Harsh Words

In this post, I want to explain the importance of using harsh language, at times, in making a moral point. It is not only a tactical mistake, it is dishonest, to respond to evil with the dispassionate voice of reason, “Ergo, I conclude that your actions stand in violation of this moral principle.” Instead, it is not even possible to honestly give a moral evaluation without using a tone that actually communicates that value. “People who do these things are as contemptible as those who would kill a child for his lunch money.”

Recently, I read a couple of posts in which Alon Levy at Unscrewing the Inscrutable, and Chris Clarke at Creek Running North had an exchange concerning the tone in moral debate.

Clarke defended the use of harsh criticism of those who can be described as evil.

My point: it is not civil to discuss things quietly and collegially while people are dying because they can’t afford medicine. It is not civil to speak in even, chuckling sardonicism as one beleaguered wild place after another is paved for profit. It is not civil to calmly raise logical arguments against torture, against kidnapping, against using nuclear weapons on civilians to show our resolve.

Levy asserted the permissibility of reasoned discourse.

I'm even more tired of people who decide that because I can field an argument more complicated than "right-wingers are evil, evil, evil!" I'm somehow complicit in conservative stupidity. Bickering about civility is about as useful as bickering about Oxford commas…

Clarke was right . . . in principle.

(Note: Clarke was wrong in practice. In his posting, he defended a set of liberal bloggers who belittled a conservative over the fact that he was taking medication for anxiety. Clarke defended the indefensible. The principles that he used were sound. However, he did a very poor job of applying those principles.)

A Defense of Condemnation

Assume that Peter has a box of bicycle parts, some tools, and an instruction booklet.

Peter sits down and reads the instruction booklet out loud. He reads each step, careful to get the correct interpretation, from beginning to end. He starts up his computer and he takes notes on the instructions – effectively rewriting them into his computer. From there, he tells all of his friends about what the instructions said.

When he is done, he will discover that he still has an unassembled pile of bicycle parts.

To actually build the bicycle, Peter will have to get his hands dirty. He has to pick up the tools and use them on the parts according to the instructions.

What does this have to do with morality?

The unimpassioned statement of moral principles is like reading the instructions for putting together a bicycle. When it comes to building a moral society, these acts have no effect. Sooner or later, somebody has to get their hands dirty, pick up the tools of morality, and start applying them.

The tools of morality are praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment.

If we are not using these tools, then we are not working towards a better society. We are only talking about moving towards a better society – talking, without action. It has no more effect than talking about building a bicycle.

The Tools of Morality

Desires determine the ends (objectives, goals) of intentional action.

Reason is only concerned with means.

Reason can help to determine the most efficient way to get from Point A to Point B. However, reason has nothing to say about choosing Point B as the end (objective, destination). Desires, not reason, pick our destinations for us.

Reason cannot cause a person to hate chocolate or like pain. Reason can tell a person who likes chocolate how he can get more, or a person who hates pain how to avoid it, but it has nothing to say about liking chocolate or hating pain.

With one exception.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' end. Every end (goal, destination, objective) is also at the same time a means to some other end. A person eats because he is hungry. However, his hunger also keeps him alive. Hunger determines a particular set of ends or goals (eating). Yet, it is also a means for some other end (survival). Survival itself may be a goal. However, it is also, at the same time, a means to some other end (e.g., experiencing space travel).

Reason does not give us any way to evaluate desires as ends of human action. However, reason does allow us to have the ability to evaluate our desires as means – as tools for fulfilling or thwarting other desires.

Morality is concerned with the evaluation of desires (ends, objectives) according to their usefulness as means for the fulfillment of other desires. A "good desire" (or 'virtue') is a desire that tends to fulfill other desires. A "bad desire" (or 'vice') is a desire that tends to thwart other desires.

For example, reason can tell us that a universal love of truth would be a very useful tool, overall. There certainly will be individual instances where lying may be useful. However, it would be hard to defend a universal love of lying and deceit as useful.

Once reason identifies a particular end as useful (an aversion to lies and deceit), the next step is to actually promote that end – to get as many people as possible to adopt it as one of their own. In other words, we are going to try to affect people’s desires.

However, desires cannot be molded by reason. Desires are molded through the efficient use of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. To promote a love of truth and an aversion to deception and deceit, we praise and reward those who are honest, while condemning and punishing those who are not.

Demands for Civility

One of these tools on this list is ‘condemnation’.

People who say that others should be ‘civil’ in their moral judgments are saying that others should not condemn or punish. If the people they are talking to believe this, then evil gets a free pass. It is from this that we get the phrase, "The only thing we need for evil to win is for good people to do nothing." The demand for ‘civil’ discourse is a demand to do nothing – a demand to let evil win.

However, in using this tool of condemnation, it is essential to target the actual evil itself and not some other characteristic. I mentioned above that Clarke was defending people who denigrated a man for taking medication for anxiety. Taking medication for anxiety is not a legitimate target of condemnation. It is not an ‘evil’ to be fought.

Condemning a person who is taking medication for anxiety is just as bad as condemning a person because of the color of his skin (or hair color, or eyes) or the shape of the scars on his back. These are not morally relevant targets. These are not things that good people would make the target of condemnation.

Indeed, it is quite fitting to condemn those who would select the fact that a person takes medicine as their target for ridicule.

Conclusion

We can make no moral progress so long as we resolve to be ‘civil.’ Being ‘civil’ means that we are not actually going to build that bicycle (that moral society). We are only going to talk about building it.

People who remain civil in their moral discourse are merely reading the rules. They are not doing any work. The work gets done, in the realm of morality, when we actually act so as to promote good desires and diminish bad desires. The work gets done when we pick up the tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment and start using them, rather than just talking about them.

It is past time for some harsh words. However, those harsh words must be focused only on those traits that deserve condemnation. They must be allowed to spill over and target traits that are not worthy of contempt.

Controlling Government

Old Business: Phone Database

News reports today have Verizon and South Bell denying that they provided customer data to the NSA. This suggests that the original USA Today story was false.

Fortunately, this blog does not depend on the reports actually being true. When the news broke, there were those who defended the action as if it were true. The arguments against their position remain just as valid in the same way that arguments against the legitimacy of rape would remain valid even if nobody was raped.

The Bush Administration is itself continuing to used flawed reasoning in defense of its spying operation. They continue to say, "We have done nothing illegal." Of course, if one works for an administration that believes that it has the legal right to do whatever it pleases, the claim, "our actions are not illegal" are meaningless.

