Archive for the 'Ethics & Morality' Category

Unreasoning Largess

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Politics, Religion, Society on September 23rd, 2015

Some things pull at one’s heartstrings and evoke thoughts and feeling that, at first pass, seem quite good for the state of the society one lives in. Sadly, some of those things are wrong and/or manipulative and go against the underpinnings of reality. Worse, far too often those things which are wrong and/or manipulative become entrenched in the collective psyches of whole demographics of the population.

You don't need a reason to help peopleSupposedly You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People

A case in point is “You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People.” It’s nothing but a call for totally unreasoning largess and it has no basis in fact or human thought and logic processes. People reason and, hence, need reason for any and all actions, though it’s true that many of those reasons are internalized and/or subconscious in nature. Even the insane have and need reasons for doing whatever they do. They’re just not reasons that most of the rest of us have the data to understand.

Reasonable Charity

Some of the various real reason for people helping other specific people or specific groups or classes of people are:

  • Either seeking the blessings of the God(s) or avoiding punishment by their the God(s) through acts of charity;
  • Seeking approval of other people or avoiding disapproval other people through acts of charity;
  • Assuaging feelings of guilt brought upon by segments of their society’s disdain for wealth or material success;
  • Because it feels good to do so, either through feelings of superiority and self-validation or a more general feeling of worth.

Also, in all reasoning cases, the person needs to believe or to convince themselves that the largess they give has some meaning and will have some quantifiable and qualifiable benefit. It’s somewhat rare for normal people to just render aid, assistance, and charity when they know it will do no good – unless there’s a unrelated or tangentially related benefit to themselves for doing so.

Entrenched In Liberalism & Progressivism

The myth of “You Don’t Need A Reason To Help People” is sadly entrenched in the collective psyches of the Liberals and Progressives. It, mostly at an unconscious level, forms one of the underpinning of their dogma and colors and informs a great deal of their agenda.

Liberals and Progressives actively reject the fact that there is always a need for reason for largess. Even more, they reject and quite stridently disdain and denounce the idea that the person needs to believe or to convince themselves that the largess they give has some meaning and will have some quantifiable and qualifiable benefit. They believe that such things are discrimination.

This is a large part of why the Liberals and Progressives so strongly demand that voluntary charity be replaced by largess by fiat. As they believe that there should be no reason for charity or qualifier to how, to whom, or how much largess is granted, any reason applied to such is seen by them, instead, to be reason to withhold such largess.

The greatest irony in this is that these same Liberals and Progressives have no qualms about applying social pressure – approval or disapproval – to goad people into granting such largess, and are the ones who foster feelings of guilt in those of the societies they live within who have achieved wealth or material success.


Sadly, this isn’t really correctable. It can only be ameliorated through educating people in reality. This is the sad effect of something that sounds so good but which is false.

Related Reading:

Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)
Sword Art Online Progressive 2
Building an Opportunity Society: A Realistic Alternative to an Entitlement State
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Is Incest Best?

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Politics, Society on July 1st, 2015

LGBT Rainbow FlagIn the wake of the SCOTUS declaring that all 50 states must allow queers to marry it is now, more than ever, a good time to ask, is incest best. Should you put your sister or daughter to the test? Is it true that the family that lays together stays together?

We’ve been greasing that slope for decades and it now the time to ask these questions.

Really! Given the dogma surrounding the queers’ demands, i.e., “Love is Love,” and that what two consenting adults do to and with each other carnally is nobody’s business, what basis are we left with to say that, as long as your sister and/or daughter is of the age of consent, it’s legally wrong to fornicate with her?

We certainly can no longer claim to disallow adult – as defined as of the Age of Consent – incest must be illegal because it is immoral; proponents of “sexual freedom” have declaimed time and time again that morality must not be the basis of law. Likewise, we no longer claim to disallow incest because it is abhorrent and repugnant to the majority of Americans; homosexuality is similarly abhorrent and repugnant to the majority of Americans and they are allowed to sodomize each other and marry each other. So what are we left with?

Yep! Right now there’s probably a Liberal reading this whose head is about to explode because he, she, or it will not or cannot think beyond their hatred of normative American culture.

Of course, consensual incest between adults is legal already legal in a surprising number of nations, including those in Europe. Indeed, in Germany where incest – there defined solely as vaginal intercourse – is illegal, the government’s Ethics Council recommended last year to legalize incest between adult siblings, stating that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo. They further claimed that the law against incest “put couples in a tragic situation”.

In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.

The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family.

The German Ethics Council’s recommendation sounds like a disturbingly familiar and horrifically successful argument to me. At this point what counterargument are we left with?

And sadly, the laws on the books concerning incest in the United States vary greatly from state to state, with some forms of incest already being perfectly legal in more jurisdictions than one might think or hope for. Hence, the same foundation as that used to make queer marriage the law of the land has already been laid.

Face it, with the Liberals and Progressives stripping of “bright lines” from the law there’s nothing left to stop incest between adults from being made legal. Nor is there any still legally sound means of preventing other, similar atrocities from being legalized, especially when they are based solely upon arbitrary social conventions and mores.

Related Reading:

The Playbook: 20 Sex Positions That Will Have Your Man Screaming and Begging For More
Politics (Dover Thrift Editions)
America Is...
Plunder and Deceit
How to Win a Fight With a Liberal

What’s The Harm?

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Society on May 3rd, 2015

The role and extent of government has been a matter of contention since Man first developed government. Nowhere is this more true than the ongoing war over what, if any, harm any government should allow to happen to the People.

Even the philosopher Hugo Adam Bedau, a current favorite among limited government and social liberal circles doesn’t provide much surcease from the argument.

Government should allow persons to engage in whatever conduct they want to, no matter how deviant or abnormal it may be, so long as:

  1. they know what they are doing,
  2. they consent to it, and
  3. no one — at least no one other than the participants — is harmed by it.

— Hugo Adam Bedau

Sure, Bedau’s words sound good and is if they’d make a good framework for the limits of government involvement and interference with the lives and actions of the governed.  Sadly, however Bedau’s words beg the questions of what is the proof of knowledge aforethought and what constitutes consent.

His words also, much like the Wiccan Rede – An it harm none, do as you will – leave the glaring and easily warred over questions of what’s the harm and, much like claims of offensiveness,  just who gets to decide that harm has been done in the first place.

No, not even Bedau’s simple prescription will ameliorate the conflict over just what the government should be allowed to regulate or proscribe.

Related Reading:

Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings
The Philosophy Book (Big Ideas Simply Explained)
The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book)
Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case