TL:DR/Abstract: The term Evil is in conflict with itself. If evil is a primary trait then it is no more valid to blame an evil person for evil acts than it is to blame blame a duck for swimming. If evil is not a primary trait then does it even exist?

Full:

What constitutes evil? How do you define evil? Most people have a definition of evil akin to the government’s definition of pornography, that is, it doesn’t have one but it knows it when it sees it.

I’ve always had a problem with the whole idea of good and evil. As long as I have lived I have been a moral relativist. Now I didn’t know that was the term when I was five, but that’s what I was. Rules always bothered me for the same reason multiple choice tests bothered me. I could always find alternate interpretations or exceptions that were perfectly reasonable in my head. Fortunately, my parents encouraged this level of questioning. Yay for not being an advanced puppy.

I can’t think of a single example an any act which is universally evil under all circumstances without resorting to some set of all acts which are universally evil sophist semantic trickery.

I’m quick to add there are sets of actions which are for the most part practically universally objectionable, but as with everything in reality theory plays a key role, and in theory, any act can be rendered good or evil with the addition of context. What the series 24, or the movie unthinkable for some visceral needs of the many type defenses of this idea.

It seems that there may be a set of acts that within the confines of the human condition are universally evil, like no possible context additions could ethically shift any act of this set, but I can’t think of any.

It seems to me there’s a way to render ANY evil act, good. If said evil act prevents all future instances of said evil act without otherwise changing potential action. The last bit may be confusing but, its required to prevent system destroyers. Example: If the rule were simply the prevention of all future evil acts of that same type, then nuclear extinction of humanity could be a good act because it would prevent the same thing from happening again. Obviously that’s not good, but if I could kill a person and in so doing prevent all future murders without changing the rest of the world, then that’s a no brainer. Even if it’s me.

The same goes for good. If a person is just good, then why do we applaud them for acting on it? I mean if it’s their nature, how was it a choice? It’s like getting all excited when an ant carries something back to its colony. That’s its nature.

Like for example, my mother is proud of me because I gave some socks and a coat to a guy that was hanging out on my steps one morning. Now I’m thrilled to have my mother proud of me, but that’s part of my point. This act was not selfless. I receive pleasure when I can be of help. Am I still a good person? Or am I just a dopamine addict like the rest of us?

I would argue what makes me good is the fact that doing good makes me feel good as opposed to being a universal sadist. (we all have a little de Sade in us somewhere) But do I deserve credit for this? No. It was no more my choice than being tall or white. If anyone gets a back pat it should be my parents, but then one again has to ask why did they make their choices? And on and on.

It seems value judgments are impossible in any objective sense, and if we grant that good and evil are subjective, which is fine then do we not seriously need to rethink our social structure? Yup. Hence my life’s work you’re reading right now.

Choice is the root it would seem, but if I had a choice, be good or be evil, then my choice is the primary trait and evil and good become secondary, defined by that choice. At which point one must ask why were those choices made? Because as we just explored, context changes everything. And if context is always being added how can we judge in any objective sense the quality of an action?

Indeed it seems the universe is geared to short circuit such judgments. An absolutely good act would seem to by definition include a non halting state future, and thus context will by definition always be added after even a perfectly infinitely good act, so we’d never know ultimately if the act was good because we have to wait till the end of context addition to make the evaluation. So spotting the ultimate good is not possible. Same with evil. The ultimate evil act would seem to demand immediate halting just as surely as good demands continuation by definition, thus there would be no one left after an ultimate evil act to evaluate it. It’s like unknown unknowns and black swan events. It’s invisible, permanently.

Really, it seems to me that we have no choice but to reject the whole idea of good and evil as being more than a little broken.

Like the man said in Se7en “It’s easier to beat a child than it is to raise it.”

You seem to have forgotten being a child. Do you remember the day of your 18th year when you stopped being a drooling vapid drone in need of the nearest adult to tell you how to live your life and you instantly sprang into wisdom and sentience and worthiness of human and citizen’s rights? I don’t. For my own part I remember a pretty seamless progression of ignorance towards knowledge and revision. I remember being a human from about the time I was 4. I believed some tings that were wrong and I didn’t understand some things, but that was the case when I was 25 as well. And I’m sure it still is.