Another argument that I read today said that, "We are not eavesdropping on the personal calls of ordinary Americans."

Question: Please define, "ordinary American." If this means, "Any American who we are not eavesdropping on," then this statement is also quite meaningless. Of course the Administration is not eavesdropping on the calls of those they are not eavesdropping on. The question is, "What does it take to change from being an "ordinary American" to a "person of interest?"

How does a person preserve his status of 'ordinary American' so that he does not end up being spied upon? The answer to this question may well be, "Do nothing to upset the Administration or call attention to yourself." Those who meekly obey the Masters will be left alone. Those who upset the Masters can expect to be whipped.

New Business: Reporters

Today's news suggests that those who have lost their status as "ordinary Americans" are reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and ABC News. The government is allegedly using its stockpile of intelligence information to find out who has been leaking information to the press about secret gulag-style prisons, kidnapping and rendition, false claims about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology, and warrantless wiretaps.

In short, the villains in this case are those who are fighting to preserve and defend the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States from its worst and most powerful enemies - the Bush Administration.

I suspect that the Bush Administration would argue that these are legitimate steps to take against any who are revealing classified information about actions taken in the war on terror. They would like to equate the actions of those giving this information to, for example, somebody who leaked the information that the Allies were going to launch an attack on Nomandy on June 6, 1944; or the allies had broken the German or Japanese military codes.

However, the equation does not hold.

First question

Is the government truly interested in finding people who reveal important information about our capabilities with respect to the war on terror? Or is this Administration actually interested in seeking revenge against those who tarnish its image?

Recall that three years ago the Bush Administration itself decided to leak the identity of a CIA covert operative who was monitoring Iran's attempt to develop a nuclear weapon in order to seek revenge against Joe Wilson, who wrote an editorial that tarnished the Administration's image.

Prior history gives us a glimpse into the moral character of those who are making these types of decisions. We may assume that those people whose moral character put revenge against those who tarnished its image above national security in the past will continue to put revenge above national security at present. This further implies (admittedly, it does not prove, it merely suggests) that the Administration's use of war powers involves treating critics as enemies of the state.

Second question

What else has the Bush Administration authorized that we do not yet know about?

People in the Bush Administration have to be aware of the fact that these 'leaks' have not focused on information that would be useful to the enemy. These leakers, instead, have focused on what reasonable people may consider violations of the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

From this, the Bush Administration ought to be able to predict the types of information that will be leaked to the press in the future. That information as well will focus more on apparent Constitutional violations than information of use to the enemy.

So, if the Administration is as frantic to prevent future revelations as it appears to be, then this suggests (though it does not prove) that there are apparent Constitutional violations that will get them into even more hot water with the average voter.

Speculation

I will readily admit that these items are matters of speculation. However, this speculation brings up a valid moral point.

What are the moral obligations of an individual working for the government where the President has asked him to take actions that he has good reason to believe are unconstitutional at best, and unconscionable at worst?

Let us assume that this President has rendered the Legislative and Judicial branches of government impotent through executive orders and "signing statements" giving him sole authority to make the laws (or to rewrite any laws that the legislature makes) and to adjudicate those laws.

How does one oppose a man who fancies himself an omnipotent ruler who gets his authority directly from God and who answers to nobody but himself?

Ultimately, during the Age of Reason, philosophers recognized that no government can stand without the consent of the people. The people themselves ultimately determine the type of state they live under. Even Hitler needed an SS and a Gestapo to enforce his will -- he could not have done it alone.

The use of that power and authority depends on our getting accurate information about the type of government they are living under. We need to know about the abuses and usurpations that have become a part of any Presidential regime. We need to protect and preserve our access to information about the moral and Constitutional transgressions of our leaders. Otherwise, we are made impotent to resist any migration into tyranny.

So, the ultimate appeal -- the ultimate check and balance against excessive government abuse rests with the people. Ultimately, we need to decide if these people served us well or served us poorly. If they served us well, and we allow harm to come to them (by those who threatened our liberty), then this is a black mark on us.

We have good reason to believe that the Bush Administration -- in spite of all of its pro-Democracy rhetoric -- does not want us to have the information we need to make informed decisions about the type of government we live under. The Bush Administration wants to control the information we have, which means controlling the press and those who talk to the press.

Its decision to monitor who reporters talk to is clearly a decision that aims at improving its ability to control and manipulate the people -- you and me -- by controlling and manipulating the information we get.

Finally, I can say that I do not know if these reports are true. They might not be. However, for the points that I am making here, it does not matter. A robber does not need a loaded gun in order to coerce the store clerk into obeying and serving him, he only needs the store clerk to accept the possibility that the gun might be loaded. The Bush Administration does not need to be able to use its spying powers to actually find informants. It only needs to threaten informants with the possibility of being discovered and the fact that the people do not care enough to see to their protection.

The effect, in terms of lost liberty, will be the same either way. There can be no government of the people, by the people, and for the people if the people are robbed of their ability to make decisions or if they care too little to protect those who act in their interest.

The Villainy of Deception: Global Warming

In previous posts, I have criticized the idea of a "windfall profits tax" against the oil companies. I have also criticized laws against "price gouging" and price controls as proposals that will make the energy situation worse than it would otherwise be.

I have made this argument by drawing an analogy to an isolated village facing a shortage of food. High prices are the market's way of telling people that they need to start conserving their supplies. It would be stupid to argue that we should first use up all the food we have in storage, THEN begin conserving. Yet, in the realm of energy, a huge number of people are arguing for exactly this type of policy -- that the price of gas should not go up until we have used up all current supplies.

High prices also tell us to start switching over to substitutes, and to put extra effort in acquiring more supplies.

High profits are the market's way of rewarding those people who take the necessary steps to help us through a shortage, without waiting for the slow and significantly more corruptible political system to hit on a solution/

These types of policies are foolish.

However, there is another issue involving the energy companies that warrants our full condemnation.

On the issue of global warming, they have spent years financing a campaign of deception (see also: Union of Concerned Scientist report) that has slowed our response to this problem and put countless people at risk of losing their lives, health, and property. It is not an exaggeration to claim that they decided, years ago, that they were willing to put whole cities and countries at risk of destruction to help ensure greater profits.

They represent a level of villainy that can be honestly compared to the Holocaust and Stalin's purges in the level of destruction they may well cause.

