Shocked Out of Cultural Relativism

I realize I have been neglecting this blog somewhat, but fortunately that does not mean that I've not been opining elsewhere. The following - which will apply to most, if not all, of the posts I will be making over the next few days - comes from a discussion in which I was engaged some time back.

---

I heard an anthropologist talk about an island tribe that practices ritual homosexuality and pedophilia. The superstition goes that semen = life force, and that for a male child to have enough life force to assure the continuation of the species/race/tribe/whatever that he must ingest semen from the older tribe members. This ritual fellation begins at a surprisingly early age and continues for an extensive period of time until the child is deemed to have absorbed enough life force to marry.

The men jealously guard their semen to such an extent that a husband and wife only cohabitate during a specific part of the year, during which conception is attempted. Women are viewed simply as factories for the production of children and recreational sex - and especially non-procreative sex - is not only frowned upon, but feared. During the remainder of the year, the men live together in communal barracks, segregated from the women as much as is possible.

This anthropologist presented this little tale as an illustration in favor of cultural relativism. The argument was something to the effect that This Tribe has managed to do well enough for itself and does not seem to suffer for its behaviors, which to outsiders seem (to put it perhaps TOO mildly) bizarre.

But the argument, like most of cultural relativism, only stands up in a vacuum. Has the tribe indeed done well for itself? I contend that they obviously have not. They are a stone age culture, speaking a language only they speak, perpetuating a culture that has, in fact, failed to thrive. They have no wealth, no art, and no science. Their only technology is the same technology that every people on the world has managed to develop: means to shelter themselves from the elements, and a means to procure food.

A modern look at their practice shows them to be abhorrent, because our understanding of psychology - a science, by the way, which is advanced literally thousands of years beyond their ken - reveals to us the undeniable and irreversible damage that these people do to their progeny as a matter of course. And it shows in their society: they are a culture of pederasts, fearful and distrustful of the women whom they depend on in order to perpetuate themselves and who must nurture them through those early years before they go off to the abuses of the men's barracks. This is a culture that has managed to survive not for any virtue of its own, but in spite of itself.

This culture (whose name, I'm afraid, escapes me) is not the only one of its kind, though its practices are definitely the strangest and most extreme I've yet heard of. It is tales of peoples like this, who never advanced enough in some cases to even discover fire or writing, that cured me of any Cultural Relativism. We cannot judge people in a vacuum, especially in an increasingly interconnected world. A people is only as good as its contributions to our overall advancement, and a people that never strives, that lurks in prehistoric superstition and rites must be brought forward or left behind in the dusty annals of history.

To listen to Relativists is to risk damning ourselves to the same stagnant fate.

Rights and Right

In the days leading up to this most inauspicious of anniversaries there was a significant brouhaha over a Florida preacher's declaration of his congregation's intention to make of today the first annual "Burn a Quran Day" and to celebrate accordingly. Fortunately, just a few days ago he changed his mind, albeit in a rather snide and insincere manner by simultaneously demanding that the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" be moved to a new location. The Ground-Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque) and the idiocy surrounding it may warrant discussion another time, but they are not within the scope of todays article.


In a discussion of the planned Quran-burning activities I encountered a meme which I had encountered before. A person in the discussion declared that the church in question was right to burn the Quran, citing the First Amendment as his argument.


Now, I would like to be perfectly clear: there was not a difficulty in his syntax. He was not saying that the people have the right to protest and even to burn something like a book or a flag or an effigy; but rather that these people were granted either moral or factual rectitude by certain Constitutional doctrines.





The First Amendment only secures for people the Right to speak, to write, to gather, and to protest as they will and it only secures people from oppression by the government. It offers no protection from the natural consequences of your actions. Individuals are perfectly and legally capable of shunning and shaming a person who makes idiotic or dangerous statements. To find oneself unable to do business in a town, culturally and socially isolated and ostracized is not an infraction upon or a violation of one's rights. It is the natural consequence of being an ass and is a form of evil bringing about its own punishment.


I'm not sure where the idea that having a Right is equal to being right originated, but I've a sneaking suspicion it's due in large part to the failure of Civics instructors to actually impart an understanding of what a "right" is, what separates it from a "privilege", and what duties and responsibilities come hand in hand with such rights. But I digress. The point is that this idea is factually, semantically, basically, and totally wrong to a degree approaching, including, and probably exceeding absurdity.





And so, to recount for the benefit of those who never learned the full meaning and implications of the word "Citizen", I will offer this declaration: To have a Right is to be permitted to do a thing, no matter what abuses you inflict upon the good graces of the authority granting you this permission in the course of excercising it. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or with moral rectitude. Just because you CAN do something in no way means that you SHOULD, and that is the critical difference.


By way of example, the outrage surrounding our much-too-silly friends in Florida stemmed not so much from a belief that they had no permission to do such a deed, but that such a deed was offensive and could incite retribution and vengeance. The deed expressed ignorance and utter disregard for human thought (as that is what a book burning sybolically destroys, is human thought; as burning a flag symbolically destroys a nation and burning an effigy destroys a person) and there was no concievable benefit to be gleaned from such an act. In short, the act would have been immoral in almost every system of mores and ethics prevalent in the world today, excepting certain fanatical dogmas (which as I have argued before, are immoral in and of themselves anyway).


