasons given to the American public. Only after a succession of the original rationals turned out to be hogwash, did the administration start using the “promote democracy” argument.”

The implication here seems to be (I am not sure I get his point) that since the “promote democracy” argument was not argued vehemently at first, therefore the democracy in Iraq does not count as really “real”. He is intellectually aware of it, in some distant, numb way, but that is not where the spotlight of his reason and passion are focused: the spotlight is on Bush and Cheney, whom he regards as sinister figures, and he says these public figures were obviously not sincere in their desire to go to war for the right reasons, so we must not trust them now. Freeing people doesn’t “count” unless your motives were too pure to be slandered from the get-go. Or something. Actually, I don’t understand his point at all. So let us put that to one side for now.

If I did not have respect for this man, I would simply call him a liar. As it is, I will argue as if his recollection of the event leading up to the war are valid, and therefore he need only be told the facts of the matter to correct him.

He makes one statement of fact which can be proved wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and to a moral certainty. The original rationale for the war is the same now as it has always been.

Since someone else has done the work for me, I will simply post his line of argument in full, saving my comment for the end.

Note particularly item 7, the argument to end the brutal repression of the Iraqi people; which is not only not at the bottom of the list, it is the second item after item 6, the argument of a threat from weapons of mass destruction.

http://qando.net/archives/002062.htm

With the end of the Iraq war, comes the question…was the war justified?

Of course, one must define the justification for war first.

Was it human rights? Was it terrorism? Was it WMDs all along, with the others justifications only claimed after the fact?

Well, there’s only one definitive answer, and it always suprises me that this is still debated. The justification for war has long been codified and official.

It is described in the October 10th, 2002 “House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq“, and it is quite clear.

We’ll list the justifications and see if they have been confirmed, or found wanting.

1: First justification:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;”

Simple statement of fact. The UN resolution which authorized the Gulf War can be found here.

Conclusion? Accurate

2: Next justification:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

As stated, Iraq accepted these terms on April 6th 1991.

Conclusion: Accurate

3: Next justification:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Statement of fact. These were the circumstancesthroughout the inspections.

Conclusion: Accurate

4: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Iraqi intransigence with regards to the UN inspections is listed on the UN Website.

Conclusion: Accurate

5: Next justification:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;

The cited Public Law 105-235 can be found .

Conclusion: Accurate

6: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Here are specific and contested claims. Let’s examine them one by one:

a: “Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace…”

- Says who?

Well, the UN said so in resolutions up to and including 1441, where they say “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,”

The United States concluded such in 1998, when President Clinton said “There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”

The CIA concluded such in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, when it stated “Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks–more likely with biological than chemical agents–probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”

Tenet, who also said that Saddam was more likely to cooperate on attacks against the US as he grew stronger, later added “Let me be clear: Saddam remains a threat.”

So, while there was no claim that Iraq was an imminent threat, there was broad consensus that Iraq was a “grave and gathering” threat.

b: “….remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations…”

- Per Resolution 1441“…Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions…”.

c: “…continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability…”

- Did Iraq do so? Let’s reference the evidence:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipmentthat Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.

……

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

…..

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

…..

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information – including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Clearly, Iraq did continue to possess and develop significant chemical and biological weapons capability, in violation of the UN resolutions.

d: “…actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability,”

- Again, to the evidence:

“With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point.

……

Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba’ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa’id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term.

This justification is less clear than the preceding. It appears that Saddam had an ongoing interest in a nuclear program, and had maintained programs for turning that interest into a program and some point in the future. It is not clear that he had taken material steps toward acquiring those items necessary to actually builda nuclear weapon.

e: “…and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations”

- The list of State Sponsors of terrorism has not changed since 1993, and Iraq remains on that list.

It was also the judgment of the world that Iraq continued to support terrorism, per Resolution 1441 , which states “Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism…”

Conclusion: Largely accurate

***The only justification, among those cited in item #6, that can be questioned is the claim that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. It is not clear, with publicly available evidence, that Iraq was doing so…although such cannot be ruled out, yet. Certainly Iraq was maintaining the potential to regain the capability.

7: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

- This is a no-brainer. According to human rights groups, the Iraqi government was oppressing its people.

Human Rights Watch says:

“The Iraqi government continued to commit widespread and gross human rights violations, including the extensive use of the death penalty and the extrajudicial execution of prisoners, the forced expulsion of ethnic minorities from government-controlled areas in the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and elsewhere, the arbitrary arrest of suspected political opponents and members of their families, and the torture and ill-treatment of detainees.”

The UN agreed:

Iraq has been condemned by the United Nations’ top human rights body for conducting a campaign of “all pervasive repression and widespread terror”.

Post-war findings once again vindicate this claim, while debunking the myththat the suffering was “caused by the sanctions”.

Conclusion: Accurate

8: Next justification:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

- A clear citation of history.

Specific instances…….”1986 March – UN Secretary General reports Iraq’s use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984.” and “1988 March 16 – Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents.”

Conclusion: Accurate

9: Next justification:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

- The attempted assassination of former President Bush, in 1993, is a matter of record, as is President Clintons response.

- The attacks on US/Coalition planes enforcing the No-Fly zones is also a matter of record. These attacks constituted a violation of UN resolution requirements, whichbrequired Iraq to cooperate with the UN resolutions, and which expressly prohibited Iraq from taking or threatening any “hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution.”