We’re always changing always learning. At what point did I magically become an adult? What fact was added to my memory that changed me from a talking dog into a real live person? I hate the attitude people have towards children. It’s disgusting by and large.

The most intelligent hacker I ever met was 13 at the time and some adults can’t even manage their email. Antiquity is jam packed with children doing great and horrible adult things, from Pharaoh Tutankhamun to the child soldiers of today’s Africa and middle east, children are capable of more than we as Americans can fathom because we have a trillion dollar dumbing down effort well underway. We think Hannah Montana and Pokemon are the limits of their ability.

Children ARE little adults. Their brains are different, in progress, and flux but no less human for it. There is no child out there today that lacks an adult equivalent with full rights and protections. You ask me how many in depth conversations I’ve had with 11 year olds, and I say I have no idea, and neither do you because an intelligent child in today’s world probably has a fake identity. For all you know I am such an 11 year old.

I’ll go you one better, how many adults have you met that act like children? Should they be stripped of their rights? If so at what point, if not why not? Who decides? You? A judge? A priest? A boss?

Rights are worthless if selectively and arbitrarily applied. Just ask blacks and women and every other historically oppressed group.

The thinking that raising a child can’t be accomplished without a servant/master or owner/pet relationship dynamic is a deficiency of imagination if not an abundance of sadism and insecurity.

Much like the deficiency of imagination and intellect that causes people to strike their children. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you’re too stupid to trick a child into thinking what you would like them to do is a good idea, then you’re too stupid to have bred.

This is why the system (not just America) encourages accidental birth, they don’t WANT smart parents and attitudes like that play right into their hands and they absolutely don’t want smart independent children. What could be more disastrous to a system based on transparent lies, and blind fearful obedience?

They want children whipped into submission so that when the cops tell them to bend over they say yes sir. So they pay their taxes on time. So they develop a sick Stockholm syndrome inspired patriotism and love of the status quo. So they blame themselves for the lack of class mobility. So they will accept their lot without undue fuss.

We’re the first generation in history that’s going to look at our children and realize they are spineless drones. And not because we didn’t beat them or rule them but because we did these things with ignorant prideful gusto. We tell them how to dress and think and eat and when to sleep and shit and then we get flabbergasted when they can’t make even the simplest of decision properly on their own.

They’re growing up with drug searches and metal detectors and arbitrary beatings, and then we act all shocked when the best our generation can manage is a half assed protest or an angry letter when we get our rights trampled, or a 40% voter turn out on the most important election in American history.

We’re pathetic and it ALL stems from the attitude that they are “just children.” I’m reminded of morons writing about the inherent superiority of whites or how women can’t make logical decisions.

We look at the past and see racists and bigots and ignorance galore but we make the same mistake and think OUR prejudices and OUR bigotries are different, and we think our ignorance is non existent. We think our way of living is the pinnacle of ethical and civic achievement and that any radical change is a step back.

The greatest lesson history has to teach is that humanity ignores the lessons of history.

When asked whether she had any comments on Israel. “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” Helen Thomas replied.

The “White House Correspondents Association” apparently called her remarks “Indefensible.”

She then apologized and apparently was forced to retire.

I guess you’re just not allowed to have an opinion and respect simultaneously in this country anymore.

Indefensible? How about this defense: The creation of the Jewish state right or wrong has resulted in war pretty much from it’s inception. That’s pretty defensible.

Is there any doubt that it was a knee jerk attempt to make up for the holocaust? The whole thing from my perspective looks like a box of chocolates after a black eye.

It’s like the west said “Damn sorry we let things get so bad that some psychotic nearly wiped you out to a man, here, have that country you always wanted. No, don’t worry about the people that live there now, they’ll get over it.”

I have no organized religion (if any) and no interest in race but war and death are very real and as long as I’ve been alive that area of the planet has been a war zone and Israel is at the heart of it.

Is it really so unreasonable to wish we had gone some other route?

I’m tired of this international political correctness. Speaking out against Israel is not the same thing as being a nazi.

Just try to put it in different terms, the proper nouns don’t matter. If some crazy Russian had tried to exterminate all Mormons, and the world nearly let it happen and so Europe felt guilty and decided to give them Utah as a sovereign nation, deploying arms to secure the gift, at which point the surrounding states decided they wanted their homes back… You see what I’m saying?