To put it in terms not so heavily vested with the emotional tinge of recentism, we could stipulate that Freedom of Speech was protected to such a degree that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or "Bomb!" in an airport were not illegal, it would be the height of negligence and recklessness, if not outright immorality (which it would be if done with malice) to do so. Once the proverbial smoke cleared, the performer of such an action would doubtless be ridden out of town on a rail, literally or figuratively. If the ensuing stampede had caused death or grievous injury, such a person might rightly be put to death or imprisoned indefinitely. This course of action would surely not constitute a breach of Constitutional Rights, but rather would be the natural and just consequence of that persons careless, thoughtless, and dangerous actions. That people are thoughtless in such a manner with such frequency that these actions are explicitly illegal is a testament to the enduring and pervasive stupidity which informs such actions.


Still, I must give credit where credit is due, to the Pastor who heard reason (sort of) and called off his plans and encouraged others to follow his lead in abandoning their hateful actions; and to the great majority of Americans who not only refused to engage in Quran burning but openly expressed their disapproval of such abuses of the Rights we all enjoy.

A Short Proclamation of Approval

Circumstances prevented my earlier and more timely commentary on recent events. However, I feel that in light of such a momentous occassion, I cannot but register my overwhelming approval of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8. In addition, he has removed a stay which would have prevented his ruling from taking immediate effect and equality will be restored on August 18, 2010.

There is much to say on the subject, touching on such myriad subjects as the obvious equality and discrimination, to more obscure but nonetheless relevant topics as democracy and social inertia. It would be more fitting to address these in depth at another time and in another post.

For now, all that needs be said is "Bravo, Judge Walker."

Against Compulsory Federal Service

The following was originally posted as a reply to a friend of mine who had just heard of Rep. Charles Rangel's (asshole) bill, H.R. 5741, which would create compulsory Federal service for everyone.

This is the same Rep. Charles Rangel who was recently arrested for "ethics violations". You know it's bad when Congress has a problem with your ethics.

But on with the show.

---

While I am a fan of the concept of service as a requirement for suffrage (a la Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and for many of the same reasons) such service would be meaningless if it were not voluntary (a point which I believe Heinlein also addresses in that novel). Such is a different conversation.

In a more immediate sense, compulsory service is a really bad idea, especially when it becomes understood that the traditional name for such service is a Draft. I have seen the bill, and it is definitely military in focus, the service in "homeland security" being a catch-all for those who are inadmissible for military service.

Why? Take it from a pragmatic standpoint. Today's military is an advanced professional military that uses some rather complicated equipment and tactics and therefore needs people who are capable of using them and motivated to do so. The military needs to be able to refuse people who are not only physically incapable of the demands that would be placed upon them, but also to refuse the mentally and psychologically incapable.

There has also been a cultural shift in our military over the last 20 years to change the image of the military from a bunch of rednecks, dropouts and delinquents to an organization of professionals worthy of respect. Not too long ago, young criminals were often given military service in lieu of jail time. During this same period, the public image of the military was of a group of thugs, a place for people who couldn't get their shit together any other way and who only needed to be smart enough to follow orders and shoot a gun. This is no longer the case.

Military service is now career focused. The vast majority of MOS' are support roles that simultaneously give a soldier real-world skills; and even the lowliest infantry have access to a rather generous college program. On one side of things, more and more soldiers are required to learn various computer and telecommunications-based skills, while on the other squad-based tactics have taught leadership skills to everyone. Unlike 20 years ago, a soldier leaving todays military is a respected member of society. People don't look at their resume and wonder what they did that made them need to join up. In many fields, military training is an advantage and a boon and many employers actively seek out veterans.

By making service mandatory - even if not ALL government service is military, just some of it! - the military loses all these gainss it has worked very hard to achieve over the last two decades. It becomes just another branch of the public school system.

My final point that relates strictly to the military (I will address government service in a broader sense shortly. Whether you take that as a promise or a threat is up to you) is that no soldier in a volunteer army wants a draftee watching his back. Today's military enjoys an unheard of esprit de corps. Unit cohesion is keeping combat casualties at an all time low in general and friendly fire is practically unheard of. Every person in combat today is there because they volunteered for military service AND they took a combat MOS. If you start throwing draftees into the mix, morale goes down, discipline problems rise, desertion becomes a major issue, and friendly fire casualties stop being accidents. I have a lot of friends in the military (including a Captain in the Army) and every single one of them speaks with horror and disdain at the prospect of fighting alongside a draftee. I, for one, will not dishonor our troops by inflicting such horror upon them.

They have enough to deal with.

