Obama’s Mini-me being his nominee makes more and more sense and it seems she bodes as ill for our nation as Obama so far has.

From CNS News:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

Yes, that’s right; Kagan believes that, while the deleterious effects of laws restricting American’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression can be taken into account by the Supreme Court, the government’s motives and intent should be the most important factor in their ruling. Ergo, Kagan believes that the government can limit we, the People’s constitutional rights if it’s in a good cause.

Kagan is, like Obama himself, Harvard educated so their shared belief that the ends justify the means is not in the least shocking, given their shared backgrounds.

It was a graduate and later professor at Harvard, Michael Wigglesworth who is attributed with first adding this sentiment to the body of American writings.

From the university’s founding consequentialism and subjectivism have been entrenched in Harvard’s curriculum and all or most of its graduates have been indoctrinated into these philosophies.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that a President such as Obama, who wants to “fundamentally change” America and has some serious issues with dissent would nominate Kagan, who believes that it’s OK to limit freedom of speech in a cause she or the Court approves of, to the SCOTUS.  However, this “the ends justify the means when the ends are just” mentality of Kagan’s is nothing but the misborn bastard hybrid of ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad misericordiam, neither of which has any place in logical argument much less the highest court in America.

It does not matter whether it can be proven that the government had “the best of intentions” when enacting laws that impinge upon Americans’ unalienable rights, nor is their “noble” motives a cause to change or lessen the verdict against them. All that matters is whether or not the law or action in question violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

Elena Kagan has never had the chance to directly inflict the evils and stupidity of her views of the law upon Americans because she has never been a judge. It would be best for America if her lack of experience as a judge continued for the rest of her life.

Let us all for a moment put aside our pride and hubris and look at the Earth and the stark, raw power She can bring to bear at any given moment.

April 19, 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Volcano Erupting

Nothing short of our profligate use of our arsenal of nuclear weapons could hope to match the power and destructive force of the recent eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, which was a small and relatively mild volcanic eruption.

So when you hear people ranting or whining about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or how the Civilized World has caused massive and apocalyptic Climate Change via our CO2 emissions over the last handful of decades think about this picture and recognize that all of this hype is predicated upon people’s pride and hubris.

Love the Earth for she is fair and perilous beyond all of our means to measure. Just don’t delude yourself – or be deluded by other’s vanity or cynical manipulations – into being so confident that mankind can so easily fundamentally change Her so easily.

At times it is beneficial to be given a reminder – hopefully a gentle one – that much of this is illusory, and what isn’t, is likely transitory. The universe will continue its stately precession to oblivion long after we and everyone we ever loved or hated has long since died and been forgotten.

While humbling, this should also be a source of comfort for us. True, all of our efforts will eventually come to naught and be erased from the fabric of the universe by the erosion of time. Yet, so too will the effects of the efforts of our enemies and the consequences of our failures fade away, leaving not a trace of themselves upon the universe.

One of the prevailing arguments that atheists could, in fact, be moral was that morality can stem from a culture and/or society instead of from a Divine source. This is certainly a seductive argument; who, after all, doesn’t think their society is source of what is Right and Good?

There is a serious problem with that belief though as the philosopher and theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer so very eloquently pointed out:

Here is one simple but profound rule: If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute.

– Francis A. Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live? p. 224

Think on that for a moment for it is certainly true. In the absence of an absolute – inherently external – source for- and code of morality, a society is absolute in and of itself and the morality of its doctrines, policies, and actions could not be judged.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that this argument of morality stemming from society is a fantasy with no grounding in reality and it never could have any grounding in reality as long as mankind is made up of separate and heterogeneous cultures and societies.

What is sad and more than a little dangerous is that there are apparently a sizable number who either believe this or, at least, are willing to use the idea to rationalize their positions on morality.

Sadly for them – and for Americans now that they rule over us – this pernicious and un-American philosophy of egalitarian entitlement  flies in the face of truth and wisdom.

The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.

– Attributed to Benjamin Franklin
(No providence for attribution)

An American succeeds or fails – indeed, lives or dies – by the fruits of his or her own effort and the, often figurative these these days, sweat of their own brow. They do not succeed because they are entitled to.

It is such a shame that the Liberals do not, and apparently cannot understand this. Their attitudes are an insult and disservice to everyone they claim to support.

~*~

With a grateful H/T to Hsoi, who reminded me of these all-too-true and all-too-often, hated and despised words  of wisdom.

The term is incorrect, but – despite the rantings of some theist “hardliners” – it is not an oxymoron. It is not an inherently self-contradictory term.

“Moral Atheist” is not linguistically similar to “Jumbo Shrimp,” “Unbiased Opinion,” “Idiot Savant,” or “Civil War.” It would require that Atheists be inherently immoral – a direct contradiction – for the phrase “Moral Atheist” to be an oxymoron. Such is not categorically the case with Atheists.

Atheists can be quite ethical; their behaviors may even fall into line with those set forth by moral codes. But such things do not make the Atheist a moral individual. Ethics stem from within the individual and, lacking any religion or belief in a higher authority than Man, Atheists lack the capacity for morality though at times their actions and beliefs can, and very often do, coincide with those of moral people. Any intersection between Atheists’ ethics and morality is largely either coincidental or based upon purely pragmatic concerns.

Please note that the above statement does not hold true for Buddhists. They have faith in a divine cosmos with Right and Wrong, but do not believe in a manifest Divine Presence.

Aside from the Buddhists though, if you show me an Atheist is believes in Right & Wrong beyond personal preference or cultural dictates, I’ll show you a person who – in the stillness of the night with no sounds save the beating of their pulse into their pillow – is an Agnostic.