That’s a gross over simplification I grant you, I’m just trying to get you to think about it free of the connotations that have grown up around the current set of proper nouns, so you can think of it rationally, dispassionately.

It’s a nice idea letting the Jews go home after what they had been through. But this “home” was already full of other people.

Would you tolerate me giving away your kitchen to some starving homeless people? Would you appreciate being called anti-homeless when you objected? That’s what happens now.

I fully expect to be called a nazi because I’m officially saying I think it’s fair to question the wisdom of creating/supporting Israel.

It’s horrific beyond words what we allowed to happen to the Jews, but I don’t see how that makes it not ok to ask the question, was setting the stage for another 100 years of near global war really a fitting response?

Besides, people have been torturing and killing people the whole time. Jews don’t have a monopoly on suffering or oppression. They aren’t the only race that has faced annihilation from without. Are we going to start carving out countries as consolation prizes for ethnic cleansing across the board? If not, why not, and why don’t those same reasons apply to Israel?

We tell children not to fight, when we see an intractable conflict among children we always say to one of them be the grown up and let the baby have his ball, or we step in and being bigger adults, settle or prevent the fight. Usually something like taking the ball from both of them until they can play nice.

These are young nations in terms of maturity if not age, they’ve been at war for so long their ancient history sort of doesn’t count in the face of children being mamed. It’s hard to respect someone responsible for atrocities on the grounds that they had atrocities done on them.

They just keep hitting reset and burning everything and falling back on some ancient holy book or another. We’ve got religion too, but at least we can build something, call it holy and not reduce it to rubble every 10 years. I mean come on, is there anything in that area of the world that hasn’t been shelled? Shouldn’t that tell us something?

At what point is it ok to consider taking the ball away from both sides? At what point can we as outsiders say ethically say, ok enough is enough, NO ONE gets to live here.

The bottom line is that saying that maybe the Jews getting out isn’t such a bad idea is hardly “indefensible.” It’s a valid option, maybe not the best one but it’s not like she said we should nuke the place or something.

Saying all Jews should die, or that saying all Palestinians are terrorists, that would be indefensible. But you know what’s even worse? Doing nothing and letting this madness go on in perpetuity on the grounds that we feel guilty about the past. And that’s exactly what we are doing, nothing. Indeed being an ally with Israel could be construed as taking a side, and if we’re going to take a side lets do it to win it.

Let’s carpet bomb Israel’s enemies. That would be wrong you say? I agree. But why? Because that action leads to death and pain all around. But that’s what we are letting and enabling Israel to do. So if I hand someone a gun knowing they will shoot someone, did I just shoot someone? By any sane appraisal yes. So what gives?

Given this madness, I’d have retired too, but I would not have apologized for my opinion or for voicing it.

This whole scenario is lethal bullshit. Nationalism, racism, and fundamentalism are rarely good things. Am I really to be called a nazi for saying that Israel seems built on a heaping pile of all three? The whole thing is frustrating to no end. I’m reminded of the phrase about the road to hell and good intentions. Why can’t they just let it go? More importantly why won’t we force them?

We all live on the same island, in the same house. At what point do we break up the fight that’s destroying the living room? At what point does it stop being Nazi to say “You know what, I don’t care who’s right or who started it, STOP FIGHTING!”

Children are having their hands blown off people, and the problem does not look to be solving itself. Are you really cool with that just to avoid sounding impolitic?

That’s worth being a bad guy to prevent I think and if any of these people were rational adults they would agree.

Both sides have made it clear they are willing to blow up children. Therefor, in my view both sides are wrong. The instant you are cool with blowing up a toddler as a rule is the instant all your arguments about whats owed you lose their credibility.

As I said I have no graceful solution but here is the direction I would like to go in, assuming intractability.

The whole area (by area I mean everyone who’s willing to fight over this) should be blockaded by the rest of the planet until they run out of munitions and everything else not produced in the area. Then everyone that goes to the blockade unarmed asking for relocation may do so. (I’m not sure what to do with people that want IN, if any.)

If the area never empties, awesome, the remaining people will have learned to be self sufficient and non violent, and after 100 years of no war, the blockade can start to be disassembled, with the understanding that the first political or religious murder restarts the clock and gets the offending area dissected for weapons.

If however everyone leaves, we turn the holy places into museums, and everything else gets flattened by bulldozers. Then we set up an international lottery in which everyone can get a ticket, and we let the winners move in.