As for government service being compulsory in general, well, it remains a bad idea. First up are the economics of the idea: Somebody has to pay these people. Now in the rest of the market, a business provides a service or product, people spend money on that product, the business makes more, etc. In this system, things are being produced, wealth is being generated. If enough people want to spend money on a product, the business can pay people to help it create and sell the product. If it hires too many, it can't afford to pay them, and has to fire some. The number of employees a business can have is contingent on the value of the service or products it generates. That value is determined by how much people are willing to spend on it.

Government work, on the other hand, is make-work. The vast majority of government employees are engaged in paperwork and redundant functions. They produce no product or service. If we pour more people into this already bloated system, we alleviate nothing. We would have to pay them, but with what? We can either cut a government program to "free up" funds, which would accomplish nothing because those funds are simply being shifted to another government program. (As Robert Anton Wilson once noted, "Bureaucracies never die, they just change names) The other option is to print more money, but since money is a representation of value, and no additional value is being produced, this simply inflates an already excessively inflated economy. The end result, economically, is either 1990's Russia or 1920's Germany.

Second is the idea of entitlement. We already have enough of a problem with it in this country, and handing people a job doesn't make it any better. A person is generally granted a job based on their own merits. Usually, this job is given to them over several other applicants. Nobody was entitled to a job, they had to work to get it and they have to work to keep it. Being a high school student might qualify someone to work at McDonald's, but telling the manager that they have to hire you is a sure way to remain jobless. The most important thing for people, especially young people, to learn - what working in a place like the grocery store or a burger joing is supposed to teach a person - is a work ethic. The understanding that work sucks, but you still have to do a good job; that at the end of the week your paycheck MEANS something, that you EARNED it, is of paramount importance.

This is not accomplished by handing out do-nothing government work to any schmuck who happens to be over 18 in America. In this compulsory service system, a person IS entitled to a job. Not only can they get the work through no virtue of their own, but they can do a piss-poor job and the government has to keep them. Two years later, these people go to get their first real job, having been "prepared", and find that this "experience" doesn't make it any easier for them to find work. Why? Because EVERYONE ELSE has the exact same experience. Which means that the professional jobs which these people are suppsed to be qualified for (having been working in an office environment for two years) aren't available. They now have to go get that same post-high-school burger flipping job. That same job that barely pays minimum wage, doesn't have a union, and enjoys such high turnover that they can - and will - gladly fire any slacker they catch taking an unauthorized smoke break. Employers, on the other hand, undoubtedly start to notice that a lot of these so-called "experienced" employees don't actually know how to work. They want vacation benefits right away. They call in sick all the damn time. They complain about working overtime. All because they never actually had to work to work before. Sure, some people will excel, get promotions, move on to better jobs, but these are the SAME people who would have done that anyway, the people who know what a work ethic is, and all that has happened in their cases is they wasted two years of their lives in government service rather than getting started on their careers.

The argument that this would create a paradigm of civic duty is also bunk. There is a large amount of evidence that the exact opposite effect would actually be created. Of note is a famous study of day care centers by two economists in the 1990's. The day care centers had a policy that the children had to be picked up by a certain time. As can be expected, some parents would usually be late each day. In a controlled experiment, some of the centers imposed a fine for parents who arrived over 10 minutes late. The result was that late pickups at the centers with the fine SKYROCKETED. The reason for this result is that before the fine, the parents were bound by a sense of duty and respect to the teachers. Those who were late were only a little late. What the fine did was allow the parents to buy off their duty. For a small fee each day, they could no longer feel guilty about being late, because they had already compensated the teachers for that inconvenience. The situation in mandating service cheapens the sense of civic duty in the same way. By making it mandatory for people to serve, we actually DECREASE the likelihood of future public service because, in the minds of these people being enlisted, they have already done their time or met their quota. What is interesting about the study is that it took place in Israel, a country that already has a service requirement. If such mandatory service did indeed create the effect of amplifying a person's sense of civic duty, we would very likely have seen completely different results.

Finally, service is meaningless if it's not voluntary. You cannot imbue someone with a sense of civic duty by forcing them into it. All that creates is resentment. Besides we already have a word for mandatory or involuntary service. That word is slavery, which was, by the way, made illegal and unConstitutional in the United States by the 13th Amendment.

Contempt of Congress

Congress today voted to approve a measure which would extend unemployment benefits to those whose benefits ran out at the six-month mark. The vote was conducted after the swearing in of Senator Carte Goodwin, who cast a vote which broke a "Republican Filibuster" and sent the bill on its merry way.

Those of you who read a previous blog post will know the distaste I have for the manner in which Congress conducts itself, and it is with the new information provided by this most recent abuse of power that allows me to put a finger on what, exactly, disturbs me.

Think back to, say, elementary school. You and ten other students get together on the playground and try to decide what you want to play.

"Hide and Seek!" you shout immediately.
"Red Rover!" another student shouts almost as quickly.

Debate ensues as to which option is more appealing. Being young, the idea of dividing into two groups never occurs to you, or if it did, the idea of a game consisting of only 5 people sounds like no fun. Finally, one student says those fateful words.

"OK, let's vote on it."