A report from Christian Aid says that an estimated 182,000,000 people could die in Africa alone due to diseases associated with global warming. I am not saying that this many people will die. I would not be surprised to hear that this figure contains some hyperbole. However, a person with a shred of moral conscience looking at the possibility of this many deaths would have to respond by saying, 'Are you sure we are not going to kill these people?' This moral conscience will also insist that 'being sure' implies rejecting the bogus arguments that the energy industry and others pay to spread around the world.

To continue to fund this campaign of deception would make Hitler's holocaust and Stalin's purges look like a game.

Some would want us to think that the science of global warming was uncertain, and that it is only recently that we have collected enough evidence that we can say for certain that we are doing things to the environment that could be very costly. Yet, this is not the case. Scientists had a good idea of what we were up against decades ago. However, the facts supported policies that certain energy company executives (among others) did not like. Therefore, those executives began a campaign to bury the facts. The consequence (and intention) of this campaign was to slow down the public response to global warming until they could pocket as much private wealth as they could get away with. The consequence of this slower response is that we face a much more serious problem than we need to.

We can see the evidence of this villainy in the types of arguments that these companies funded in their campaign.

Here are some examples:

The Heat Island Effect

"Global warming does not take into consideration the heat-island effect."

This was an attempt to claim that the evidence for global warming was found in the fact that urban temperatures were rising. In turn, they claimed that urban temperatures were rising because cities trap heat. Anybody who lives in or near a city knows that the temperatures within a city are typically a few degrees higher than temperatures in the surrounding countryside.

A layman can be forgiven for falling for this argument, but nobody with an interest in truth and a few million dollars to spend on an advertising campaign can be forgiven for spreading this deception. Global warming models predicted that temperatures would rise the most in the arctic and Antarctic -- where the glaciers and ice packs were. Indeed, this is what the temperature records were showing. Average global temperatures are up 1 degree, but are up 5 degrees in places like Alaska and Siberia. These are not 'heat islands'.

The 'heat island' argument was a lie. As a result of this lie, melting ice packs are threatening the homes and property of millions of people -- of whose cities -- near (or below) sea level.

This is, literally, a case where corporate executives were willing -- and may even bring about -- the destruction of whole cities for the sake of securing more profits.

The Coming Ice Age

"Forty years ago scientists were warning us about a coming ice age. Now, they are warning us about global warming. Obviously, they have no idea what they are talking about."

This argument is entirely invalid. Imagine somebody who argued, "Three hundred years ago scientists were telling us that malaria was caused by bad air. Now, they are telling us that it is caused by a bacteria and we should wipe out the mosquitoes. Clearly, scientists do not know what they are talking about."

This is clearly a bogus argument. The only legitimate criticism that can be made against a current scientific theory is to show that it does not explain and predict observations. Saying that scientists did not have a perfect knowledge of the world in the past so we can ignore what they say in the present is foolish.

Yet, promoting this foolishness meant additional profits for the energy companies, so they promoted it. Again, they paid millions of dollars to a campaign to promote this deception in the press and as a part of the public consciousness. Again, we see in this a willingness to finance the potential destruction of whole cities and countries in order to obtain profits -- a level of villainy that makes Mr. Evil look like a common flim-flam man.

Finally, there is nothing inconsistent with claiming that global warming can create regional cooling -- even a new 'ice age' in some local areas. Europe is kept warmer than normal because the Gulf Stream carries warm tropical air up north. If global warming shuts this heat conveyer down, Europe while cool -- while the tropics get even hotter (because its heat is no longer being transported north).

The Sun

As a part of its campaign to get the people to do nothing but sit on their hands, while the energy companies secured their profits at the risk of whole cities and countries, those energy companies also launched a campaign to deceive people about the nature of global warming science.

The energy companies presented the global warming debate as one in which scientists noted higher temperatures and then went looking for a cause. Their 'theory' was that carbon dioxide was the case. Against this 'theory' the energy companies financed a competing 'theory' that this was a natural cycle linked to such things as changes in the sun.

This was a lie. Global warming was never a theory about 'higher temperatures in search of an explanation.' For over 100 years, scientists knew that there were gasses that let in solar energy and trapped the heat. They knew this by studying the absorption spectrum of those gasses -- and that the Earth was warmer than it would have otherwise been as a result. For over 100 years they knew that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations would warm the earth even more.

What we had in the second half of the 20th Century was a set of observations that confirmed those theories. These observations allowed scientists to say that propositions that had been a part of mainstream science for over 100 years were true.

But, the energy companies did not want us to learn this. Therefore, they financed a campaign to hide this fact behind a smokescreen that they paid millions of dollars to construct. They intentionally hid the truth from us because the truth would have caused us to protect our lives, health, and property (and the lives, health, and property of our children) in ways that would have cost them money.

Climate Complexity

Another argument that these companies mass-marketed to people was the claim, "Climate is complex and we really can't be sure what will happen."

Somehow, this was supposed to justify business as usual. At least, these companies marketed this as an argument for business as usual.

However, this is a bit like a drug company saying, "Biology is far too complex for us to know what is going to happen when people take this drug; therefore, we can go ahead and market it as a cure for cancer." Or, imagine somebody firing a gun into a school yard at a great distance. When asked to justify his actions he said, "If you take into consideration gravity, wind speed, the shape of the bullet, and the motion of the kids in the playground, it was difficult to predict whether I would actually hit anybody; therefore, I did no wrong.

We can easily determine how we would judge the moral character of anybody who would risk the life of even one child in a playground with this type of argument. What should we think of the person who risks the lives of tens of millions of children, and the destruction of entire cities?

Conclusion

The main point is that all of these are bogus arguments.

These arguments are fundamentally and logically flawed that spreading them is not a matter of a difference of opinion where reasonable people can disagree. This is a matter of a group of people spending millions of dollars in a bid to muddy the waters and hide the truth from people who could have otherwise acted to defend their life, health, and property.

If we take into consideration the potential magnitude of the destruction involved (including today's report that we may be facing nearly two hundred million fatalities in Africa, and the destruction of whole cities in certain parts of the world), we are talking about a level of villainy to compete with Hitler and Stalin.

This blog entry is not enough to examine our options in detail. However, I would support civil action for harms done that would end up taking hundreds of billions of dollars from those companies that participated in this fraud, and to use it to compensate those whose lives, health, and property are at risk. If the penalties should end up driving these companies into bankruptcy, so be it. There would be justice in giving control of the companies themselves to their victims.