Conclusion: Accurate

10: Next justification:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

- This is a two-parter.

Were Al Qaeda members known to be in Iraq, prior to the war, andwere those claims justified by post-war evidence?

Claims:

a: The Powell-cited case of Abu Mussab Zarqawi, who sought medical treatment in Baghdad.

b: Ansar Al-Islam operated out of Northern Iraq, out of Saddam’s immediate control, but without any attempt to quell their operations.

c: Powell also claimed that “There have been contacts over the years….” between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Post-War:

a: Regarding Abu Mussab Zarqawi…..

“U.S. forces near Baghdad have captured a man they describe as a midlevel terrorist operative with links to al Qaeda, a counterterrorism official said.

The operative, whose name was not provided, works for Abu Musab Zarqawi, a senior associate of Osama bin Laden…”

b: Regarding Ansar Al-Islam….

Evidence has been found in the Kurdish-controlled regions of northern Iraq that the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam was working on three types of chlorine gas and ricin and has ties to Al Qaeda….”

c: Regarding the claimed contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime.Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa’eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

There is also this article, full of additional connections.

Conclusion: Accurate

While individual charges may, or may not, turn out to be accurate, that is within the normal range of intel-reliability. However, the post-war findings are quite conclusive that the charge, itself, was accurate.

11: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

- Reference Iraqi support of terror organizations, which has been widely ackowledged for a decade or more.

Many of these groups and terrorists have been caught or killed since the war.

Conclusion: Accurate

12: Next justification:

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

- Hard to explain this one. Either you get it, or youdon’t.

Bush confirmed that 9/11“changed my calculation”.

This is not to say that the authorization claimed revenge as justification. It simply underscored the danger of allowing nations, like Iraq, to freely maintain WMD capability and support terror.

Notable figures like John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and others concurred in that assessment.

Conclusion: Accurate, albeit opinion

13: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

- The capability, willingness and risk has already been discussed above.

The magnitude of the harm of such an attack would depend on the nature of the attack, of course.

Conclusion: Accurate, still

14: Next justification:

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

- Simply a recitation of relevant documents.

Review 678, 660, 687, 688 or 949to verify.

Conclusion: Accurate

15: Next justification:

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677′;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support effortsto remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

- A citation of the 1991 authorization and for war against Iraq, a supporting resolution, and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Review transcript of authorization here, supporting resolution here, and the Iraq Liberation Act here.

Conclusion: Accurate

16: Next justification:

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

- A citation of a speech given by Bush, to the UN, on September 12th, 2002.

It is important to note that Bush made it clear that we were not just dedicating ourselves to renewed inspections, or renewed negotiations, but to actual action….either on Iraq’s part, or, absent that, our own.

Some now claim the October 2002 resolution was just a profession of “support for the Security Councils decisions”….one should remind them of this speech, nearly a month ahead of that resolution, in which Bush said “But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable.”

It was clear to everybody that the only outcome was full and immediate compliance. It was for Iraq, alone, to decide whether that would be voluntary or forced compliance.

Conclusion: Accurate

17: Next justification

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

- Two controversial statements herein:

a: Iraq’s “development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire…”

- This had been going on throughout the inspections of the 90s, and continued thereafter, according to the Kay report, which notes “ISG teams are uncovering significant information – including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities” and “…ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003.”

b: “it is in the national security interests of the United States…”

- One might argue whether this is true, but this must be a decision made by those given responsibility to make that call. And did they decide such was the case?

The President, CIA, UN, and Congress have all affirmed this decision, in variousstatements, UN resolutions and Congressional resolutions.

One may disagree with their judgments, but their authority was clear and due process was followed.

Conclusion: Accurate

18: Next justification:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

- A citation of the Congressional authorizationfor the war on terror.

Note: Authorization includes those responsible for 9/11, but is not exclusive to those responsible.

Iraq, per preceding citations, was unequivocally a supporter of terrorism.

Conclusion: Accurate

19: Next justification:

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

- A citation of the previous authorizations.

Conclusion: Accurate

20: Next justification:

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:”

- One can hardly argue that a peaceful Middle-East would not be in our national security interests.

President Clinton and Congress certainly believed Iraq constituted a threat when they passed, which stated “…Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security”.

President Clinton and Congress even voted to “support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Again, one may argue that this potential threat was not the case today, but the figures tasked with making that determination decided differently.

Conclusion: Accurate

Final Conclusions:

The inescapable conclusion is that, with the sole exception of the claim that Iraq was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability”, the justification for war was completely accurate. And that claim has yet to besettled either way.

No facts subsequent to the war have proven any of the official justifications false.

Even the nuclear claim may be described as accurate depending on the extent to which Iraq is alleged to have “sought” the capability.

Me again: not only do I agree with the above assessment, I don’t even see wiggle-room whereby an informed and rational opinion can be held on the other side. You can say the above-given reasons are insufficient to justify the war, but you cannot say that the reasons were not given. Each one of these was propounded over and over again ad nauseam in the public press.

But let us say for the sake of argument that the entire war was hatched as a scheme for some sinister and ulterior purpose, such as to distract attention from the president’s coming impeachment, or to seize control of the world oil supplies in Alaska, or because the Moon People are controlling Area 51. Let us grant as moonbatty an assumption as you can find on the Internet.