The votes come down: five for Hide and Seek, six for Red Rover. Your suggestion was defeated and the group will play Red Rover. This is the nature of the democratic process: A group of people resort to the will of the majority to decide an issue and - and this is truly the most important part of the process - these people agree to be bound by the results of the vote, whether they like the result or not.

A Republic, such as what exists in America, is an interesting twist on Democracy. As a straight Democracy becomes increasingly cumbersome the more people are involved, the people vote democratically on certain, but not all, issues. For the remainder - often, the bulk - of the issues, they select representatives (democratically, of course) who take on the daily business of government and make decisions amongst themselves on behalf of their constituents via the democratic process.

In short, a Republic is a system of government whereby the people engage vicariously in pure Democracy.

Let's return to the playground. In an ideal world populated by honest, mature, and just people, you would accept the outcome of the vote and get on with the game. But what if you refused to accept the outcome, and not only that, but you got your fellow students to vote again and again, until circumstances changed - you bring in other students to vote your way, or players who voted against you leave, or you just bully people into changing their votes - such that you finally got your way? Would that be democracy, or would that be something else entirely?

As it so happens, this latter behavior is the manner in which Congress conducts itself with disgusting regularity. It seems that (through abuses of the rules which govern procedure, which I will discuss topically later in this essay) the Pass/Fail vote which is the hallmark of a real democracy has been usurped by a Pass/Filibuster system. The key difference between the two is that after a vote is taken in a true democracy, the issue is settled. In the latter system, a motion only fails to pass for now.

If a Republic is a government in which those selected to attend to the business of the government conduct themselves democratically, then what else can you call the refusal to be bound by democratically achieved results than a perversion and a failure?

As I said before, the most important detail of this system is not so much the process itself, but the understanding that the participants agree to be bound by the process. In most representative governments, the process is codified well beyond "we vote on stuff". Several such systems of rules exist and are commonly referred to as "Parliamentary Procedure" and they exist in order to organize and expedite efficient discussion and voting. Rules are crafted to determine who may speak, what may be discussed at a given time, what gets voted on when, and numerous other instances which require consistent procedure in order for discussion and the process to be deemed fair.

It is also common within democratically derived systems to set certain rules upon the voting itself. For instance: it is generally understood, but in some cases need be stated explicitly, that a single person may cast a single vote. In a case where a single person may cast multiple votes, information such as how many votes a person may cast and how they may cast them must be delineated. Some rules apply to determining an outcome - certain issues, such as amending the Constitution, are deemed too important to be left to the whims of a simple majority and must be approved by "supermajorities" of two-thirds and sometimes three-quarters of the vote.

In these systems a motion may be made, discussed, and amended; other motions may be substituted; and any or all of these may be tabled, denied consideration, or voted upon. What they have in common is that, once a motion is voted upon, the issue is settled, yea or nay, good or ill. The question cannot be raised again unless significant new developments occur, a pre-determined length of time passes (usually requiring a new term of office or a new session to begin), or the motion changes substantially.

No parliamentary authority recognizes the addition of pork as a "substantial change" unless the subject being discussed is Lunch.

One of the principal difficulties of these parliamentary systems (principal, as anyone who has spent any time in a board room or convention can surely describe the many subtle and nuanced failings of whichever system they experienced) is that the more rules are in place, the greater the opportunity for abuse. These rules are in place to move discussion along, to keep it organized, and to assist in keeping track of what is being voted upon and what happens when it passes or fails. Societies who implement parliamentary procedure are often fond of saying the rules are "intended as a loose-fitting blazer, not as a straitjacket." And while this sentiment is certainly true of the authors' intentions, the "spirit of the law" is often usurped by the "letter of the law" and we find ourselves watching Congress.

The current congressional paradigm of Pass or Filibuster means that there is not a single hare-brained piece of malevolence that can be moved and seconded in those halls that will ever disappear. If it fails to pass on a vote, rather than being eliminated until a better (or at least different) idea comes along, it sits dormant, a victim of "filibustering" until somebody retires, dies, or forgets to show up to a session and the vote can finally swing the other way. Any measure with a chance of passing greater than zero will, given enough time under a "filibuster", be passed and inflicted upon America.

The recent passing of the unemployment measure may have been done technically within the bounds of the parliamentary authority but the manner in which this task was completed was not only contrary to spirit of democracy and the parliamentary authority, but shows open contempt for the fair, open, and enlightened intentions of the processes.

For those of you who doubt me, there is a footnote worthy piece of information: the next step in the process of implementing the measure which inspired todays blog is for the Senate to choose whether to incur more national debt, or to cut funding from other government programs in order to finance their decision.

How fortunate for us.

Bob Kramer Knives

As an actor at Renaissance Faires, I've seen my share of smithys and forges. I've always been impressed by the patience and skill required to produce anything with little more than fire and a hammer. To produce a working blade is an amazing feat in and of itself. Bob Kramer is a Master of such feats.



