No Lives Matter 1: All Universal Moral Principles Are But Idle Fancy

No Lives Matter 1: All Universal Moral Principles Are Idle Fancy

Well, it seems an opinion of mine has garnered some controversy. @IlMentore has done me the service of offering some debate regarding my opinions, most particularly, “All Universal Moral Principles Are Idle Fancy”.

So I must first begin by stating that though moral principles can be universal, as he says, they are idle fancy. What this means is that morals are only good so long as the whole of Society (and I do mean the whole) abides by these universal principles, so as to keep everyone on the peaks as often as possible, borrowing from monsieur’s terminology.

Let us examine that terminology a little closer. “Because the rules of nature and psychology are universal it follows that different codes of behavior will predictably and consistently lead to different levels of living quality. These codes can then be mapped according to the highs (peaks) and lows (valleys) of quality they provide (hence Moral landscape)” as monsieur says. There is nothing wrong on the surface of this: the economic policies of the West have reaped countless benefits, while the economic policies of the Middle East, particularly the concept of Islamic Banking, has stunted the growth of those economies, despite their access to vast natural resources. But more on this economic difference in a little bit.

My dear friend monsieur does mention that the rules of psychology are the same. If this is true, then psychological diseases and defects remain the same. And I can trust that for most cases of psychological ailments, if I was to ask what are we to do about the violently insane, your answer would be treatment. I do not wish to delve into an argument about healthcare when we must debate morality, so I will not ask such a question here. Rather, let us ask this question: how do we treat those characters who are not driven by insanity, but by impulse? In the 120 Days of Sodom, one of the earlier villains only orgasms into the faces of tortured toddlers. What are we to do about such rogues in a moral Society? Are we to seek them out (assuming we can) and eliminate them before they act, thus punishing people for a crime they have not committed? Or do we wait for them to commit wrongs, and though the punishment will fit the crime, we have still permitted such a wrong?

And even when we do solve this is conundrums in a morally satisfactory way, what happens when the echelons of morality are infiltrated by such rakes? The Roman Catholic Church, an organization which loves to dictate sexuality to people, everything from who one should fuck to how one should fuck, was revealed not two decades ago to be little more than a global pedophile ring. Evidence exists that this behavior has been continuing since the Sixteenth Century. Similar revelations seems to coming out of the ruling classes now, in real time as we discuss this issue. This is what the Marquis de Sade was discussing when he wrote the 120 Days of Sodom, and elite class totally beyond control: real cenobites, far more frightening than Clive Barker’s demons because of the very real power which they wield.

In short, my first question is this: What do we do about those who are most likely to commit crimes? Do we punish them based upon statistics and science, thus preventing harm, like Minority Report? Or do we wait for them to act, allowing a victim to suffer, and justice only to make the idle observer feel justified, while the victim remains a victim?

More, “Killing is wrong." For instance is to simple. Exceptions can be found for defense, euthanasia etc etc. But how about ‘Killing a good person without their consent is wrong unless it is in defense of something good.’” And monsieur does apply a definition of a “good person”, which I shall tear apart in a moment. I ask not what defines a good person, but what defines good?

Every mass murder in the Twentieth Century was perpetrated, directly committed by individuals who were convinced of their own moral superiority. The same goes for every victory against such ideologies. People are convinced of the superiority of certain ideas over others; the most developed nations in the world have long histories of reasoned epistles and verbal debates to decide the moral superiority. This has prevented a multitude of civil wars and revolutions, making such events major historical events in Europe and Asia instead of phenomena so commonplace that they barely register when they happen, as is the case with South America and Africa.

So let us consider the world changing events of June 6, 1944. German soldiers, not all of whom held the radical ideology that was their cause, failed to defend the beaches of Normandy from an Allied invasion. Both sides were composed of men who were, above all, courageous. The soldier must be courageous, otherwise he becomes a deserter. He cannot be idle, so he cannot engage in that peak of the moral landscape of healthy debate. Instead, he must become as savage as those South of the Equator. He must kill.