Still. Let’s be serious. They voted in Iraq. It is a frivolous matter (for those who argue consequences justify deeds) to argue that the consequences in this case are regrettable because the administration had the wrong state of mind.

Still. They voted in Iraq. Let’s be serious.  The American soldier gave those women a chance to vote.

Now, granted, it all might blow up in their faces, and it surely will if we pull out now and abandon them to the death camps. It was only a vote or two. Or three. In bigger numbers than the last election in America. While the war with Saddam ended years ago, the war with the Jihadists will continue as long as they have hope and resources.

Our side will prevail if we do not run out of hope first. What do we need for hope? We need people to cheer for our side.

What should we say to our Leftist friends who can give only grudging love, or none at all, either to their own country, or to the people we saved?

Let me quote another who speaks more simply, and more from the heart, than I.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/LrhsZ9IgzxQ&rel=1

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

What’s Wrong with the World?

This essay is in many parts

What’s Wrong with the World Part  I — Introduction
What’s Wrong With The World Part II— Qualifications & Definitions
What’s Wrong With The World Part III —Illogical
What’s Wrong With The World Part IV —Hypocritical
What’s Wrong With The World Part  V —More Hypocrisy— Four Puzzles
What’s Wrong With The World Part  VI —Vicious
What’s Wrong With The World Part VII— Ignorant
What’s Wrong With The World Part  VIII—More Ignorance — The Parochialism of the Enlightened
What’s Wrong With The World Part  IX—More Ignorance — A Digression on Intolerance
What’s Wrong With The World Part  X—More Ignorance—A Digression on Ingratitude
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XI—More Ignorance—The Necessity of Ignorance
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XII—Barbaric
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XIII—More Barbarism—Paranoia
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XIV—More Barbarism—Loss of Authority
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XV—Craven
What’s Wrong With The World Part XVI —Ugly
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XVII—Foolish
What’s Wrong With The World Part  XVIII—More Folly—The Role of Science
What’s Wrong With The World Part XIX—Confused
What’s Wrong With The World Part XX—More Confusion—Seven Deadly Sins
What’s Wrong With The World Part XXI—More Confusion—The Role of Incoherence
What’s Wrong With The World Part XXII—Conclusion—The Mother of Reason


View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

My Instinct is to say the Morality is not Instinctive

Part of an ongoing conversation:

wrf3 writes

“I hold to the rules of logic … because without them communication with others is impossible, and because they are required for coherence with the natural world. In other words, if I want my bridges to keep standing, there are certain mathematical forms that I must follow. If I want to talk to you, there are also certain forms that I must follow.”

Very good: do you also want to be honest with me when you talk to me? Do you want me to be honest to you? Do you want to be honest to yourself in your own thinking when you use the rule of logic on logical propositions, or when communicating, or when building bridges? Because you could of course choose to deceive yourself, use rhetoric rather than logic, communicate lies and nonsense, and let the bridges fall.

My question specifically is about this conversation. Do you want me to be honest with you when we discuss this matter, to tell the truth, not to play rhetorical tricks or change the subject, and not to pretend I have won the debate if I lost it?

If so, what it is you are wanting when you want that?

I submit that what you are wanting is that I adhere to a moral standard we both tacitly acknowledge as having authority over us. Since I did not make it up and neither did you, and I never agreed to it and neither did you, the common sense conclusion is that it is not manmade. Since this rule applies no matter what the laws of physics are, it is not a rule deduced from any empirical perception, any more than the rules of logic or math.

“We generally think it is wrong to break one’s word because that is uncooperative behavior and we, as a species, realize that our biology works better when we cooperate…”

So, if I were a Martian, or a ghost, or a robot, or some other creature with a slightly different or very different biology, would it be morally right for me to break my word in that circumstance?

What makes you think the biological origins are inventing something rather than perceiving something? My eye is a biological organ, but it perceives light, it does not create light.

“You’ve taken a biological fact and enshrined it in mysticism, because you don’t understand the underlying mechanism.”

My theory about the origins of the perception of the moral order of the universe has not the slightest hint mysticism to it. Puh-lease.

But, even granting your argument about the biological origins of morality, what makes you think that cheating at chessgames is not a Darwinian survival trait?

One would think that games existed only so recently in cosmic history, and to be so unrelated to survival chances, that there was no time for a naturally selection for good sportsmanship to develop?

Or are you saying that, due to a natural selection pressure for cooperation and altruism and honesty, men are naturally and instinctively honest the same way birds are naturally able to fly and build nests? If so, the theory does not fit the observed facts: there were four murders in my local newspaper today, and lies in every section of the paper except the sports section.

Ah, but if you argue that Darwinian selection also selects for non-cooperation and dishonesty, then all we are left with is a statement that humans both have a dishonest instinct and an honest instinct. In my example above, where we agree to a chessgame, and I break my word, and we did not agree to a rule that I ought not break my word, what is the source of any objection you might make?