Mr. Kramer is accessible online via his website, which also showcases some of his work and collaborations: Bob Kramer Knives

While my own tastes and research disincline me from wanting a Damascus blade for culinary work, I would not be opposed to commissioning a razor of that steel, as the constant honing would likely mitigate the unique serrating properties of Damascus steel it wears.

Mr. Kramer is not currently accepting orders, but you can add yourself to his mailing list to be informed of when his schedule opens up. I would also recommend doing a little reading yourself on the properties of blades and steel, since it is always adviseable to have some cursory knowledge of most things, and especially those thing in which we invest or choose to associate or immerse ourselves, and it is fascinating reading anyhow.

Moderate Justice for an Extremist in a Conservative State

Scott Roeder was sentenced to life-imprisonment today for murdering Dr. George Tiller, one of a precious few late-term abortion providers in the country. Dr. Tiller was killed while serving as an usher at his church.

Roeder defended his murder as "justifiable homicide," claiming that, by killing the doctor, he was saving the lives of countless babies. Had his argument succeeded, it would be arguably legal to begin killing hard-line religious extremists, because if they were permitted to live they would no doubt perpetrate many such murders of abortion and birth-control providers and cause even further suffering and death by forcing women to the nightmares of "back alley" services.

The Court and the citizens of Kansas who heard his case are to be lauded for not only rejecting his argument outright, but for handing down the harshest permissible sentence for this dangerous, fanatical zealot. While the issue of abortion is still far from resolved in this country, and especially in the Bible Belt, it is comforting to know that the abhorrent acts advocated and perpetrated by Roeder, the Army of God, and their ilk are unwanted and actively rebuked by their peers.

In the unlikely event that Scott Roeder should survive his sentence and be approved for parole, he will be released from prison at the age of 103, hopefully to a world where his hate and his cause has been wholly abolished and he can die alone, utterly defeated to the last.

Rest in Peace, Dr. George Tiller. Take what comfort there is in the fact that Justice has been served and the bloodshed is done.

A TED-Talk on Moral Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism, and the Religious Monopoly on Ethics.

I came across this Talk at www.ted.com/talks and was pleased to hear that the concept of moral objectivity and the courage to have it are being advocated in the world, and ESPECIALLY in such a prestigious venue as a TED conference.



While Sam at several points betrays a decidedly Liberal bias along with his - laudable - secularism, I agree whole-heartedly with his premise: that in order to advance humanity, we must overcome our irrational and potentially dangerous fear of judging and condemning deleterious behaviors and beliefs. Adherence to subjective morality or moral relativism are cop-outs which permit evil to exist, thrive, and eventually prey upon those around and not just within it.

Sam Harris is the author of 2004's "The End of Faith" and 2007's "Letter To A Christian Nation."

Ethical Survey

Some weeks ago I was invited to partake in a survey of Ethics by a student in a college psychology program. The survey presented many questions without simple answers in a format which required a simple (multiple choice) answer. Because I found the questions intriguing, and because I didn't wish to misrepresent my answers due to semantic vagaries (a phrase, by the way, which I used with some frequency in my answers to the administrator), I wrote out answers and included them in an attachment to the student for her review. Below are the questions and my answers thereto.

---

1. I believe all people can generally be described as either good or evil.

This one suffers a semantic issue: Are ALL people generally good or evil; or does each individual fall to one side of the spectrum or the other, with no neutrality?

The first interpretation is one of the great philosophical questions. What is the nature of man? This question leads to innumerable sub-questions: Is a person who acts in a "Good" way for "Evil" reasons good or evil? Without getting further into these quandaries, and because of them, I will answer your query as though your intention was the second interpretation.

To become an important and meaningful example of good or evil requires a willful effort which most people are simply incapable of. The world is full of people too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to take any meaningful control of their lives and have willful purpose and direction. In an instance where they are provided with an ethical problem, two responses arise: thoughtless expression of obedience to a societal standard of behavior, or stubborn refusal to confront the dillema. This second response becomes more prevalent as the difficulty of the ethical problem increases. For instance, most people SAY they will pull over and help an old lady on the side of the road change a tire. When the opportunity presents itself to actually ACT on that statement these same people suddenly have a hundred and one reasons why it WOULDN'T be a good idea to stop, ranging from "I'm late" to "It's dark and dangerous and I might get hurt". Anyone who has seen a person stranded on the side of the road, even if they are not an old lady, or anyone who has themselves been stranded, has borne witness to this discrepancy.

The fact is, it is always percieved to be easier to avoid these difficult decisions and so most people will do everything possible to avoid them. As such, the circumstances of the world around them color what little morals and ethics they have. Can we call these people good or evil?

In the case of evil, I say yes. In the case of good, I say no. Evil is always easier, and a person can simply float into such behavior without willfulness. Being Good without willfulness arises universally out of fear of punitive action. A person can easily become immersed in the violent and shady world of drug dealing without a second thought. Are they evil? Certainly. Are they willful? No. But good Samaritans, pillars of the community, even students who don't cheat on tests - if the motivation is not pure, or lacks even a touch of an honest desire to do the right thing, then the person is not actually good, they are simply interested in the benefits of being good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


2. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of any type of goodness.