Legality and Willingness to Accept NSA Spying

The reason that I am spending so much time and effort on the NSA wiretaps and phonecall database is because I consider the underlying issue of government power to be one of the most serious issues we face. I have explained some of the reasons in the last three days of posts. There are a few others that I would like to consider.

The Legality Claim

"The NSA's activities are perfectly legal."

The Bush Administration is attempting to defend itself by claiming that the activities of the NSA are legal.

This argument suffers from a number of flaws.

First, we are getting this from an administration that thinks that everything the President does in the name of national security is legal. It does not even matter if the activity really has anything to do with national security. As long as the President uses the words 'national security' while performing the act, then it is legal.

If President Bush were to ask Attorney General Gonzales for a defense of a "final solution" to the "fundamentalist Muslim" problem by exterminating all Muslims in concentration camps, I suspect that Gonzales would be willing and able to comply. Can we fit the program under the heading 'national security'? Yes we can. Therefore, Gonzales would likely claim, it falls under the President's legitimate authority as commander of chief of the Armed Forces in time of war, that he may order the "final solution" if he wishes.

For people who think like this to come to us and say that it thinks these activities are legal is a rather poor joke. Of course they think it's legal. They think EVERYTHING is legal.

Second, even if something is legal, it can still be wrong. Hitler's 'final solution' was legal. Slavery was legal. The Crusades and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were legal. Stalin's purges were legal. One cannot stand up in front of a crowd and say, 'this was legal' and expect that to be the end of the matter.

'Legal' does not mean 'right.' This blog is concerned with what is right, and claims about what is irrelevant and subsidiary to what is right.

The Public Will

"In the days after 9-11, the people would have allowed the Bush Administration to do anything to fend of another attack."

This is probably true. For a few months after 9-11, President Bush could have probably given a speech in which he abolished the Constitution, suspended all further elections, and took total control of the government. Indeed, I am curious to know if anybody could name a time, since 1900, that somebody took dictatorial control of a country without basing his actions on 'national security' against some enemy, real or imagined.

I am not saying that the Bush Administration made up 9-11, or that they allowed it to happen because they knew that they could use it. On the other hand, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that within minutes -- if not seconds -- after learning of the attack, there were people high up in the Bush Administration who were saying things like, 'We can use this.'

It is depressing to see how quickly and completely Americans descended into this type of thinking. I had hoped that the American love of freedom was strong enough to resist these types of claims. Yet, Americans gave no sign that they would resist tyranny that wrapped itself in a cloak of national security.

Bush's defenders are now claiming that Bush suffered from poor timing, not poor policy. He should have asked for these powers when the people would have been more inclined to give them. This is like saying that Hitler should have proposed his Final Solution to the Jewish problem when he was at the height of his popularity and the people would have been less inclined to resist.

These types of claims miss the moral issue entirely. Indeed, they ignore the moral issue, and pretend that the only relevant question is what serves the interests of those with power. The question of right and wrong -- the morally legitimate use of power -- is shoved aside.

Conclusion

Neither of these arguments have anything to do with the moral legitimacy of the types of actions that the Bush Administration are pursuing. In order to avoid criminal prosecution, it may be useful to argue that one’s actions are legal. However, a full defense of one’s actions requires showing that a legal action was also right. Not every wrong action is illegal. If the wrong people get the power to make the laws, a great many wrong actions can be made legal.

The second option carries the practical implication that if the people can be frightened to the point that they embrace tyranny, than tyranny is morally permissible. It may well be a psychological and sociological fact that the best time to establish a dictatorship is shortly after the country has suffered an attack. Yet, it is absurd to argue, “The people would have accepted such a law shortly after 9-11; therefore, there would have been no moral crime in pursuing such a law shortly after 9-11.”

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans were willing to accept the internment of thousands of American citizens without charges or trials based on the fact that they were of Japanese ancestry. This should adequately demonstrate how the willingless to accept a certain law is no argument for its moral legitimacy.

Further Considerations on Government Spying

This is the third in a series of posts concerned with the warrantless wiretapping and phone database that the Bush Administration has engaged in.

First, I presented the basic argument as to why one would be against this type of program.

Second, I drew an analogy between those who would support these types of government action and those who would have either refused to serve or deserted the Continental Army of 1776.

Here, I want to look at some of the claims that are commonly made by those who support these types of government operations.

Issues included in this essay are:

• Scope of Use: Why use this power only against terrorists?

• The Slippery Slope: Why it is not a fallacy.

• Nothing to Hide: If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about>

• Cameras: Why not cameras in every home?

• The Third Amendment to the Constitution

Scope of Use

This first issue I want to talk about does not address a specific comment that supporters of this program use, but an unwritten assumption that can be found in many of their statements. They assume that the database is only being used to keep us safe from suspected terrorists.

First, what is a ‘suspected terrorist’? Are protestors who picket army recruiters on college campuses potential terrorists? They are clearly interfering with the military’s attempt to acquire recruits. Should we not apply the title ‘suspected terrorist’ to anybody who speaks favorably of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton – people who took up arms against their own government?

Second, if it is okay to use this database to keep us safe from terrorists, then why is it not okay to use it to keep us safe from other threats? For example, since we are tracking down terrorists, why not use it to track down drug dealers and their customers?

While we are at it, we can use it to keep track of pornographers, prostitutes, and gang members and find out who they are talking to, when, and for how long. War protesters are also a threat to our national security. It would certainly be worth while to find out who an avid war critic has been talking to.

Also, we can track the conversations of extreme environmentalists (after all, we already have the term ‘eco-terrorist’ to describe some of them).

Better yet, many people who are a danger to others will seek to acquire a weapon of some type. So, spying on gun-owners and gun-sellers would be a useful way of keeping us safe, would it not?

Finally, Democrats have been called ‘traitors’ and ‘a threat to national security’ since 9-11. The Republican strategy throughout the 2004 Presidential campaign and, it appears, the 2006 mid-term elections is to fill people with the fear that, if the Democrats gain power, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

The Slippery Slope

I have read some arguments from people responding to the idea that we are on a slippery slope towards a totalitarian state that monitors our entire lives. “There are some discrete steps we have to go through to get from where we are to such a state.”

It is true that a slippery slope is not a sound deductive argument, but it addresses a genuine concern – one of risk.