If you (in the hypothetical) say to me, “But we agreed to the rules that this game would not allow castling, and you broke our agreement” and I say, “But we did not agree to the rule that I should not break agreements,” your response cannot be, “But the laws of Darwin say that you should have an instinctive desire to be honest, ergo to be cooperative, ergo to be a good sport,” because then two things will happen: (1) I will say “But the laws of Darwin also equip me with an instinct for aggression and deception — what make the Darwinian law of dishonesty more imperative than the Darwinian law of cooperation?” (2) I will break your skull with the jawbone of a smilodon, kill your child and eat his brains, and drag your widow off to my cave and father ten children on her, so that I win the Darwinian competition for survival and reproduction.

Just kidding. I would not actually do that. For one thing, you might be spry and strong. For another thing, you cannot actually believe that the Darwinian struggle bestows any authority on my instincts to make them the legislator of rules I ought to obey whether I am inclined to obey or not, because by that logic, Ghenjis Khan is the most moral man of all time, since his selfish genes can be found spread farther and wider than any other man known to history.

Which leads to my final question. Consider my hypothetical of the two chessplayers. I won’t you me and you as an example, so let us call them Spassky and Kasparov. They agree to play a variation of chess where no castling is allowed. In the ninth move, Kasparov castles. There was no formal agreement to the a stated rule that both men should keep their word.

Do you agree that Kasparov has a general obligation to be honest, and that breaking his word is a violation of that imperative?

If so, the would the obligation exist if, bitten by a radioactive spider, the genes controlling Kasparov’s instinct for cooperation were marred, so that they no longer influenced his glands and nervous system?

In other words, if morality has a biological basis, once the organ or gene or physical substratum creating the instinct fails, is the moral obligation gone?

If so, then in what why is following a moral rule different from following a natural inclination or instinct? Are there two instincts, one governing selfish and dishonest desires, and the other governing tribal and social interactions which urges selflessness and honesty? If there are two instincts, on what grounds do we chose what we ought to do?

If not, then there are situations where a man ought to obey certain moral rules despite the lack of an instinct to obey them. In the situations where the instincts are giving us shortsighted or wrong information, on what grounds do we chose what we ought to do?

“But it’s possible to show what morality is and how it arises in a purely materialistic framework.”

Not even slightly. All one can show is that, given an moral imperative, such as that a man ought to survive, certain secondary moral imperatives, such as that such-and-such behavior, if it aids him to survive, therefore is also something he ought to do.  Such arguments assume what they are trying to prove.

Indeed, your argument would seem to imply that cheating at chess is bad because it hinders my survival rate. Let us suppose in our hypothetical that Spassky is sterile and Kasparov has twelve children and made donations to a sperm bank. No possible outcome of their chessgame, whether Kasparov cheats or not, has even the slightest effect on their survival and reproductive chances.

Please show me in what way the moral rules of the universe are arbitrary and manmade, like the rules of chess, and can be set aside by mutual agreement, like the rules of chess. Are the rules of logic arbitrary and manmade? Spassky and Kasparov agree that it is morally correct to boil puppies alive and despoil the graves of their fathers, does this make it morally correct? Is it morally correct for them but not for others? Neither the puppies nor the dead can get a vote in this. Can the rules of morality be changed even for those who cannot participate in the process of making new rules?

You say

Not at all. That is, tacit agreement to have an honest conversation on this topic is evidence that we recognize that cooperation is beneficial to both of us. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, when iterated, has higher payoffs over the long term when the players cooperate. It’s mathematical, based on biology.

What do you mean when you say we both recognize that cooperation is beneficial to the both of us? Are you claiming that I am under no duty whatsoever to be honest with you in this conversation? Because I solemnly assure you that the payoff goes very much in the other direction. I will win both the admiration of my readers and a sense of cheap superiority by answering you in a Dawkins fashion, with rhetoric, lies, snappy answers, ad hominem, sarcasm, and bad comedy.

But even granting this highly dubious assertion, am I under a moral obligation to seek my own long term benefit? For, if I am not, what becomes of our tacit agreement?

Why should I be honest, when honesty is not cost effective, is clearly not pleasant in the short term, and most likely not pleasant in the long term? None of this produces in me an obligation to be honest, and none of this explains the primary and irreducible fact of psychology of which we are both aware: you and I both, as moral men, are aware of times when the moral imperative is not in our best interest, long or short, or even the group’s best interest.

I would not kill an innocent child to save a tribe, even if it were my own. I would not shove an old lady past childbearing years out of a lifeboat to make room for myself, even if she were not a blood relation.  All civilized men would agree with these examples.

You either have to find a different basis for morality than the prisoner’s dilemma, math, biology, or say that the civilized men in these examples are making the wrong moral choice. Or can you reconcile the two?

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

The Law of Nature — parable of the poor sport

Part of an ongoing conversation:

wtf3 writes:

“Now, it seems to me you’re equivocating on what “Natural Law” means. On the one hand, you say that “Natural Law” is how men behave. If “Natural Law” were purely descriptive then I’d have no problem with this aspect of its use. But “Natural Law” is also used in a prescriptive manner and it is with this usage that there’s a problem.”

No, not at all. I did not use ‘natural law’ to mean a description of how men act. That is the discipline properly called history. I used ‘natural law’ to mean the moral order.

This is the way CS Lewis and writers in the West since the times of the Greeks has used the phrase. It does not refer to an empirical description of anything that can be perceived by the senses.