This one warrants a slightly shorter explanation, as I established most of my premises in the previous answer. Good requires thought, honesty, and will, and there are doubtless people in the world without the intelligence to consider an ethical choice, the honesty to appraise the situation accurately, and the will to act upon the conclusions or to follow through with a difficult course of action.

Therefore, I "Agree"


3. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of committing any evil

Evil choices are easier to make because they often provide an immediate benefit directly to a person, even if that benefit is simply a path of least resistance. If it is discovered that a friend is the most reprehensible sort of person (fill in your own blank), is it easier to write that person off or inform his family or the police, risking many of your own friendships in the process, or is it easier to shrug it off, ignore it, make excuses, and continue with life as usual? This is how cults begin, this is why abused spouses often return to the source of their agony, and this is how actively, willfully evil people take power.

Therefore, because of the magnitude of my answer to the previous question, and the militating factors on the other side of the spectrum, I "Strongly Disagree"


4. Each of us must internally struggle with good and evil.

I disagree with the language used in this question because I believe the intention of the question is more to the effect of "Each of us struggles internally with good and evil in the course of determining our lives," or more simply perhaps the intention is "Each of us should internally struggle with good and evil". "Must" is an imperative, it commands, it is absolute. Should each of us struggle? Yes, if it is accepted that being a good person is a desirable thing. Such a quality, as I have stated, does not simply arise through desire, or mere perception of oneself as a "good person". It requires willful action and many, many hard choices. There is a reason such a path is called the "Strait and Narrow"

Obviously, however, nobody is forced to make such a decision, and most people don't. Even when forced to confront a difficult decision, it is not "good and evil" or "right and wrong" that a person struggles with, but the far weaker question of "why me?"

Therefore, due to the language used in the phrasing of this question, and my reluctance to misrepresent my beliefs over an interpretive issue that may not exist, I "Disagree"


5. There are people in the world who are evil

The structure, nature, and order of these questions seems to imply that the goal of this survey is to establish the existence and gestalt of an "objective" morality. To that end, I will simply state that even if there is not an "objective" morality, it is irrelevant. I will not address, at this point, those who do not take time and effort to study ethics. Any person who adopts or crafts a system of ethics and then adheres thereto does not do so in a vacuum. Subjective ideas still have objective effects upon society at large. Ethical behavior is not relevant without society, with occassional exception. A vegan, for instance, still has ethical concerns about the proper treatment of animals regardless of the presence or absence of society. It could be argued that in such systems this ethical concern creates a society of animals, with rights that must be respected, and thus defeats any argument of ethics being a private matter of no consequence to the world at large.

I will discuss this subject further in the next question.

As for the question asked of me, my previous statements make it clear that I will "Strongly agree"


6. There are societies in this world that are evil.

We finally arrive at a question with some substance. Given that the world as a whole can be viewed as the interactions of many societies much as a society can be viewed as the interactions of the people within that society, it is certainly plausible that there are evil societies. Subjectivists will argue that ethical behavior depends on the society in which we live, but these people are fools. Stoning an adulteress is the "Right" thing to do in fundamental Judeo-Christian-Muslim society; mandatory female circumcision is "Right" in parts of Africa and the Middle East; killing Jews was "Right" in Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and many parts of the modern Middle East; yet all of these behaviors are viewed as reprehensible in almost all cultures except those which advocate them. The fact of the matter is that there are societies in the world, just as there are people within those societies, which engage in behaviors which cause inequality of opportunity, unjustly take lives, and endanger those around them. These things are unequivocally evil.

We cannot judge a society by the people within it. To do so is to ignore the structure and tenets of that society as there are always deviants and dissidents. The society, instead, must be judged by its structure and tenets.

Therefore, I "Strongly Agree"


7. There are political leaders in this world who are evil.

Given that a person is more likely to be evil than not, it is reasonable to assume that there are political leaders who are evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


8. Most people have a chance of growing morally in character.

Another question of substance. The world presents us with innumerable opportunities to do the right or wrong thing. At any point a person may begin to take willful action and interest in their own moral and ethical structure and being, and thus begin moral development. This does not automatically mean that a person becomes a good person - moral growth and development of character can easily lead down evil paths, or simply be an understanding of the "Why" of an action - or even that they succeed in continual growth. Regardless, anyone can attempt ethical development and the attempt itself will affect a persons aspect, even if the growth does not continue.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


9. It is difficult for me to imagine good in a person who has done something evil.

This is another semantically clumsy statement. Immediately, to "imagine" something is to state that it does not exist in the first place. Does the administrator refer to empathy? Perhaps the intention is to establish whether or not I can accept that a person who has acted evilly can be or become good. Is the "good" that theoretically exists here an intrinsic "goodness" in a person, a figurative "angel on the shoulder" which engages in - and has here lost - battle with a person's demons? Or is this an allusion to the popular proverb "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"?

