Do Not Read This, pt. 12

ain't nobody here but us chickens...

(ah yes, the oldest story of them all, the one that never stops being told, the never-ending battle that pretty much everyone gets suckered into fighting because, well, it would appear that the reality of our existence is just all too much. we gotta hang our problems on someone or some thing. “we” are right, “they” are wrong. take away all the fancy buildings and institutions & sh*t and we are “lord of the flies” on cosmic island earth— nothing but a bunch of scared, lost, confused children trying to get a handle on things by acting tough. all the things we like about living, all the things we don’t— seems like it’s all just plain well out of our control isn’t it? why can’t we get a handle on it and figure it all out? no matter what we do, our lot keeps getting worse. so hey, let’s double down on what hasn’t worked in the past and kick some technology-fired ass to make it all do what we want, make all of nature and all of life our slave/bitch— you know, once and for all, goddammit! battle stations, everyone!

scientists have constructed a gigantic mechanical butthole to answer the eternal question: “where does all this sh*t come from?”

yeah, that’ll work. what is a warrior but a deadly, frightened chicken, armed-to-the-teeth? the more afraid of life you are, afraid of your own body, your mind and feelings, your fellow human beings— the more heavily armed you have to be. no rest for the wicked, and all that. but no matter what you do, all you chickensh*t money-power-warriors stomping around, raging all over humanity, commanding lesser chickens from castles to barracks, there is always a bigger badass out there than you, isn’t there? let’s say you do succeed in conquering the entirety of global civilization and enslave all of passive, gutless humanity to serve your vile interests-- what then? will that put your fears to rest? wait… what the hell is that? up there, in the sky?)

---

The Illusion of Universal Good and Universal Evil: The Myth of Morality

Has there ever been two terms that have occupied more thoughts, discussions, writings, and speeches than the concepts of good and evil? Certainly, there is an ongoing debate of the issue in every area of our socio-economic environment. This phenomenon is hardly new. Historical records that go back for centuries show the same general concerns about good and evil. Since these concepts are obviously important to all, wouldn’t it be of much value to actually define these terms so that one would know where one stands in respect to the many ideas about good and evil? Let’s briefly go back into history and observe Socrates as he sought the answer to the same question that all face today.

The term, virtue, is often used as interchangeable with the term, good. Virtue is the term that Socrates uses. According to Plato, Menon and Socrates, “What is virtue?” Socrates answered that he didn’t know, and furthermore, did not know anyone who did know. So, in turn, Socrates asked Menon, “What do you think virtue is?” Menon named thrift, honesty, kindness, and a few other things. Socrates admonished him not to give him virtue in bits and pieces like loose change, but the whole. To paraphrase only slightly, Socrates asked “How do you know that each of these things is a virtue unless you know what virtue is in itself?”

Socrates recognized the logical necessity of validating the claim of a virtue by reference to the whole, to virtue itself. What he was looking for was a definition of the term, virtue, i.e., its’ identity. Socrates and Menon began arguments in search of the meaning of the term, virtue. The arguments went on and on without success. Finally, Socrates admitted failure and concluded that whatever virtue is, it must come to us by “divine dispensation”.

About 20 centuries later, G.E. Moore took up the chase in a book entitled Principia Ethica. He sought to understand the term “good”, which is virtually interchangeable with the term, virtue, within the idea of “moral good”. Moore quickly concluded that good is indefinable. Indefinable is the same as unknowable. So Moore, in effect, said that he doesn’t know what good is. He then offered thousands of words to prove the point. In the end, he concluded that “good” is some quality in things that remains constant. In other words, he wound up at the same dead-end as did Socrates.

So what is the problem? Answer: Reality cut off by the god concept.

They assumed that good is something inherent in nature itself; that it is totally objective, and therefore, constant. What it is, they didn’t know, but felt it was something “out there”. The variable left out of the equation is the actual referent, human individual. Upon this reference, the term, good, can be easily defined. Seven words of definition will dismiss trillions of words of undefined rhetoric on the subject: Good is the means suited to the purpose. It’s as simple as that.

Entities are neither good nor bad. They exist independently of any value judgment. The terms good and bad refer to actions (or reactions). If a large bucket of water is dumped on a small wood fire, is the act good, or is it bad? Same entities. Same action. Same end results. What determines the answer to the question of good or bad? If you want the fire to go out because it is threatening to burn your house down, the act is good. On the other hand, if you need the fire to cook food, the act is bad. In the final analysis of down-to-earth meaning, the determination of good or bad is by the objective valuation of means in respect to a subjectively chosen end. You can easily verify this definitive truth by your own observation and experiences. Do you not call good that which is suited to your purpose? Do you not call bad that which is not? Isn’t this true of everyone? So what is the problem? Why is there so much disagreement on “good and evil”? Obviously, there is a disagreement on means because there is a disagreement about ends desired. What disagreement, and why?