Assume that you discovered that an acquaintance of yours, with several small children, had a habit of keeping a loaded gun in an unlocked drawer next to the living room couch. This friend also likes to have large parties where he invites just about anybody over, and he is in the habit of showing them his gun. One day, you are with this acquaintance when his sister shows up. His sister tells him that he should lock the gun up – unloaded – and lock the ammunition in a separate location. Otherwise, one of his friends might take the gun or one of his kids (or one of his kids’ friends) might accidentally shoot somebody.

Your acquaintance response, “You idiot! Don’t you realize that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. A lot of discrete steps have to be followed before having a loaded gun in drawer in the living room becomes a situation where the gun creates a corpse laying on the floor.”

Bush’s warrantless wiretaps and phone database are loaded guns waiting to be misused. We are setting things up for the day when somebody will abuse these weapons, and our freedoms will be a corpse laying on the floor. Warrants and court orders are the locks that we need to keep these weapons out of the hands of those who would do real harm with them.

Nothing to Hide

“If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from government spying.”

Anybody who utters this statement has illustrated the full height of his stupidity.

The problem is, the common citizen does not always get to decide whether he has something to hide. Sometimes, somebody else makes those decisions for him.

In Nazi Germany, “having something to hide” meant being a Jew, homosexual, gypsy, or even willing to work for regime change in the country. Imagine how much easier Hitler’s job would have been if the government already had a practice of wiretapping phones without a warrant and a database of every phone call that had ever been made by anybody in the country.

In America, in the 1950s, ‘having something to hide’ meant how you would answer the question, ‘have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party.’ Imagine the situation in this country if, instead of asking people to name names, McCarthy simply needed to access a database of who had been calling whom in order to get his list of suspects.

In the 1960s, “having something to hide” meant being a part of the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King was viewed as a threat. Many people in government would have loved to have been able to plug his phone number into a database and get a list of everybody he had called as well as when and how long they talked.

In the 1970s, Nixon had an official “political enemies project” which involved a program of using government tools such as IRS audits and legal harassment against those who dared to speak out against him. I suspect that, if this database had existed while he was President, he would have made use of it.

Other times in which Americans had “something to hide” included being Japanese American in 1940, or German American in the 1910s. It included being an escaped slave or being somebody who aided in the Underground Railroad in 1850. In the 1770s, it included anybody and everybody who was fighting for independence from England.

Internationally, anybody opposed to the Kremlin throughout most of the 1900s had something to hide. The British government would have probably made good use of a phone list to find out who Ghandi had been working with in India in an attempt to preserve British rule in that country.

Also, it needs to be said, since atheists are the least trusted group in America according to two recent surveys – such that many people would not allow their child to marry one, would not vote for one, and would not hire one because they consider atheists to lack moral principles – atheists “have something to hide” in this country. President Bush stated that he will only appoint people who believe that our rights come from God as judges. Given the cheers of support he got from this, we may assume that he is not the only employer who takes discriminates against atheists when deciding who to hire or who to promote.

Homosexuals, environmentalists, labor union organizers, mormons, war protesters, and political activists on both sides of the political spectrum may discover that they “have something to hide.” It all depends on who ultimately gets their hands on this database.

These paragraphs only consider how the database can be officially misused. It does not consider criminal misuse of the data. On Friday, FBI agents searched the house of the third highest ranking member of the CIA. He has been tied to a bribery and corruption scandal involving a childhood friend who became a defense contractor. I can imagine that there would be a great many people willing to pay good money to get information off of this database.

This database is a loaded gun in the living room drawer simply inviting misuse.

Unfortunately, at this point it would be foolish for us to assume that this is the only loaded gun that the Bush Administration has laying around. There are almost certainly others that we do not yet know about.

Cameras

Bush himself is claiming that he is not spying on Americans and that the government is going to great pains to protect our privacy.

If you buy this argument, I have a new plan for this war on terror.

We will only store video information – we will not use microphones. As a result, we can have President Bush stand in front of the American people and say, with a straight face (as straight as his face ever gets), “We are not prying into the private lives of the American people. We are not monitoring your conversations. We are simply going to use this information to keep you safe.”

Why should anybody protest? After all, “If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.”

The Third Amendment

Many people are not familiar with the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution, because its principles seldom come up. It says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Why does this amendment exist?

It exists because England had a habit of controlling Americans by quartering troops in their houses. Not only were the Americans required to feed and care for those troops (an unfair tax burden), but the troops could then monitor the people they were staying with. They could report on when the owner was home, when he was gone, who came to visit, and who his friends were.

The Bush Administration is attempting to do what the British soldiers would do – monitor who we speak to, when, and for how long – and collect it all in a massive database for instant government use.

General Hayden's Nomination

Yesterday, I tried to offer a statement on the issue of Bush’s phone call database for those who are truly confused about those who would be opposed to these actions. These are people who think in terms of, “Bush is simply trying to make us safe. It’s insane to be angry at somebody who is trying to keep you alive.”

The basic response, which I gave in greater detail yesterday, is that we need to worry most about people who think that they can do whatever they please – particularly when those people have power. To protect ourselves from these people, we recognize certain moral limits on what people may do. We protect these lines because those who cross them either are a danger to others themselves, or they make it easier for others to do great harm. The tools that President Bush is creating are tools that can do a great deal of harm if they fall into the wrong hands, and they are almost certainly going to fall into the wrong hands sooner or later.

I had a different post planned for yesterday that address some of the same issues, but from a different perspective.

Political Strategy

I do not write about political strategy.

In fact, I instantly feel a small measure of hostility against anybody who writes about political strategy. Partisans tend to be people who will do whatever it takes, who have no problems tossing moral considerations aside, for the purpose of gaining power for themselves, their political allies, and (often) the patrons who hired them.

I see no particularly strong reason to think that Democrats are better than Republicans. These days, Democrats are making a lot of noise about the Republican “culture of corruption.” They talk as if Democrats are inherently more honest than Republicans.

I see a different explanation.

These days, why would anybody have any reason to bribe or corrupt people who are as impotent and ineffective as the members of the Democratic Party have been in recent years? It makes more sense to try to bribe my seven-year-old nephew for all of the political power he wields, than to bribe a Democratic Senator or Congressman.

This may sound cynical, but I’m waiting to see how well the Democrats handle power again before I make any judgments.

So, I am not particularly concerned with divining a strategy that will best put the Democrats back in power. I am, in fact, somewhat hostile to those who think in these terms. I would rather focus on what should or should not be done – regardless of which party is in office.

Hayden's Nomination

I have read several articles from people who are reporting that the plan to nominate General Michael Hayden to run the CIA was an act of political expedience.