Let me ask you this. You yourself are aware of a moral order of some sort in the universe, because without such an awareness, you could not disapprove of illogical thinking or self deception or shoddy thinking. In other words, if there is no duty to be reasonable, to be fair, or to be honest, then there is no way you could disapprove OR EVEN IMAGINE DISAPPROVING of someone who was deceiving himself in his thinking. To chide someone for a breach of duty implies a belief that the duty exists.

Your argument, such as it is, is merely a verbal confusion. You are treating the word ‘nature’ to mean ‘empirical nature.’ But I direct your attention to your own loyalty to the duty to be honest, the duty not to deceive oneself. This duty has no mass, nor length, nor duration, nor candlepower, nor temperature, nor moles of substance, nor current. Hence it is not a physical thing. It is not perceived by the senses nor discovered any possible combination of sense impressions by induction nor deduction. Whence comes it?

The reason why I cannot answer your question is that I do not accept the unspoken premise that the word ‘nature’ is confined to material and empirical reality. Were that so, there could be no discussion of morality.

You mention in passing a test or rule to see if something is a moral imperative: you say that you and I both agree on it. But we are not legislators of the nature of reality. Morality is not a game like Chess.

If you and I sit down at the Chessboard we can agree that no one will be allowed to castle for this game, or that the bishops will start adjacent to the rooks, and knights adjacent to the King and Queen. We would be playing a variation of Chess, or Displacement Chess, but the rules would be binding on the two of us for the duration of the game, since that is what we agreed.

But suppose I found myself in a bad tactical position, and in order to improve my position, I castled my king. You could make two complaints against me: first, you could say that I had broken the rules of the variation of Chess to which we had agreed. Second, you could say that I had broken my word.

The first complaint, perhaps, I could answer like Hobbes, and say that the rules of Chess are arbitrary, and that I have as much authority to change them as any sovereign. But what of the second complaint? That men ought not to break their word is a moral primary known to all men above the age of reason. It is intuitive and undeniable knowledge. Even those who argue against it tacitly acknowledge it.

It is not, indeed it cannot be, an arbitrary rule enacted by the two of us binding on us only for so long we give our word to obey it, for if it were such a rule, no rules could ever bind anyone, since no one could be trusted to keep his word, including that particular form of keeping one’s word involved in agreeing to obey a rule during a game called sportsmanship.

If so, you and I, merely by tacitly agreeing to have an honest conversation on the topic we presently discuss, are ourselves evidence that a moral order, called ‘the natural law’, exists; and our knowledge of its existence is metaphysical rather than physical.

For this reason, your minor premise that the physical and empirical world must display a end goal in order for there to be a moral order in the world of ideas and ideals is a premise whose sense I do not see.

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

Another Triumph for the Darkness — Chen Betrayed

From All Girls Allowed. I am particularly outraged by the failure of our government to lift a finger to help. One of the few things President Clinton did that I admired was save another famous Chinese activist.

Here is the announcement from All Girls Allowed, a group attempting to stem the tide of both prenatal and postnatal infanticides pandemic in China, aggravated by their nightmarish One (usually one boy) Child Policy.

At the end of last week, exciting news broke out of the escape of Chen Guangcheng, the blind attorney who was imprisoned in 2006 for filing a class action suit against the Chinese government on behalf of 130,000+ victims of forced sterilization.  The western media immediately picked up the story, as Chen’s escape was daring and occurred at a critical time ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Beijing.

Unfortunately, recent reports have revealed that the U.S. government has reneged on its promises to help Chen and his family to safety, as Chen was sent out of the U.S. embassy to a hospital with no embassy escorts.  He is now pleading for the opportunity for his family to safely leave China.

In a statement, Chai Ling said, “It’s disappointing. Chen’s escape gave the U.S. a chance to demonstrate its commitment to freedom and be on the right side of history-and now the chance is all but gone.” Chen’s friends have said that he is already under intense government surveillance and has not been allowed to make outside contact. Ling continued: “Secretary Clinton, whose work I’ve admired, had the power to provide asylum for Chen and his family. But she gave way under pressure-and now we don’t even know what will become of the activists who were arrested last week after helping Chen escape.” 

While the mainstream media has been quick to point to Chen’s daring escape, there has been very little mention of the cause for which he has suffered–the defense of millions of women who have suffered forced abortion and forced sterilization under China’s brutal One-Child Policy.

Read Ling’s Huffington Post article here.

And an article from the Atlantic  here, which reads in part:

A little over 12 hours after blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng was released from the U.S. embassy in Beijing, to which he had fled after escaping house arrest, Chen now says that American officials encouraged him to leave the safe haven of the embassy building, in part by making promises that they failed to keep. In an interview with CNN’s Steven Jiang, he expressed deep disappointment with the U.S. and with President Barack Obama personally. He said that embassy officials were no longer picking up his calls and that he already felt his rights being “violated” by the Chinese government, which had promised him his freedom in exchange for him leaving the embassy. He strenuously and repeatedly asked the U.S. and Obama to help him and his family leave China.

The interview portrays Chen as furious at the U.S., which he had only 24 hours ago seen as his greatest hope, and portrays the Obama administration as having sold out the high-profile activist, who in 2005 made an enemy of the Chinese government when he campaigned against thousands of forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

The interview, initially published on Jiang’s verified blogspot account, has since been removed. Neither he nor CNN appear to have explained why. (Update: Jiang, on Twitter, says he removed the interview to re-post it later as part of a larger CNN.com story, which is now up.)