The story and illustration via the Socrates-Menon dialogue of 20 centuries ago may seem far removed from present time and have no bearing on currently held philosophies and the issue of good and evil. To the contrary, it is as relevant today as it was 20 centuries ago, for there has been no change and the same question remains at the center of each individuals’ philosophical existence. Socrates and Moore (and most others) could not find the answer and definition because they had no objective referent, and therefore, no definitive end by which to determine good or bad. They imagined an omni god and a universal purpose, but the imagined universal purpose has no objective identity. Their reference existed only as a feeling and this was their only means of considering something as good or bad. This condition still exists to a near universal degree. What is the significance of this fact in relation to your life and the values you hold and pursue?

First, notice the god concept that literally dominated Socrates’ thinking. Although his analytical abilities were much in evidence, the parameters of inquiry were limited by the god concept that he held. A conclusion is a reflection of the premises integrated, and no matter how logical and accurate the conclusion in respect to these premises, validation of the premises integrated is a prerequisite of accurate conclusions. Socrates arrived at the conclusion that any claim of a virtue could be validated only by reference to virtue itself. This conclusion is quite logical and quite true. Socrates clearly realized this and put forth much effort to find the definition of virtue as a basis for judgment of a claim of a virtue. He failed to do so. He knew that he failed, but never understood why.

As explained earlier, the god concept psychologically negates the human individual. That which has been psychologically negated does not exist in the mind, and therefore, cannot be referenced. This leaves the good-bad issue in the realm of the god concept. Since the alleged god exists only as a feeling without finite characteristics and objective identity, “gods’ purpose” cannot be known, i.e., “the objective universal goal” is without definitive identity. Although one may not be consciously aware of it, the mind principle always makes a connection between ends and means with emotional evaluation as part of the process. Socrates was not consciously thinking of a specific “divine purpose”, but definitely felt that it did exist. Although vague, the feeling dominated and controlled his thinking. Naturally, in his mind, his god was totally equated with total “good”. Thus he arrived at the inconclusive conclusion that virtue (whatever it is) comes via “divine dispensation”.

There is little or no disagreement on the fact that the terms good and bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a specific end. However, many disagreements and conflicts arise in a situation where nearly all hold some god concept and the belief in a universal goal. In this circumstance, instead of means being evaluated in respect to an individually subjectively chosen goal, the emotional evaluation of good or evil is in the respect to an imagined universal (objectively existing) goal. This means that the individual is not seen as an individual with personal goals, but rather is regarded as a means to the alleged universal goal. Needless to say, with billions of believers each trying to force everyone else into the role of the means to a “universal goal”, violent chaos is a virtual certainty.

The terms, morality and immorality, are often connected with the good-evil issue in an interchangeable manner. Notice that what a believer calls moral, he also calls good, the “moral good”. The concept of morality comes from the infinite entity, universal goal realm of beliefs, which leaves the terms moral and immoral meaning the same thing. It just depends upon whom you are talking to. “Moral” is a circumstance wherein the actions of an individual are means suited to the “universal goal”. Since there are as many “universal goals” as there are believers, what is “moral” to one believer is “immoral” to another because individual actions do not suit any given believers’ “universal goal”. In other words, morality is a myth.

Surely, every believer finds such an idea frighteningly appalling. With beliefs and emotions determined by the god concept and the “evil nature of man”, the idea of an individual making decisions on a personal basis is a terrifying prospect. “Everybody knows” that if an individual (“evil man”) has no “moral guidance” apart from his “natural evil self”, then he/she is certain to do all sorts of horrible things. This is, of course, exactly backwards. The psychology of the god concept is a prerequisite to “justifying” and carrying out oppressive and destructive atrocities. Does not the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and all of history, confirm this? Can you name any genocide or other atrocity that was not carried out in the name of the “moral good”? To be sure, there is constant disagreement as to what is, or is not, the “moral good”, but in all cases do not all such arguments rest on the idea of universal values rather than individual personal preferences?

An individual who sees himself as a fallible, self-responsible being whose values are personal, not objective mandates, cannot reach the psychological state necessary to impose by force those values upon another individual. Acts of aggression and oppression always require the sanction of a “superior being”. There is not a known single fact that refutes this argument, yet nearly all still cling to the idea of the “need” for the “universal values” and regard these illusions as the basis for the “good”, i.e., morality. Motivated and driven by these confused values, they presume to force all into the “moral mold” and thereby create the very “immoral horrors” they consciously seek to prevent.

When one does not recognize the individual as the real, so is he incapable of grasping a society based upon the reality of this identity. If an individual prefers to live in peace and harmony and knows that initiation of force and coercion are means contrary to his purpose, would he not refrain from taking such offensive action? If he knows that the benefits that he enjoys come not only from his own mind, but from the minds of others as well, would he not refrain from trying to have all minds conform to his own and thereby lose these benefits? What guidelines of behavior are needed for peace and productivity except the god-free mind of the human individual? (Since the actual individual is psychologically negated by the god concept, there is no single word in the language to represent the individual attitude and actions described above).

Given the mental reversal of reality by the god concept, it is hardly surprising to find that while the concept of morality is held out as the means of peace and harmony, in logical theory and centuries of practice it is precisely the idea of objective value and objective morality that “justifies” cruelty and oppression and underlies wars and atrocities that make one shudder just to describe.