Allegedly, Karl Rove has been put in charge of making sure that the Republicans keep control of the House and the Senate in the November elections. He suggested that Hayden be the nominee to run the CIA because the nomination would be politically useful.

How?

Well, by nominating Hayden, President Bush would putting the person who was responsible for running the warrantless wiretapping program on the floor of the Senate under oath. Hopefully (from Karl Rove’s perspective) the Democrats would not be able to resist the opportunity to attack this target. When the did, the Republicans would be ready to use this to argue that the Democrats are soft on terrorism – that the Democrats are not willing to do whatever is necessary to keep us safe. With this, they would set up their message for the November elections: "If the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate in November, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!

The Democrats apparently saw this trap and are refusing to step into it. According to Bloomberg, Democratic leaders have announced that they will not be questioning Hayden about these warrantless wiretaps. Instead, they will focus on the fact that Hayden is a military officer being put in charge of a civilian agency that exists for the purpose of checking and balancing the power of the military.

Of course, if they give Hayden a pass on warrantless wiretaps in the NSS, we would be foolish not to expect warrantless wiretaps in the CIA.

The Message

These considerations all fall under the heading of political strategy.

I tend to think that the political strategists on both sides of the isle are fairly competent. In recent years Republican strategists have been more successful than Democrats. However, I suspect that this is mostly due to the fact that the Republicans have completely cut any moral bindings on what they may do, which gives them much more freedom to maneuver.

If we accept this assumption that these political strategists are reasonably competent, then this suggests that Rove is right about the American people. There is more political power to be had by those who will destroy the Bill of Rights (allegedly, in the name of security) than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, and Rove wants to harness that power for the Republican Party.

If this is true, then it is because the American People themselves make it true. The fault, then, rests not so much with the politicians, but with our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers.

What Kind of People Are These?

When I think about how to understand the type of person who these politicians are afraid to offend, I imagine a show-covered town in eastern Pennsylvania in 1776, where a recruiter for the Continental Army is trying to get people to enlist. He tells the crowd, among other things, "We are fighting for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches without probable cause."

In the crowd, we can imagine several types of people.

One group thinks that this right is worth fighting for. They are the ones who get their muskets and join the Continental Army.

The other group says, "You have to be kidding! Protect and defend a right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches without probable cause? I could die. There is no way that I am going to risk my life to defend such a pathetically poor idea."

There are others. There are people who initially like the idea of a right to be free from unreasonable searches, and requiring officers of the government to get a warrant based on probable cause. They may join the Continental Army. However, the instant they find their situation a little uncomfortable, or battle is joined and the bullets start flying, they drop their guns and head for the hills -- deserting those who have decided to stand and fight.

We can see all three of these types in what they have to say about the Bush’s plan for warrantless wiretaps, and now a database on all phone calls made in the United States.

I see no sense to be made of the claim that, “Bush is just trying to protect us from those who are trying to kill us,” but to equate them with those who would have said to the Recruiter, “Defend a right to be free from unreasonable searches without a warrant? Are you mad? I could get hurt!" Both think that the principle of prohibiting warrantless searches is not worth defending.

Those who gave lip service to the Bill of Rights for years only to abandon it are like those who would have joined the Continental Army only to desert when the campaign got tough.

Those who stand and fight for the principles embedded in the Constitution today are the ideological descendents of those who would have stood and fought with the Continental Army in 1776 and stayed the course.

Greater Security

Ironically, those who would have stood and fought for those principles better understand what we need to do to guarantee our security, and the security of the generations that come after ours. True security requires establishing a culture that says that people have certain rights – that among these rights is a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects – that people cannot be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if others may trespass against them at will – so that security requires no trespass against the persons, houses, papers, and effects of another without probable cause.

A society that does not agree to live by this rule is a society within which the people cannot be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Those who say that security in one’s persons, houses, papers, and effects are not worth fighting for, are by definition people who are making us less secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Without the diligence of those willing to stand and fight for these rights, those who run and hide and say that these rights are not worth fighting for will discover, eventually, that they are far less secure because of it.

Rove's Strategy Revisited

Karl Rove seems to be trying to appeal to those who think that these rights are not worth fighting for, and making them the core of the Republican Party. He hopes that there are enough people who are more concerned with their immediate short-term personal safety than the principles of liberty that he can use them to keep the Republican Party in power.

He thinks that it is politically expedient to appeal to these people, and the Democrats apparently think that he is right.

If this is true, it is because the American people have made it true. If the most powerful political party is the party that says that these rights are not worth defending, it is because the American people themselves have become a nation of people who would have dismissed the Recruiter and gone home, where it was safe, rather than risk the consequences of battle.

These are the people that Rove is trying to reach with his message, "Abandon that principle that people have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. It is not worth defending. Give us the power to conduct searches and seizures whenever we like. Then, run and hide. We will protect you. We will not abuse this power. Trust us."

By their decision not to pursue this issue, the Democrats are telling us that Rove is right.

Is he?

Government Phone Database

I wrote a different (but related) blog today on the Hayden nomination for the CIA. I thought it relevant to write about the fact that the Bush Administration had appointed a man to run the CIA who ran the secret warrantless wiretap program for President Bush. Then, today, I learn that this same man, General Hayden, also ran a program to collect all telephone records and put them into a massive database.

This database means that, if somebody in the government wants to know who you have been calling and when, it simply needs to type your phone number into a database, and they get a list.

They claim that they will only type in the phone numbers of terrorists into this list so, if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Well, a terrorist might have called you, but what is the chance of that happening? Or, a terrorist might have called a pizza place and asked for a pizza, shortly before or after you called that same pizza place and asked for a pizza.

Or maybe your banker, your lawyer, your best friend’s lawyer, because once the government traces the call from the terrorist to the lawyer, and then from the lawyer to your best friend, they have reason to start asking questions about who your best friend is talking to, and then asking about who you are talking to.

I read a lot of discussion on the issue, and did not want to simply repeat much of what I had read. One thing I found missing was a calm and rational explanation as to why allowing these types of infringements was a bad idea.

I have found that defenders of the Bush policy have relied primarily on one argument.

“The terrorists are trying to kill us. If these efforts can stop a terrorist from killing us, we should be grateful!”

What’s wrong with this argument? Why am I sitting here protesting the actions of a government that only has my best interests at heart?