Chen’s comments portray the U.S. as manipulating him, cutting him off from outside communication and encouraging him to leave the embassy rather than seek asylum. He said he was denied his requests to call friends. He said he felt the embassy officials had lied to him.

 

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

Another Triumph for the Darkness

From All Girls Allowed. I am particularly outraged by the failure of our government to lift a finger to help. One of the few things President Clinton did that I admired was save another famous Chinese activist.

Here is the announcement from All Girls Allowed, a group attempting to stem the tide of both prenatal and postnatal infanticides pandemic in China, aggravated by their nightmarish One (usually one boy) Child Policy.

At the end of last week, exciting news broke out of the escape of Chen Guangcheng, the blind attorney who was imprisoned in 2006 for filing a class action suit against the Chinese government on behalf of 130,000+ victims of forced sterilization.  The western media immediately picked up the story, as Chen’s escape was daring and occurred at a critical time ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Beijing.

Unfortunately, recent reports have revealed that the U.S. government has reneged on its promises to help Chen and his family to safety, as Chen was sent out of the U.S. embassy to a hospital with no embassy escorts.  He is now pleading for the opportunity for his family to safely leave China.

In a statement, Chai Ling said, “It’s disappointing. Chen’s escape gave the U.S. a chance to demonstrate its commitment to freedom and be on the right side of history-and now the chance is all but gone.” Chen’s friends have said that he is already under intense government surveillance and has not been allowed to make outside contact. Ling continued: “Secretary Clinton, whose work I’ve admired, had the power to provide asylum for Chen and his family. But she gave way under pressure-and now we don’t even know what will become of the activists who were arrested last week after helping Chen escape.” 

While the mainstream media has been quick to point to Chen’s daring escape, there has been very little mention of the cause for which he has suffered–the defense of millions of women who have suffered forced abortion and forced sterilization under China’s brutal One-Child Policy.

(Read Ling’s Huffington Post article here.)

View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

What’s Wrong With The World Part XIX—Confused

Confused

The main thing dismissed by modern writers as being, since not open to empirical confirmation, ergo either mere opinion or mere myth, is that reality which forms the basis of ethical, political and aesthetic philosophy: the idea moderns forget is the idea that there is something that the mind of man can grasp which is not invented arbitrarily by the mind of man, including norms and imperatives of thought, passion, and feeling. That reality is called Natural Law or Right Reason.

It was not until quite late in my life—after I was married, in fact—that I realized how thoroughly and entirely the Modern Age had repudiated the idea of Natural Law and Right Reason. Two anecdotes spring to mind.

Losing the Lottery

I remember hearing a chilling account of some modern students. According to this account, the short story “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, that short, sharp yet grisly paean against conformity, which culminates in an innocent old lady being brutally stoned to death for the sake of a forgotten harvest time tradition, was being discussed by modern students, and their teacher with a growing sense of horror realized that none of the students understood the horror of the story.  The modern students (so the teacher reported) saw nothing wrong with stoning old ladies to death. Not that they would do it themselves, oh no; it was merely that the rules and customs of that imaginary village were the special culturally-relative customs of that time and place, and we are in no position to judge them or their ways.

The sheer unnaturalness of treating an old lady to a brutal and brutally pointless death by slow and painful blows was, it seemed, entirely lost on the modern young.

They were moral retards.

They have lost even the most basic ability to tell right from wrong, much less perform a complex moral calculation involving the compromise with necessary evils and the awareness of the weaknesses of human nature which form such an integral part of the American Constitution and, indeed, our entire way of life. Children who cannot see the wrongness in stoning innocent old women to death are not fit to inherit the nation our parents left to us.

Desecrating Sex

I remember speaking with modern Christians (whom one would think to be more uniform in their conclusions on this matter, considering that Church teachings of all denominations through all ages are unambiguous) who supported both gay marriage and sex outside of marriage. One young Christian man earnestly told me that the sex act was merely recreation, a pastime like mixed doubles tennis which just so happened to require both sexes to participate. One young Christian lady said that sex outside of marriage was morally acceptable provided only that the couple truly loved each other.

The idea that the sexual passions should be housebroken and schooled only to seek those particular partners without whom one has shown by unbreakable vow that one is willing to raise any offspring the reproductive act might produce was an idea too prudent for these modern minds to take seriously.

(This was while I was still firmly in the atheist camp and absolutely loyal to its strictures. I was an advocate of self control in the sexual arena, of chastity and monogamy, for purely secular and logical and prudential reasons. The destructive effect of unchastity on society, especially among the poor, can be audited by reading the accounts of Theodore Dalrymple, for example (another atheist). It merely added a delicious irony to reflect that I, the atheist, saw the logic in the Christian idea about the role of marriage in civilized life, and that they, the Christians, who were allegedly supposed to believe and follow Christ by faith whether they saw the logic in His teachings or not, repudiated the Christian idea about marriage. Christians were arguing in favor of sodomy and fornication, and I was arguing in favor of purity and chastity.)

The traditional idea is the idea that merely being in love is not sufficient to justify itself: it is the idea that unlawful or  imprudent love, no matter how heartfelt, is wrong. Only love that is in the right circumstances and directed toward the right partner is right. It is the idea that you, who are sovereign of your own soul, do not get a vote about the nature of love. No human word, law, or custom can change the objective facts, and the wrongness of unnatural or illicit love is a fact, not an opinion; not something humans created, not something humans can destroy.