Atheists can only derive sanction or prohibition for their actions from within themselves and/or from the dictates of the society and culture that they live within. That – despite the ranting of Atheist and Anti-Theist “hardliners” – is not morality, not in any true or absolute sense of the word.

Atheists are normally very quick to either argue this point or dismiss it depending on their relative levels of anger at- v. loathing for the opinions of theists. That doesn’t change the facts of the argument though, nor its validity.

That’s fair and understandable, since many theists are equal quick to argue or dismiss any valid but unpleasant accusations made by Atheists against religion and the faithful.

It still remains though that ethics come from inside each person and morality is imposed from the outside. In the absence of faith in of the Divine, Atheists are left with only societal and/or cultural pressures for the imposition of outside control upon their behaviors. That is hardly morality in any sense of the word beyond the utterly shifting and pragmatic sense.  Adherence to cultural mores and fear of reprisal from one’s society is not morality.

What Atheists are left with is Moral Relativism, a philosophy that claims that there is no absolute standard for proper behavior of Man. Moral Relativism holds that moral or ethical questions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths – instead being defined by values relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances or standards.

Given the shifting and inconsistent nature of societies, any pseudo-morality imposed by them would be an imperfect and fleeting thing at best. At worst, these societal mores and customs, passed off as morality, lead to horrendous mass behaviors ala Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Five Year Plans, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward.

No, there is truly no such thing as a Moral Atheist – an ethical Atheist, yes and quite often even a good Atheist. Yet this is because they were raised within societies that developed under moral principles, not because of their own morality.

The question arise though – how do we judge another’s intent and goals? What scales do you use to derive our measurements? Do we weigh the actions of others on our own scales of malice, or do we weigh them on what we can perceive of their scales of malice?

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of this malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it.

– Gandalf
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 203

It a common thought that we judge others by own desires and from solely within our own framework of goals and perceptions – or at least it’s a common rebuttal in many arguments. Somehow I doubt this assertion is anywhere near universal in its accuracy.

I think it is important for people to determine by which and whose scales they judge the actions and malice of others though.

Our Scales:

If we are judging the actions of others based upon what we would do in a similar circumstance, then our judgment is bound to be very subjective. It also would, at that point, say as much or more about ourselves as it does about the object of our judgment.

It would also be a flawed basis for judgment in many cases. People are not all the same and – beyond the primal needs – do not necessarily have similar motivations. By judging others only by own goals we leave ourselves open to being outmaneuvered by our enemies, as the quoted passage above asserts.

Still, it’s a consistent framework for judgment and one that can be rapidly brought to bear on a situation. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

Their Scales:

If we are judging the actions others based upon their own goals and capabilities, then our judgment is not going to be subjective in the same manner as if we judged based on what we would do in the same or similar circumstances. The subjectivity would be more a case of targeting the assessment to the situation and individuals or groups involved.

It would also be a basis of judgment that has to be predicated on either prior knowledge of the individuals or groups involved or a high degree of empathy. Lacking a sufficient amount of either would render judgment based upon their intent, goals, capabilities flawed to the point of uselessness.

Still, it has the capacity for greater accuracy than basing one’s judgment on ones’ own intent, goals, capabilities. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

It is certainly beyond me to determine which framework of judgment is better in the long run; I’m not even sure if either one is better than the other in an overall manner. Both scales of malice, internal and external, have the strengths and weaknesses.

It is not beyond my capabilities though to conclude that it is best to know, or at least consider, by which one – or at what level of combination – one is assessing the ramifications and intent of others’ actions in any given situation.

One of the key points in the Euthyphro dialog is called the Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

For the followers of the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) this normally translates into – on the occasions when it is debated by the theologians – the question of whether something is commanded by their God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by their God.

Amongst polytheists – with the rare exception of myself – the question rarely arises do to our multiplicity of deities with possibly conflicting directives and our lack of requirement for- or belief in their omniscience or infallibility.

I can’t speak to whether or not the Sikhs have the Euthyphro Dilemma often or not. They’re monotheists, but their view of their God is vastly different from most other faiths.

In any case though, it’s an interesting debate. Is the God(s) the creator or legislator of morality, or is the God(s) the enforcer of a morality that originate from separately Divine will?

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.

– Cicero
(106 BC – 43 BC), 55 BC

Marcus Tullius Cicero is generally perceived by historians to be one of the most versatile minds of ancient Rome. He introduced the Romans to the chief schools of Greek philosophy and created a Latin philosophical vocabulary, distinguishing himself as a linguist, translator, and philosopher. An impressive orator and successful lawyer, Cicero probably thought his political career his most important achievement.

Millennia later Cicicero’s words of wisdom are still true. We in America should heed them.

Buddhism (500 BCE)

Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

– Udana-Varga, 5, 18

Christianity (50 CE)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

– Matthew 7:12

Confucianism (600 BCE)

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you would not have them do unto you.

– Analects, 15, 23

Islam (622 CE)

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

– Imam An-Nawawi’s 40 Hadiths, 13

Hinduism (1500 BCE)

This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you pain if done to you.

– Mahabharata, 5, 1517

Judaism (1800 BCE)

What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

– Talmud, Shabbat, 312

Taoism (300 BCE)

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

– T’sai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

Zoroastrianism (600 BCE)

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.

– Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5

If this stricture were limited to only the Abrahamic faiths – and possibly Zoroastrianism – I would write it off as nothing of note. Each of those faiths builds upon its predecessor. The Golden Rule is not so limited however. Even religions and philosophies with little or connection or exposure to the Abrahamic faiths include essentially the same stricture.

While this alone is not proof, it seems to be enough evidence to support postulating a universal absolute morality.