There is no such thing as a government that has my best interests at heart – or yours. Governments are made up of people, and governments are instruments of force and violence. It would be nice if these instruments of force and violence never ended up in the hands of those who would abuse them, but they do. When they do, people suffer – in great numbers.

The more power that government has, the more useful it becomes to those who will sacrifice my interests for their benefit – the harder they will work to gain control of the government, and the more likely it will be that I (my nieces, nephews, their children, and the children of future generations) will be made to suffer and struggle for the benefit of a powerful elite.

I am not talking about a violent coup. I am talking about people with money and influence wielding the economic and social power that these tools give them to gain control of government. I am talking about people like Hitler who was able to convince the people to willingly give him absolute power – and what people like that do with power once they get it.

If the government has the power to tap our phones without a warrant, somebody out there thinks that this will be a very useful tool in their plan to promote their interests at our expense.

If the government has a database with all of our phone calls listed, there is somebody out there who thinks that this will be a useful tool for promoting their interests at our expense. In this case, the most use I can see of them making of this list is to identify their political enemies, who those enemies talk to, and then rounding up the whole lot of them in one grand sweep.

Of course, he will call these people ‘terrorists.’ He will claim that they were a threat to national security. He will assert that these tools were vital in exposing this treat so that he could act to protect the good people of this country. Future investigation may not be able to reveal any actual evidence of a threat (other than the fact that they opposed the leader’s policies), but by then it will be too late for such issues to matter.

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are not the only weapons of mass destruction that exist. In fact, they are by far weaker than the weapons that have traditionally been used to threaten the lives, health, liberty, and property of common citizens.

The most destructive weapons of mass destruction ever wielded has been government authority, pushing people off of their land, enslaving them, and slaughtering those who refused to submit.

Consequently, I am much more concerned about the nonproliferation of unchecked government authority than anything that a group of thugs might do with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

If the government does not have these tools, then nobody will be seeking to use those tools to promote their interests at our expense. Of course, they could take control of government and create these tools, unless we are determined to protest those who would create these tools under any pretext.

I don’t want the terrorists to get a free hand. Terrorists are a threat, even though unlimited government power is a greater threat. If these tools are necessary, I want them treated the same way that governments treat other weapons of mass destruction. I want them locked up with safeguards in place that prevent people who might use these weapons for evil purposes from getting hold of them.

That is to say, I insist on a system of checks and balances. If the Executive Branch wants to spy on American citizens, I insist that they show their plans to somebody in the Judiciary Branch who has the power to say, “No. I see this as a plan to use government power against your political enemies more than a plan to find those who threaten the American people. Revise your plan, put in some safeguards, and I will reconsider it.”

I want a Legislative Branch that can pass a law that says, “You, the President, cannot cross this line,” without the President using a tool not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution to edit the law as he signs it, to make the law say whatever he wants it to say.

Incidentally, this is my main argument in favor of removing Saddam Hussein from power. I was very much in favor of seeing Saddam Hussein removed even when Clinton was in power – because I wanted the world to get the message that abuse of power will not be tolerated.

However, our government cannot deliver the message that abuse of power will not be tolerated when our government is engaging in torture, kidnapping, rendition, imprisonment without trial, war on false pretenses. My greatest objection to the Bush Administration’s pursuit of these policies is that it is telling every government in the world, now and in the future, that they can do these things as well. With abuse of government power being the greatest threat to people everywhere, we do not need a government promoting the philosophy that there is no such thing as an abuse of government power.

People tell me that Bush is only trying to find terrorists, that my life could be spared, and I should be grateful.

I answer that I do not believe that Bush is only trying to find terrorists. I am almost certain that an administration willing to do as much evil as this administration has done – that we know about – will not be able to resist the temptation to do more than just hunt terrorists.

I answer that, even if the laughable proposition that this administration can resist the temptation to abuse these powers for political and personal gain is true, there are other governments around the world, and future governments in the United States, who will almost certainly abuse the powers that this administration tells us the government should have.

Never in human history have common people been made more secure by a government given absolute power to do whatever it pleases to whomever it pleases. Somebody will come along eventually – if not in this election, then the next, or the next – who will put that power to use in ways that do not serve the public interest. The more power they have, the more harm they will do.

That is why I do not like the direction that the Bush Administration is taking us.

The Moral Compass

For as long as I can remember, I have had to put up with the bigoted assertion that society must beware of the atheist, because he lacks a moral compass. The atheist's lack of a moral compass allows him to sail into any waters no matter how heinous or wrong. At the same time, these same speakers assured all who would listen that their absolute morality will be their unfailing guide, and the people can trust them in positions of power.

News organizations have now released updated figures on Bush's popularity. Thirty-one percent of the people still approve of the job that Bush is doing while in office.

Thirty-one percent of the people still support a regime that endorses:

• torture sometimes until death

• kidnapping and 'rendition'

• imprisoning American citizens based solely on the President's assertion that he wants a person imprisoned and feels that the imprisonment is justified

• secret prisons where the rules of law and morality can be ignored

• secret orders suspending the 4th Amendment to the Constitution (prohibiting warrantless searches and seizures) whenever the President wants to suspend it

• recklessly or intentionally starting a war on false pretenses, with the corresponding loss of life, limb, and the opportunity to save lives that we could have had if we had used those hundreds of billions of dollars differently

• borrowing the wages of our children and grand children through a soaring national debt and redistributing the wealth of our descendents to wealthy campaign contributors

• abusing 'signing statements' so as to turn them into a tool that allows the President to rewrite any law and to prevent the enforcement of those laws through the courts.

Plus, we must consider that this administration has told one lie after another.

• They assured us that they were seeking to avoid a war that had already been 'penciled in.'

• They assured us that nobody in the Administration had anything to do with leaking the identity of a CIA operative who was monitoring Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

• They assured us that Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction when the evidence for that claim had already been discredited.

• They authorized the 'leaking' of lies by claiming that an official government report included 'key findings' about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons that were not in that report.

• During the campaign for the 2004 elections, they assured us that the government could not spy on Americans without a warrant while they were spying on Americans without a warrant.

• They have rewritten scientific reports on global warming and other threats to the life, health, and property of Americans -- presenting science fiction as science fact -- because they apparently value protecting the wealth of their campaign supporters more than protecting the life, health, and property of the average Americans from these threats.

These are only the things that we have discovered in the past five years.

It is almost certainly the case that this Administration has engaged in other abuses and lies that we have not yet heard about.