The conditions for entry into the lottery and living there if you win are no violence, and abandonment of previous citizenship. No more fighting over thousand year old wrongs, you want to do that, do it somewhere else, see how long you last trying to blow up Jews or Arabs in Paris, Detroit, or Beijing.

In this way the most prideful and those with somewhere else to go will be kept out. The idea being to keep the crazies willing to blow up children for whatever reason, out. The second you murder someone for any reason other than self defense, your spot is given to someone else and you’re deported to your previous location.

Each border country that has a problem with any of this sufficient to be violent about it, since the goal is peace and life, should have the same done to it. Eventually either the blockade ring would expand to the point of it being clear that we all want to avenge ourselves to death in which case we deserve extinction, or the plan will work

We as a planet should no longer tolerate this particular war which apparently is going to go on forever unless something is done.

I any case I don’t see this situation persisting past the singularity. War generally is about control of resources that we all agree are valuable, and yet are in limited supply. I’m pretty sure once technology allows us all to meet our animal needs safely self actualization will kick in and the fighting will taper off.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663

Ethan Stacy Update: Charges Expected for Mother and Stepfather – Crimesider – CBS News.

This is what happens when children are property and it’s ok to hit them. We make the line between “discipline” and abuse so murky, monogamy isolates them with their parents, and pedo paranoia makes everyone afraid to even say hello to children; that is a recipe for disaster.

Solution: Make it absolutely illegal to strike your child unless you’re knocking it out of the path of an oncoming train or something, thus creating the chance to catch abuse before it becomes fatal.

Solution: Legalize polygamy to at least create the opportunity for more rational adults to be in a child’s life, thus making it more difficult to hide abuse.

Solution: Make it harder to destroy someone’s life with an accusation, so the villagers won’t be afraid to take an interest in the children around them; rendering abuse yet more difficult to hide.

Of course the system knows all this. My solutions have the sad effect of disrupting the distribution of power over the long term. That’s why none of it will happen probably until post singularity.

A Life Without Fear: Dealing With Williams Syndrome : NPR.

Isabelle is not allowed to tell them that she loves them.

What The Everloving Fuck!?!?! Why??? You realize the only reason this is a problem is because we disagree with her choices. What happens when she legally becomes a person and still is “pathologically” nice? I suppose it should be news that a universally nice girl exists, we better cure that shit in a hurry right assholes?

Jessica has decided that the most important thing for her to do is to teach Isabelle how to distrust. For years, that has been her life project — a battle pitched against biology itself.

OMFG!!!! Take notes people this is how morons are going to react to the future. “Oh god its awesome… KILL IT!”

We live a very sheltered life, but I can think of times when we were at the pool and I turn around to talk to someone, and I see her practically sitting on some man’s lap at the pool, and he looks very uncomfortable,” Jessica says. “And I just think: This is not good.

Yeah because he lives in a world where that lap hop and your word will sentence him to rape and social death.

Fortunately, Jessica says, the experts tell her it will eventually get better.

Yeah, BETTER. More conformist, meaner, more afraid.. Better. Fuck you people. All of you, seriously.

OH Noes! Our offspring isn’t a bundle of suffering hate and fear like the rest of us, how inconvenient! Lets fucking cure her!

OMG she’s enjoying strangers! Where is that HEALTHY hatred and distrust of all things different!?

She apparently loves everyone! We can’t fucking have that! Doesn’t she know that love is suppose dot be bought and sold?!

This shit makes my fucking blood boil!

You ignorant dysfunctional asshats can’t get your mind off your dicks. Be honest. You wouldn’t be a tenth as concerned if it was a little boy. My proof? We haven’t been burning catholic churches for rampant systematic boy rape.

You know what you all are thinking “she’s going to be such a slut!”

And you know what? You’re right! And thank god for that. You know why? Because fucking someone safely makes them happy and it doesn’t cost anyone anything.

All this stranger danger claptrap is a red herring. You’re scared shitless of her because 10,000 more like her and she’d wreck the fucking curve.

This marvelous little person is without even trying what we all want to be. Happy and loving.

She’s by default the best kind of human and you fucking worthless chimps want to CURE HER OF IT!

Cure her developmental issues and cognitive issues sure, but there is nothing wrong with trust and being happy.