The Objectivity of Reality

The idea that there are rules that humans found but did not make is (for some reason) accepted without demur in the realm of the physical sciences. No one thinks the British Parliament has a right to revoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics despite the obvious benefits to Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. But when applied to other questions equally objective, obviously objective, such as laws of economics, of morality, of logic, of human nature, of biology or psychology or cause and effect: why, all these things are merely bigotry and benighted prejudice! Parliament can revoke the rule of economics that no one can borrow his way out of debt, with the same ease it can revoke the rule of cause and effect that say one cannot consume what one has not produced, or the rule of human nature that says marriage is not sodomy, or the rule of biology that says that unborn offspring are not members of their parent’s species.

Where does it come from, this modern nonsense that says all things are manmade, including things men obviously did not make and cannot change? It is the idea that there is no such thing as Natural Law and no such thing as Right Reason by which we perceive that law.

The ancient (and correct) conclusion was that some pleasures were true and yielded the satisfaction they promised, whereas other pleasures were false, and that to pursue them was vain, self-defeating, and self-destructive.

This idea is so entirely self-evident that it is futile to defend it. One does not argue with a skeptic at noon that daylight differs from night; if he cannot see the sun, he is not going to see your merely human finger pointing at the sun.

Likewise, the ancient (and correct) conclusion was that some passions were correctly ordered and correctly oriented and aimed at their proper and fit objects, whereas some passions were disordered, aimed wrongly, or misaligned.

It was on this basis that all education (except only that in the Modern Age) was formed. The idea was that youth should be trained to feel shame for what was shameful, proud of what merited pride, to love what was lovely and hate what was hateful. The natural passions of cowardice, greed, love of excess, lust, hatred, fawning, and selfishness were to be replaced with more mature and useful passions of courage, love of honor, moderation, temperance, respect for elders and teachers and leaders, pious loyalty to family and city, hatred of lies, respect for woman and motherhood, and love of justice.

This idea is so entirely and thoroughly dismissed in the Modern Age, that it is utterly forgotten. Indeed, so forgotten is it that even the vocabulary used to define and discuss these things — Stoics call it “action in accordance with nature” — is incomprehensible to the Modern. The Moderns merely stare at you with bovine incomprehension if you attempt to define the terms; their imaginations are so stunted they cannot even hold a discussion on the matter even as a hypothetical.

If a scientist cannot measure and dissect justice or civic loyalty in a laboratory or a betatron, then such things do not exist, except as meaningless words or meaningless figments. Only what is physical is real. Such is the modern slogan. (The slogan is uttered by those who do not notice that the statement “only what is physical is real” since it is a principle of ontology, is itself not physical, hence is not real. It is a self-disproving statement.)

Is there no Natural Law? Is there no such thing as Human Nature?

The Objectivity of Human Nature

Are not certain passions and appetites right, suited, fit, apt and good when directed to certain objects or goals, whereas those same appetites and passions become wrong, ill-suited, unfit, in appropriate and evil when directed at other objects and goals?

The men of thie Modern day, for the moment, hold it to be reprehensible that a man should feel toward an underage daughter the sexual attraction he feels toward his wife. (How long the moment is to last is uncertain, since there is no convincing argument, based on the premise of modern morality, i.e. self-destructive narcissistic hedonism, that concludes practitioners of incest and pederasty should practice the self-control no other sexual deviant might or ought or, by modern theory, can practice.)  A less ambiguous example is race-hatred: even the Moderns condemn this emotion as wrong even when it is not acted upon. The point nonetheless is that most of us grasp, if only in a dim way, that there are certain passions and appetites that are innately, because of their nature, bad.

To the modern mind, there is no distinction between appetites and passions. Whatever it is that one now wants, for whatever the reason of the wanting, that urge is sacrosanct. All passions and appetites, high and low, elevated and profane, natural and unnatural, base and noble, are exactly the same in dignity and worth. The modern mind embraces a thoroughgoing agnosticism on all questions of virtue and value, and holds all judgments preferring one desire over another to be meaningless and arbitrary, if not pernicious.

I want what I want when I want it:  nothing else can be said. So runs the modern refrain.

The Moderns make one exception to this rule that all desires are created equal: any desire springing from hasty or ignorant judgment, a bias, a bigotry, a prejudice, is condemned as adverse to the pubic weal. The moderns also recognize that actions that directly harm others are and should be unlawful, unless the victim is an adult who gives free and informed consent. The moderns also argue that free and informed consent is impossible except between men of the same level of wealth, so that the laws which protect the public from trespass and invasion do not apply to the rich, or any whom we might envy for some other reason, ergo their property can be plundered in order to assure the equality of outcome which is a necessary precondition for the existence of informed consent. The moderns also argue that the West was erected on the backs of bleeding and cowering slaves and conquered colonial serfs, so that bigotry against Whites is acceptable, and bias against Christians not only acceptable but is required: the laws are expected to judge a man not by the contents of his character, but by the color of this skin, unless he is a Black Baptist preacher or a black who vote Republican, in which case, he is a Sambo, and Oreo, a race-traitor and an Uncle Tom.