Make no mistake, had the events of that day gone in the opposite direction, we would still be considering it a major historical day. The only difference is we would be celebrating the moral superiority of the Third Reich. Morals were not decided by what was reasoned out to be good, but by violent measures. And both sides felt they were killing to protect that which is good.

The moral principle of reason, of debate, of not killing, is found to be but an idle fancy.

Monsieur says “Off course this requires a definition of good person which I would define as a person who has not violated the life liberty or property of a good person too much. (I am aware this is self referencing but it still works. And yes it makes government evil by definition, necessary evil is a thing)”. I ask, what are we to define as violating life, liberty, and property? Certainly we can outlaw murder, kidnapping, slavery, and theft. These things are easy to outlaw, although not so easy to prevent. But monsieur heads me off when he points out the necessity of that dangerous servant, government.

But what if we depart for more gray areas?

Say a man builds his life. He creates a respected reputation, has a beautiful wife, and generates a good deal of income for himself and those in his household. Now, say his wife cheats on him. His reputation is ruined. He is now an idiotic cuckold. It goes without saying he loses his beautiful wife, and she takes with him, according to many, a substantial share of his income. The idle merely stand around with their mouths agape!

We do not punish her. In fact, some would argue we reward her. He is not given justice, he is rarely even given help. The horns grow heavy on his head. Some would even argue that for being wronged, he is punished. Any aid he gives her after her infidelity is not only a punishment for his obliviousness to her character, but an added humiliation.

Say he decides to take justice into his own hands. He kills her, to avenge his ruined life. Is he in the right? Is death a fair wage for what she has done? Is he wrong? Does he deserve the ongoing misery inflicted upon him by her? We see here that “Thou shalt not Kill” can be as much an idle fancy as much as it is when ideologies collide.

And now let us consider a little more on property. In the West, we have adopted a method of banking known as fractional reserved. Shortly put, this means banks must hold some mandated portion of each deposit readily available to depositors. The rest they can lend at a negotiated interest rate, which is usually oscillates around some discriminatory market price. Islamic Banking prohibits interest. The lack of interest disincentivizes lending. No lending means fewer depositors. In short, money does not flow. It is either consumed upon being earned or it rots between the mattresses.

To fix this, many banks operating under Islamic Law instead buys the property and simply allows the borrower to live there in exchange for a return, as if on a share of stock. Thus a mortgage does not last twenty years, but instead lasts in perpetuity. An owner and a renter are indiscernible, and the effects speak for themselves.

We see here that lending at repaying with interest produce those peaks of the moral landscape. But these peaks only exist when the situations are so contrasting, that they are as different as black and white. So let us consider another example.

In the first decade of the second Millennium since Augustus Caesar became Emperor, the Bush Administration in the United States sought to make education beyond the public guarantee more accessible to young citizens. Thus firms were guaranteed repayment on these presumable safe loans (declared safe by Federal guarantees – despite their being a total lack of collateral being held by the lender at the possible expense of the borrower). The effects were to be expected. Financial firms lined up to lend to many teenagers ready to go to college where they would drink themselves into stupors, intake more chemicals than they knew existed, and to lacadaisacally attend classes.

The overall results were to be expected. The United States faces rampant underemployment and what many consider to be a student loan crisis. For some, the answer is simple. These people borrowed the money. They quite often used it to extend their childhoods. There was never any attempt at public service on their part, so the public is not responsible for these debts. Thus, they must repay as per the agreement they made.

Another side points out that these promises were made, at best, by impulsive teenagers, who really were still children, offered the rewards of a university education. It cannot be considered their fault that so many of their peers accepted the same deal and flooded the labor market. Thus, the government which arranged these deals is responsible for solving this problem.

Both sides find themselves to be in the staunch moral right, though they are polarized. Neither side seems to share the universal morality the other ascribes to the moral landscape. And they grow increasingly unidle.