Maybe this is just what we need. A whole generation of people who ACTUALLY CARE about other people as a rule!

We have never come so close to salvation. And you fucking infuriating shit minds want to cure it! YOU WANT TO CURE BEING HAPPY!!!! God! Go kill yourselves, seriously, please.

Do you realize this girl is going to be neurologically immune to hatred, racism, sadism… She’s absolutely by every qualitative measure completely Good. And you “people” want to CURE IT!

She’ll never kill anyone, or hurt anyone. She’ll do her level best to make everyone around her happy and best of all she’ll be happy by default. She is a walking win win. And you broken sanity deprived dark brains want to stamp it out.

I’ve never been more angry.

These children are the future and it scares the piss out of you.

I have to take a deep breath and tell myself…

“No, not even these people should be tortured… That’s just your animal brain talking, relax, try not to hate, they can’t help being evil, they need a cure, not a machete. Think how a William’s would respond. You’re just angry and doing what your brain does, your’s is broken, its just not caught up to your humanity yet, you’re not a William’s but one day, hopefully you will be.”

You people live because people like her would let you, and knowing ethical superiority when I see it, I’ll trust her judgment.

Definition: Any photo showing a romantic couple where the intended spot for a photo is supposed to contain a representation of an individual person.

To all of you:

Would you do that on your drivers license photo?

This is supposed to be YOUR page.

In case you hadn’t noticed I hate couple profile photos, its like the modern version of cutesy stupid couple answering machine messages but at least they sorta made sense. After all the call usually went to a couple’s house. So the answering machine was fielding calls potentially for either person or both.

Do you like showing off your pet spouse? Or maybe you like being arm candy? Perhaps making it clear that the most important thing in your life is your mate is the point.

None of these are good things.

To the girls:

My mother was a women’s rights activist, seeing modern women cling onto their boyfriends and husbands like some callow waif from the 50s afraid to think on her own makes me sick, and when I see a man shoe horned into aspects of a woman’s life that are meant to be for her alone I’m reminded of a parent escorting their child to the bathroom.

Is there nothing you can do on your own?

I’m “happy” for you that you’re so pathetic in your own mind that you require a whole other person to feel valid, but could you at least be a little less proud of it or maybe a little more honest about it? By say donning a leash and collar perhaps or forcing your purchase to do so?

to the guy:

I understand the pressure you are under to buy/earn a sexy girl toy to make all your decisions for you based on what the TV told her to think. I mean shit every song/TV show/movie is ALL about the lengths to which you’re supposed to go to get some cute girl to bend over for you, and that’s on top of the testosterone overdose and massive cultural training all about how being a “Family man” is everything and how you’re simply not a “real man” till you have a sexy young expensive girlfriend.

I can see where if you finally got said trophy fuck or as close as you can manage, to willingly show herself in public as being your girlfriend you’d be excited. I can see the desire to scream for all the world to hear and in this case see “look who I’m cool enough to fuck.”

But your enthusiasm for it as demonstrated by injecting her picture EVERYWHERE makes you look like some recently deflowered teen bragging during lunch about having used up a condom.

The model Orlando Bloom is fucking may be news but even he doesn’t put her as his profile photo. And he’s screwing a supermodel. You’re piece of jailbait no one cares about.

At best people will wonder how a loser like you got a POA like that and I assure you they aren’t going to answer that mental question with “because he’s just so cool” they’re going to think “money.” Which is the plan. You make yourself look like a customer and nothing else.

Seriously, unless your profile is a group effort, which is disgusting in its own way, keep it limited to one person.

Runners up:

People posing with their car/pets/children/hobbies for their profile photos.

I’m all for sharing what you’re happy about. I myself have a huge page dedicated to my kitty. But he’s not in my profile photos.

Why?:

Why do I hate these photos so much? Because they objectify people and we have too much of that already. Being proud of being someone’s mate in a monogamous setting wherein by definition relationships are about sex and nothing else, is the same as saying “I’m glad I get to fuck so and so.” or “Look what I bought.”

And before the brilliant little cheerleaders point out that their boyfriends pay for everything, allow me to share the concept of buying something or in this case someone with sex.

Sam Harris has a wonderful TED talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html?awesm=on.ted.com_8DEm

I’ve made detailed and damning arguments clearly delineating the limits of science and religion. The way I’ve framed it is is how and why, how can science answer why type questions, and my position is that it can’t.