I could list more exceptions, but why bother? After combing through all the exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, we are left with the idea that the only thing really and actually under discussion in the libertarian all-free all-liberal utopian future envisioned by the intellectuals is that incest, polygamy, no-fault divorce and various unnatural sexual acts will be not only tolerated, but celebrated, praised, promoted, and held up for emulation; that intoxication by drugs and alcohol is praiseworthy (but, for some reason, not cigarettes); and that in general selfishness, sloth, laziness, and hoggish avarice for public money is laudable and to be encouraged, but selflessness, industry, hard work, application, and a zeal for earning private money is detestable and to be deterred.

If you can see no sense to this, allow me to direct your attention to what is missing. The modern theory of ethics admits of no qualifications and no gradations of appetites and passions.

To the modern mind, there is no standard, no such thing as a wrongly-directed passion, no such thing as an unnatural appetite. If you want to commit suicide rather than to live, that is not only your right, but, under socialized medical schemes, your duty. If you want to kill you baby in your womb rather than shower her with motherly love and affection, that is not only your right, but, under socialist schemes of population control, your duty. If you want to leave your wife and get a younger and bustier wife to slake your sexual lusts, that is your right, even your wife has been perfectly loyal and self-sacrificing for years, and in the name of self-actualization and self-finding, may also be your duty; for her part, if she wishes to reward your love and loyalty with betrayal and divorce, not only is it her right, but you can be stuck with the paternity bills, and jailed if you fall shy the due amount. If you just so happen not to have any love for your country or the home that reared you, it is your sanctimonious right, your freedom of speech, to revile and betray her: treason is, after all, the highest form of patriotism, or something like that. You have no more reason to care for your children or your aging parents than you have to care for a goldfish you are tired of feeding: the all-powerful and all-intrusive nanny-state will pay, and will provide them with the love and self-esteem you did not care to give them.

This list could be lengthened endlessly. The point is that the apt, sane and natural passions and loyalties and duties have all been repudiated by the modern so-called philosophy, that inarticulate mental eructation of rubbish, that vague stirring of the loins, that wordless anxiety or rage or other feeling in the guts, those useful organs which serve the intellectual as the seat of ratiocination in the place of the intellect.

About the only recognized duty or loyalty thought to be worthy of social peer-pressure and legal enforcement to uphold is some vague duty to the keep the environment green and happy: but even this tends to be a matter either of meaningless ritual habits, like recycling plastic bottles, or a matter of government discouragement of industry, such as the fashionable enviro-crusades against petrol refineries, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams. Some duties owed toward the state seem to be preserved in Modern political philosophy, but strangely they are never the ones that tend toward the preservation of law and order. Other duties are out the window. Everything else in life is a matter of what floats your boat.

With no judgment of praiseworthy and blameworthy passions, the modern mind is left with nothing but to allow the passions each for itself to propose itself as the highest good.

What’s Wrong With The World Part XX—More Confusion—Seven Deadly Sins


View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.

What’s Wrong With The World Part XVIII—More Folly—The Role of Science

The Role of Science

Oddly enough, this is the only aspect of the rot of the modern world which I think could be solved by a diligent application of philosophical learning. If students and scientists were trained, not only in science, but in the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings logically necessary for science, and if scientists publically and frequently repeated the rule and hence the limitations of the scientific method, then those things which claim to be science but which are patently absurd unscience and antiscience, such as socialism, materialism, eugenics, social engineering, would be etiolated of their usurpative and abusive claim to be science or scientific.

All that would be needed is for famous scientists and partisans of science—including science fiction writers—to admit that (1) science as the study of nature form no theories and draws no conclusions about the supernatural, not even to say whether it exists or not; (2) science does not and cannot apply any theories to those aspects of human nature or human existence which are non-empirical, i.e., the only part of human life open to scientific study is biology; (3) science does study neuropsychology, which is the study of the physical substrate of human thought; psychology aside from neuropsychology is not science; (4) science does not and cannot apply its methods and theories to metaphysical or philosophical speculation, such as the nature of cause and effect, the existence and nature of free will, and so on; modern theories of physics that deny the existence of cause and effect a fine level are metaphysical speculations, by their nature unsupported by experiment and innately undisproveable; (5) science does not and cannot apply its methods and theories to economics nor politics. Socialism is not more ‘scientific’ than Capitalism; (6) science does not and cannot apply its methods and theories to speculations about the conditions before the Big Bang, outside the cosmos, beyond the edge of reality, not even to say whether or not such things exist. The claim that nature is ‘all that exists’ is a metaphysical claim, neither confirmed nor denied by any possible empirical observation, and therefore is not science; (7) science can neither confirm nor deny any ethical nor normative statement of any kind whatsoever, since such things are not open to empirical confirmation or refutation. Scientists have no moral authority to hold forth on any issues of the public weal, except in cases where expert testimony is needed to clarify disputes of fact. In other words, the role of honest scientists is to abolish junk science, ecological scaremongering, and so on, not to support it.

Since the modern error here is merely an exaggeration and idolatry of science in a fashion any honest scientist would find repugnant, the honest study of science would soon soberly and utterly defeat the claims of the various pseudo-sciences and leeches attempting to impersonate the prestige of science.

What’s Wrong With The World Part XIX—Confused


View or comment on this post at John C. Wright's Journal.