Editor’s note: before reading this article, it must be made clear this this writer does not believe that the human race arrived at its present state through the process of evolution. He firmly believes that Yahweh has created the human race, given the law through His prophets, and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. As such, caring for those in need is important, and he regards all humans as his equals. It must also be mentioned that by “Darwinism” and “Evolution,” he is not speaking about natural selection and adaption, which all people agree about, but rather the changing of species and the idea that the human race evolved from goo.
Supposing one were to abandon God altogether, deciding that He had no impact upon the universe and that the human race arrived at our present point through naturalistic, evolutionary, and directionless processes, that person could get a pretty firm idea about the universe. For instance:
1) There is one goal for all organisms, and it is to survive
2) All organisms must die at some point
3) Evolution is the sole universal morality, and that which provides us with success/environmental domination, and even emotions
4) Any other morality exists because humans exist, and are thus abstract inventions which we accept or deny at whim depending on how we feel (more…)
John Stuart Mill, in his famous book On Liberty, laid the foundation for Western libertarian law when he introduced his harm principle. In short, he believed that the state should only be able to restrict someone’s liberties when that person is harming someone else, and that paternalistic legislation for the perceived good of that person (based upon another’s moral stances) should be prohibited at all costs in order to defend individual liberty. According to Mill and modern libertarians, the state should let others alone when dealing with seatbelts or usury or drug usage or consensual sex. Liberals agree that the last three of these should be allowed under the same reasoning.
Because of Mill’s influence, as far as “modern” ethical allowances go, the individual can observe an interesting pattern in respect to practices forbidden by law. In short, behaviors that directly and negatively impact an involved person 100% of the time are outlawed. In cases like these, the inflicted harm is commonly and unanimously understood to exist, and also cannot exist independently of the behavior that caused it. As such, rape, theft, murder, fraud, and assault are the types of behaviors that few people argue about legalizing, strictly because a case cannot be made for a lack of harm. Someone directly suffers every time one of these acts is committed. (more…)
Earlier this week, Obama addressed the nation’s children as they headed off to school. While many parents were happy to see the president personally address their children from the television, others refused to allow their children participate in school events where the president was to be broadcasted.
The latter group was portrayed as being insanely protective, almost terrified that “Barama” would get into their youths’ minds and turn them into Godless commies. But after analyzing Obama’s speech, what we find are not only a series of confusing contradictory statements, but also those supporting an incredibly liberal agenda. After reading the speech, it is my conclusion that any parent interested in raising their child properly would at least take the time to explain why Barack Obama was flat wrong on several issues.
But first, we must begin by saying that statements aren’t really islands to themselves. They almost always come in groups, with some statements being necessarily implied by other statements. If a persons says that someone is “good,” they are admitting to a moral standard in which both the speaker and the listener are assumed to believe. If you say that all men are created equal, you must necessarily be implying that evolution is not the process by which we arrived at our present state, since evolution demands that some portions of the population are always biologically superior and better adapted than the other populations, and that only this evolutionary process would separate us from the animals. In a logical world, this is the consistent way most statements work. Acknowledging the truth of a statement thus silently acknowledges other supporting statements as true.
So let us look at several statements made by our President in his speech. (more…)
I’ve heard many times that drugs ought to legalized. Never more frequently (and loudly, might I add) than from Ron Paul’s libertarian camp, generally because they believe that the pursuit of happiness is a legitimate right, and doing drugs doesn’t really hurt anyone.
But this sort of hobgob is from people who understand neither happiness nor the pursuit thereof, and it should be a philosophy reserved for teenagers. After all, if we can honestly determine that evil is never pursued without some sort of happiness in mind, then not all forms of pursuit are legitimate. Any law is a testament to that. And if we can determine that your inner state greatly influences your interactions with others (as behavior comes from nowhere else other than within you), then legalizing more forms of personal pollution would only seek to negatively impact social harmony. The notion that drugs have any positive qualities was tossed aside only ten years after the drug experimentation of the 60′s, following the explosion of crime and illegitimate childbirth fueled by the excess consumption and rapid moral deterioration.
Nevertheless, since many are inclined to ignore visible consequences of drug abuse, a philosophical case against drug use–and even casual drinking–must be made. As an ex drug-addict and a current drinker of alcohol, I feel there is no one better to make the case against drugs and alcohol than myself, though I make myself to be a fool for drinking. So let us begin with some obvious statements. (more…)
If a man sings a song to your little girl about having sex, what would you do?
If a man tells your little boy that it’s cool to shoot up and dress like a woman, what would tell that man?
If a man swears in your mother’s face, would you tolerate him?
If a man says your God is a fraud, and that His laws are worthless, would you give him your money?
There was a time when Americans would have been up in arms over these kinds of things, especially when these statements were produced in a mass-media form for youngsters. Looking back 50 years ago, that seems almost fantastical: something from an alternate dimension in which people actually cared about statements, in which people actually believed that the person you were would determine what kinds of behaviors you exerted, and that inundating the mind with ideas would have some sort of effect upon the receiver. Poppycock, we say today. There is no Devil’s Music. (more…)