In the first instance, we are presented with two options: The evil is willful, or the evil is a result of apathy and inaction. If the evil is willful, then the person has committed themselves to evil action. Even if that person can act well in some other arena of their existence, this willful action to evil once demonstrates a proclivity to such actions. It is dangerous and foolhardy to seek good in such a person. This person can be expected to act evilly again. The burden of proof is upon them should they desire to be seen as good. This is called "atonement" or "penance".

If the evil is the result of apathy and inaction, then it is equally likely that a person will be just as careless again, whether in the same way or in another arena of their lives. It is acceptable, however, to seek good in such a person, and to actively encourage that behavior. Good action must become the path of least resistance. This does not make a good person of the apathist, but it mitigates the danger they would otherwise represent.

In the second instance, where a person commits an evil act with the intention of good, an examination of their definition of good is in order. As illustrated above, there are many reprehensible actions accepted in many societies. If the person is acting in accord with their social sphere, and that society is evil, then the only course of action is conversion. Since many of these dangerous societies encourage and shelter fanatics and simultaneously condemn apostacy or heresy, this course of action is not without risk. No matter what, a conversion cannot occur without atonement - that is, the burden of proving a persons good will and good action falls upon the person.

Therfore, as the statement asked after my capabilities of imagination, and seeing many qualifications for imagining such a happenstance, and I further believe that to "imagine" such a thing is dangerous and foolhardy, I "Somewhat agree"


10. It is impossible to classify people as essentially good or evil.

Once again this suffers from a semantic difficulty in whether we reference people as a whole or as individuals. As I have dealt with people as individuals, I will address them as a whole.

Given that willful people may be actively good or evil, and that the apathetic, stupid, careless, and lazy will tend towards evil, I would classify people as a whole as evil if forced to a binary choice. This, of course, carries many caveats and qualifications: I do not mean life-threatening or reprehensible, clear evil in all cases, in fact, such extreme evil is almost as rare as noble, pure good. Further, a great many people will have an approximately even balance of good and evil acts in their lives. But I repeat that, because being good both requires intelligence, integrity, and will, and because it often forces a person to unpleasant decisions and actions, most people will never be truly good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


11. Even so-called evil people have the potential to be good.

This is essentially the same as the statement about character growth. At any point a person may experience a "change of heart" and make a willful decision to change the course of their lives, their behavior, and their moral being. This is just as true for "evil" persons as it is for "good" persons, though I would expect that it is much rarer for a person who is willfully good or evil to change given the amount of thought and the personal committment that is required. Such circumstances as bring about a change in evil people are likely extraordinary. Disappointment, disillusion, and despair can often weaken a good persons resolve sufficiently to cause them to abandon their strait paths.

Therefore, I "Agree"


12. All of us can act evilly under certain circumstances

This comes across almost as an attempt at apologetics for evil people. To put it simply: as I believe I have established here, the temptation and opportunity to do evil is omnipresent. Even a person who has made an intelligent, thorough committment to right action must constantly re-affirm their course in the face of these temptations. It is always easier to do nothing, and such apathy tends invariably to evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


13. We are morally responsible for eradicating evil by any means necessary

Evil will never be wholly eradicated. The proclivity to avoid effort is too strong in the human condition and this tends to corruption and evil. It is easier to steal than to earn, to rape than seduce, to kill than to show mercy. However, it does behoove a good person to do good things, and when an evil person represents a physical threat, that person must be destroyed to prevent harm.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


14. The use of violence is justified when it allows good to prevail over evil.

The use of violence is only justified to stop further violence. The marginal evil of someone copying a test warrants no violence, the automatic failure of the test is just and appropriate punishment. A mugger may be resisted by any means at ones disposal so long as the mugger is a threat - once the danger is past, the mugger's life is no longer forfeit. In this way, evil people MUST bring their own punishments upon themselves.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


15. An orderly and safe world can only be obtained through the use of morally righteous violence.

The key words here are "morally righteous". An act of violence is only morally righteous if it addresses an immediate threat. However, an "orderly and safe" world is an impossible standard. This actually strengthens the necessity for violence rather than weakening it: A person must be permitted to meet violence with violence and bring immediate retribution upon violent evil. Absent this, evil will always prevail.

Therefore, I "Agree"


16. It is our duty to deal with the evil in the world, even if it means using force and violence.

This is a simple matter. It is not a tenable position to have a murderer arrested, held for years, and then subjected to the violence of execution with no opportunity of defense. The fight against evil must be conducted without undue bloodshed - the death of a murderer is only justified when the only choice is between the murderer and his victim. It is absolutely necessary for a person to be permitted to defend against violence with violence. It must be further understood that once there is no further danger, the violence must cease.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


17. Sometimes violence is necessary in order to get rid of evil leaders and political systems.

Leaders and political systems are only capable of immoral violence if they are permitted by their constituents to be. A society that does nothing to resist an evil leader or system is complicit in that evil. Without action against these violent people and systems it can be expected that the evil will continue. Absent non-violent methods of removal (elections, impeachment), or once they have failed, violence is demanded.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


18. The moral people in this world are responsible for eliminating moral corruption, even if it requires brute force.

All people are responsible for meeting evil and moral corruption with appropriate action, up to and including brute force. The difference in good and evil is in who has initiated that force. Moral people will not initiate force against evil people in the world. Rather, they will meet any force or violence with whatever is necessary to stop the evil action.