I agree with everything he said, just not what he implies. The initial premise that what he was talking about was about morality. He’s also assuming that the goal of religion is the same as the goal of morality, he said this when he spoke about inner lives. Which logically seems clear when you look at the bribery/punishment religions. He fell into a correlation causation trap. ultimately, theoretically, they don’t seek heaven because it’s fun they seek it because it’s god’s will and that just happens to be fun.

His entire position becomes invalid if you admit the possibility in theory of a non hedonic picture of human purpose. Which in many ways is exactly what religion often asserts. Religion says that pleasure is not the end all be all, even when it’s saying heaven is fun and hell is not, it’s just saying, worship god by obeying this dogma, its just also saying that worshiping god Leads to fun and rejecting god leads to hell. This is a radically important distinction if you’re going to talk about using science to justify an attack on the fundamental purpose of religion, which is answering why type questions. This must also be addressed ironically for the same reason he suggest because it could lead to a slippery slope of oppression and involuntary control.

He is attempting to prove what becomes an emotional axiom. Ethical duty can not be informed by science unless issues of survival present themselves and this includes issues of diversity and cultural survival. Agreed completely, hitting children is wrong, but what informs that conclusion is my baseline ethical values which are pleasure/life good pain/death bad. Indeed he brought up the issue of hitting children but I’m sure he himself believes that coercion is required to raise a child, he simply objects to the methodology. He surly thinks producing children that fit into society is the goal and that demands coercion or manipulation, or as those in power over children like to say, “guidance”.

This introduces all sorts of paradoxes such as how tolerant can you be of intolerant actions before you must begin to act intolerantly in the interest of greater tolerance. In short the common goods problems which give rise to social systems and social contracts generally.

I agree that there is such a thing as ethical/moral expertise, in related news, I like to think of myself as an ethical expert. In this a conflict of interest? I leave that for you to decide.

Still, his entire argument is that we can know with certainty, given sufficient information, what the best class of action or ethics look like, but he fails to note that this applies if and only if you value, and therefor all parties also value life and pleasure over and above anything else.

The problem for Sam and other ethically aware and well educated atheists is he knows that dogma via training can be programed into a child to exceed life and pleasure in importance and this makes him question on a fundamental level the validity of that priority placement. He begins to see the issue as one of mental contagion. But how does that play out when as I just said he too agrees that some level of manipulation is required to raise children? I think on some level he is aware of this problem which is why he chose child beating as an example atrocity. Because it’s at the very heart of volition, and volition is a central tenant of ethics.

Do you really want something if I trained you to want it?

Even he knows this when he comments about diversity and food, about how there are many best paths. But in my view that’s just playing with set notation anomalies. Even accepting his definition of peak experience I could group those options into a class and then speak about that class as a single entity. His position advocates oppression and manipulation. But is that a bad thing? Does that not lead to even more questions?

To continue his food metaphor he’s ultimately talking about a world where only health foods can be permitted to exist. I agree that the brain is becoming better understood but what about metaphysics? What if for instance you view the brain as merely a lens through which the soul shines? That’s how I understood and reconciled the two, science and religion, how and why, experience and brain tissue, as a child. At that point statements about the brain become indefensible as arguments for morality except from a functional perspective because even if I play with a lens the ontology of the light is unchanged, merely its manifestation is altered.

Its like the concept of philosophical zombies. How do I know you truly have experience? How easy would it before me to say “you don’t REALLY feel pain you just look and sound like you do”. Even he brought this up when he spoke about how insects may have an inner life. But again, what if inner life doesn’t matter? Or more to the point, what if you were trained that your inner life is less important than adherence to a given dogma as a child?

The logical consequence of his position is in effect a holy war. The forcing of studied ethical decisions on exterior populations. He may have facts to back up his position but whether or not he has the right to force those positions on others, or even non violently foster them, is a philosophical, ethical, indeed religious question.

As always my solution is to present options designed to leave volition unmolested, and again he himself is aware of this. He noted the solution right away when he spoke of uninventing technology. Granted, that can’t be feasibly done at the moment. But the motivation to use technologies for harm even in the context of religion can be undermined.