Therefore, due to the semantic vagaries, I "Somewhat agree"


19. The use of violence is commendable what its purpose is improved conditions for people.

The use of violence is commendable only when it stops a violent act.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


20. Morally justifiable violence is the natural way for humans to deal with evil in the world

Violence is certainly natural in the human condition. However, such as is the case with lynch mobs, violence initiated, even for an arguable good or if it results in the death of an evil person, the violence is disproportionate. It is imperative that a good person not become the monsters to which they are opposed. All punishment must be appropriate. Violence is only warranted in cases where violence has already been brought into play.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


21. There are adversaries in this world that must be totally annihilated; it would be immoral to negotiate with them.

There are doubtless evils in this world that warrant annihilation - serial killers, sexual predators, militant authoritarian theocracies - but the decision to annihilate must only be made after careful consideration and clear demonstration of the danger posed. Neville Chamberlain did the right thing by attempting to mitigate the German threat and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Once it became clear that the danger was not going to subside, that bloodshed would not be avoided, it was justice to destroy the threat utterly.

If negotiation is an option, it must be explored, even if perfunctorily.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


22. There are people who deserve to die because the world would be a better place without them.

Such an argument is without merit. There are people who deserve to die because they are an otherwise unmitigable danger.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


23. Destruction of evil people is necessary to preserve what is good in the world.

What is good in the world is created by good people. Destruction of evil people is necessary to prevent evil from being meaningful, practical, profitable, or otherwise appealing as a life choice.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


24. On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding over 2 dozen. Military prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for Hasan. Do you support the use of the death penalty in this instance?

Murder is the unjustified taking of human life. It must occur unprovoked, absent any external threat. There is no question that Major Hasan's actions warranted lethal force, but he is no longer engaged in those actions. If violence is to be met with violence, it must be done immediately. Further bloodshed serves no purpose at this point, and is murderous and immoral in and of itself.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


25. There is currently a bill to establish a US Department of Peace. The proposed Department of Peace would supplement our current problem solving system by working to establish non-violent solutions to both international and domestic conflicts. Do you support the creation of a Department of Peace?

It is the purpose of the Secretary of State and the Ambassadors of the State Department to pursue peaceful or non-violent resolutions. Creation of another Department represents an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy, a waste of tax dollars, a redundancy of purpose, and can do nothing but oppose the actions of the Department of Defense. If and when violence becomes necessary in diplomatic conflict, it can only cost lives to delay action.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


26. The US army launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The aims of this ongoing operation are to find and try high ranking Al Qaeda officials, destroy the Al Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban regime from power and spread democracy. Currently, the US government is planning on sending more troops into Afghanistan. Do you support additional US troops being sent to Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda represents a constant and unmitigable threat to our society. Their existence serves no purpose other than to threaten the world at large. As such, lethal force against them in order to prevent the continuation of their agenda.

The Taliban is an evil society dedicated to the subjugation of women and the spreading of an intolerant, violent, fanatic theocracy. They represent an uncompromising threat to the world at large and violence is justified in their removal.

The Taliban has been reduced to little more than a few loyal soldiers. Unless they are able to regain control in Afganistan, continued violence is not necessary.

Al Qaeda is an organization without borders. Its structure permits even a small number of operatives to be effectively dangerous. I do not have the appropriate information to assess whether their activities in Afganistan are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a troop surge, and will defer to the judgement of the higher military officials.

Therefore, I am "Neutral"


27. Some people believe that the US possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to escalated violence and a means of promoting stability in the world. Others argue that because the US is part of not allowing some other nations to possess nuclear arms that it is hypocritical for the US government to maintain their own nuclear weapons. Do you support the US possession and maintenance of nuclear weapons?

Now that the capabilities of nuclear weaponry are known, universal disarmament is impossible. To pursue it is as dangerous as giving your gun to a mugger and then resisting the mugging.

Therefore, I "Strongly support"


28. Guantanamo Bay is a US detainment facility in Cuba which has held many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Interrogation techniques have been used on detainees to obtain information and/or confessions, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, semi-starvation, and exploitation of wounds. Do you support the techniques used at Guantanamo Bay?

The purpose of imprisonment is punitive. These individuals are accused of engaging in hostile actions against our society. Justice demands that they be formally tried and subjected to an appropriate punishment.

Force is only justified when force is being actively employed against us. War creates a different paradigm wherein a person withholding information can, in and of itself, be a dangerous and hostile act.

These individuals are no longer at war. If it is the desire of the US Military to interrogate these individuals, they should do so in the field. Once turned over to the Government, they should enjoy the rights and comforts afforded to all prisoners and be permitted to atone.

Therefore, I "Strongly oppose"