Take for example rape and honor killings. It is perfectly possible to prevent all rape given sufficient technology and not infringe one bit on the Muslim faith or indeed its way of life. It may be beyond our current technology, but it’s possible. Just to rattle off a hyper future tech solution, think smart fog everywhere the universally prevents females from being touched by unauthorized persons. This would obviate the question of honor killings. Now this is just an example, its imperfect I know, my point is that things can be envisioned. There are ways.

Its much like the demand to burn witches. In western society technology simply exposed us to the apparent fact that there is no such thing as a witch. Alternative religions don’t count in this context, I mean flying, spell casting, shape changing, Harry Potter style witches. The rule to kill all witches can easily be followed now without hurting anyone since there are no witches.

Like the majority of the rest of the world’s ethicists, except me and a few others Sam Harris has missed the point. That the best way to solve these social problems is to obviate compulsory society itself, or put more simply to obviate compulsion. I suspect he’d reject that statement out of hand, at least as a gut response, ironically for the same psychological reasons some people place the will of god ahead of humanity’s observable well being.

Once the gifts of society to the individual can be produced by a single backpack society will crumble as people exit to defend their rights. That’s why I call my book “The Backpack Apocalypse.”

My position on how and why stand. His objection is in the context of my position one of civics. He doesn’t like religion making social policy decisions, and I agree. But the flip side is that science can not make moral ones, it can merely tell you, given parameters you provide which course of action is most in line with your goals.

For a little bit more about what I have to say on this subject check out this post and debate.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=324

You have the right to change your mind.

Genius is a dynamic entity and while some truths once arrived at are final, many aren’t and you’re never going to be absolutely sure which ones are which.

If you find that your view point isn’t changing, (keeping a journal is a great way to watch for this) then you might have a problem.

If you’re not at least a little embarrassed by some of the things you’ve written in the past then you’re probably not growing intellectually.

Don’t be completely ashamed of these things, and don’t be afraid to say you were wrong or you at least feel differently now.

We each make our decisions based on what we know at the time, and a fact of existence is that what you know, changes.

Don’t go back and make corrections, for one thing it’ll just draw attention, simply make your new position clear somewhere else and if asked directly, be honest.

If they want to try and shame you, let them, the both of you know how insane it is to try and scold someone for adapting, and if they don’t, well then their opinion is not worth caring about.

Just sharing

Death is the enemy. Do you agree? I’ll bet you don’t. As of this writing the people likely to read my work don’t agree. They.. You.. see death as something other than an enemy. Some of you see it as the road to your god and heaven, others see it as a way to escape from one pain or many, still others see death as just a part of life and some of you don’t even think about it at all.

But I’m here to tell you death is the fucking enemy. Death is wrong. Death can be fought and defeated. Death is pointless. Death is not your friend. We must bring about the death of death itself.

Before death can be fought its horror must be apparent. Death’s most powerful weapon is its ability to convince people that it is not the enemy. People lose their only daughter in a violent car crash and they blame the car, and they invent an after life or they start a foundation in her name and death gets a pass.

But in the end death is the problem. Our lives are defined by death in the sense that most of our actions stem from the delay of it’s approach. But that is only true because we come from animals. Animals that have no purposes beyond reproducing. A system of mixing and remixing DNA for the sake and being able to continue mixing and remixing DNA. That is no longer good enough.

Evolution itself has evolved and the door is open for each individual to choose to reproduce in whatever way they like or not, to live forever or not, to finally dispatch death.

I know this is painful to read for those of you who have lost someone or are losing someone. No one likes the thought of being partly responsible for future and present deaths. It’s much better to give up, to consider the matter unavoidable, to hide behind mythology and platitude. To cry yourself out and move on. But our powers are growing and so too does our ethical responsibility.

This does not mean to the state or the god but to all humanity.

It is time to fight. And the first step is failing to surrender.

I chose not to die.

I plan not to die.

My existence matters.

I will not live on through a legacy or though the memory of others or through great deeds or through metaphor or the pleasing of a deity or the cycle of souls and lives.

I will live through action, force of will, technology and study, literally till the end of my universe. I believe this is possible, I know it. And I will do everything I can to make it happen for me and everyone else who wants it with every fiber of my being.

That is my duty to myself my parents my friends and also every life form under my rule.

It is my personal responsibility to see to it that pain is ended, that death is ended that the chains be broken, that life itself be preserved and improved, that sentience be respected, that freedom be preserved, and that I improve myself without fear of losing who I am or losing control of my fate.

The cartoon said it best. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you.

Death is an opponent we can not truly defeat as we are, though we may indeed wound the hell out of it even now if we tried as a group. But I know better. We will not. I am not here to convince you and start a movement.

You’ve heard the logic before, you can not act. It is outside your nature. I understand and I sympathize.

No, we must become something else, as individuals and as a species. And this change will be snuck upon the most of us. It will be gradual for some, instantaneous for others. It will come from varied directions, from the cell up or machine in. Indeed there may be other paths no living human may be capable of imagining.

If there is something after death, if there are souls on the other side of the veil we can know one of two things. Either they are incapable of helping us, or they are unwilling. That either makes them powerless or compassionless.

If they look and see death as a good thing and they see pain as purposeful, they are not human. They are not our friends and family anymore, and so me must work to preserve and defend our friends and family that stand among us now and see that they stand among us for as long as they wish.

We must see if we can that they are not seduced by lies, but we must temper this with a respect for their authority over themselves.

Pain and death are our enemies. Mortal enemies. Can there be a better term for such a thing?

They must be fought. And they will be. Unto their total annihilation.

The decision between survival and principal is a difficult one. But in my moral framework there are no absolutes beyond the guide by which rules themselves are judged. That is, does a given rule cause a net increase in happiness and survival, what drop in happiness is acceptable for a rise in survival and vice versa.

The choice between an empty stomach and an empty soul is a choice between happiness and survival. They are of equal importance. But the matter is complicated by the fact that happiness can be lost and regained, survival can not, once you’re dead you’re dead. Thus a total loss of happiness is preferable to a total loss of survival provided you don’t know the future status of your happiness, since happiness can return from a zero or negative state.

The question of stomachs vs souls is further complicated by the fact that it is a common goods problem. If selling your soul is accomplished by harming others then there is a point at which you begin to hurt yourself.

Think of a space station with 3 people, all of which have a bomb implanted in them that detonate upon their death. In that setting the choice between killing and living is null because the death of one is the death of all. Ignorance lets you off the hook, this is why some people cultivate ignorance.

But what if there were only two bombs and you didn’t know who had them, then the choice becomes gamble with your life or gamble with theirs, the choice is easy again since everyone is going to risk it anyway, so why not bet on yourself. Learning as much as you can about the bombs and everything around you here makes all the difference.

What if you discover only one of you had the bomb, and you know you didn’t. You know that you can die safely, but killing one of the others may kill everyone. Then the action which is obviously beneficial to you hurts the group.

Ethics is usually about balancing group survival with individual advancement, the social contract. Thus, harming others eventually harms the group and that harms you because you are in the group, but what if you know that if you don’t harm the group someone else will? Then the choice is between you and someone else and the damage gets done regardless.

Well if its that cut and dry then its obviously in your best interest to do harming first, and its neutral ethically since someone’s going to do it no matter what. But, it’s only cut and dry because you know for a fact someone is going to do it, and the only reason you know someone is going to do it is because it’s so cut and dry.

At which point we arrive at a impasse reminiscent of the type of logical thorns and traps produced by advanced game theory.

The solution is best expressed in my opinion by a quote from the movie WarGames. “Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play.” – W.O.P.R. Or put differently, the best choice is not to make one, or to avoid the choice, or to obviate it. In the example of the space station, you could remove the bombs safely. In the food example, you could create more food or reduce the need for food.

This is why my solution for society is fostering disruptive technologies. Some problems are insoluble, but some of those are avoidable.

So here we come to it, if given the choice between an empty stomach and an empty soul, I’d have to have more information, but if I did not, and death seemed imminent, or if the approach of death was corroding my happiness to the point of being equal in unhappiness to soullessness, then I would choose my stomach because I might feel better in time, but I’m not going to stop being dead. Until that point is reached I refuse to choose and will do whatever it takes within reason to achieve both sufficient food and sufficient soul.

As a side note, remember when I said ignorance let us off the hook? Just to get you thinking please note, that there is the possibility that there are fundamental problems with that with the very core of existence, that by discovering these problems we render ourselves responsible, running headlong into an impossible choice.

Then your choice becomes cultivated ignorance or the risk of discovery, which will you choose?