The people that we find still supporting this Administration and its policies are those very same people who once assured us that their unfailing and absolute moral compass meant that they could be trusted with power, and would not abuse it. The people who make up the bulk of the 31% who still support Bush are those who condemned people such as myself for years with the charge that our lack of religion meant that others should fear what we may do.

And this is what they give us.

Sex, Brains, and Morality

In the news yesterday I read of a study that concludes that, on matters of sex, the brains of lesbians are more the brains of heterosexual males than of heterosexual females. Specifically, with some exceptions, they tend to process pheromones (specifically, the smell of sex hormones) more like the former group than the latter. This is meant to explain why they are attracted to females rather than males.

Brains and Behavior

Some will argue that this has important moral implications. If homosexuality can be linked to a physical difference then, according to one argument, discrimination against homosexuals will fall in the same moral category as discrimination against blacks. Both would be classified as forms of discrimination grounded on an underlying physical characteristic.

This is a poor argument.

Every difference in human behavior will ultimately be linked to differences in the way the brain is structured. The person who is addicted to drugs, we will find, is addicted because of an underlying fact about how his brain is structured. The bully, the rapist, the thief, the serial killer all have an underlying difference in their brain structure. We may not be able to say exactly what that difference is at the moment, but we have reason to suspect that it is there.

If it is there, and underlying brain structure is taken to imply moral permissibility for the behavior that the brain structure causes, then every act is morally permissible.

Others will argue for a slightly different conclusion. The fact that behavior is grounded on brain structure implies that the very concept of moral responsibility is incoherent. These hard determinists would argue that we should abandon moral concepts entirely and speak instead entirely in the medical terms of 'illness', 'treatment', and 'cure.'

It seems like a natural progression, but it is flawed as well.

Value and the Concept of 'Disease'

We can start to expose this flaw when we ask questions like, How do we distinguish between a mental state that is a 'disease' needing a 'treatment' or 'cure' from a mental state that is not a disease? Before we decide whether or not to call something a disease, we have to make an evaluation. Diseases are bad, so we have to prove badness in order to prove that something is a disease. Once we enter into a realm where we are making value judgments, then this brings into question the assumption that we cannot make moral judgments.

I have argued throughout this blog that we can make value judgments, even in a world where behavior is based on brain structure. I have suggested that 'good' can be equated to 'is such as to fulfill the desires in question,' where a desire is a mental state. A 'desire that P' is a piece of mental programming code written into the brain that says, "Seek to create or maintain a state of affairs in which P is true."

Bad Desires

Using this same formula, we can evaluate desires. Good desires are brain states that tend to fulfill other desires -- desires like kindness and charity. Bad desires are brain states that tend to thwart other desires -- desires to do harm (e.g., rape), or desires that cause people to act in ways that expose others to harm (e.g., drunk driving).

Desires that tend neither to fulfill or to thwart other desires -- desires that simply exist -- are neither good nor bad. They simply exist. However, the objects of those desires are good, in the sense that the objects of those desires are still 'such as to fulfill desires.'

If the principles of pure and unfettered capitalism were true, then greed would be good, because greed would lead to perpetually increasing economic efficiency -- a tide that would 'lift all boats' as the cliché goes. If, instead, the principles of capitalism are not true or cannot be effectively established -- allowing the rich to get richer by manipulating the government so as to help them turn workers into serfs -- then greed is not good.

The Difference between Evil and Illness

If we determine that a desire is bad, the next question to ask is: How do we modify it?

Here, I want to recognize two major options.

We have the ability to modify desires by using the tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. Particularly when we use these tools on children, we have the ability to promote kindness and inhibit cruelty. We have the ability to promote a preference for truth-sharing over lying, sharing over selfishness, and respect for others over hatred.

If a desire is bad -- if it tends to thwart other desires, and if it can be molded using the tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment, then those who would be harmed, or care about those who would be harmed, have reason to apply these tools to molding those desires. This is where the language of morality comes in. This is where it makes sense to talk about moral praise and condemnation, and to institute those systems of reward and punishment.

If a desire is bad, and it is immune to the effects of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment, then it makes sense to use the language of medicine. Here is where we start looking for treatment and cures. The inducement for society in general is the same -- to avoid the harms that these desires cause individuals to perform. The method is not one of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment (because,, ex hypothesi it does not work). The method is one of medication and therapy. If necessary, confinement may be required. However, it would be wrong in this case for confinement to be punitive. No more restraint is permitted than that which is necessary to provide for the safety of others.

Moral Relevance of Brain Science

The morally relevant questions are these:

Is it a desire that tends to thwart the desires of others? Do homosexuals tend to engage in behavior that is harmful to others? If not, then it is not a bad desire, and the rest of us have no legitimate reason to inhibit it.

If a desire is harmful, can it be modified or mitigated using the tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment? If it can, then we use those tools. We put the institution of morality to work inhibiting those bad desires, so as to avoid the harms that they case.

If it cannot, then we enter the realm of medicine and start talking about treatments, cures, and, if necessary, confinement -- not as a form of punishment, but as a way of protecting those who would be harmed from those who would do harm.

Homosexual Desire

In the case of homosexual desire, we can stop at the first question.

First, technically, there is no such thing as a 'homosexual desire.'

Desires are identified by the propositions that are the objects of that desire. In this case, we are talking about a desire to have sex with men, or a desire to have sex with women. The gender of the person who has the desire is irrelevant.

For example, assume that we are talking about a desire to eat a chocolate cake. In this case, the desire is identified by the proposition, "I am eating chocolate cake." This does not become a different desire by changing the height or the hair color of the person who has it. Nor does it become a different desire by changing the gender of the person who has it.

The same is true with the desire to have sex with a man or woman. The fundamental qualities of this desire are independent of the gender of the person who has it. So, if we are going to be evaluating any desires here, we are left with the task of evaluating the desire to have sex with men, or a desire to have sex with women.

If either of these desires turn out to be 'bad' desires, then they are equally bad for those who have red hair or blonde, for those who are tall or short, or those who are male or female. So, heterosexuals who wish to have sex with women are going to fit in the same moral category as homosexuals who wish to have sex with women. They both equally desire to have sex with women. They are both equally guilty if this desire proves to be bad, or equally blameless if this desire is not bad.

I do not think that I need to go into a long argument in defense of the proposition that the desire to have sex with woman is, at worst, morally neutral. A desire for certain types of sex (e.g., forced sex) will clearly come out as bad. Yet, this is a clear example of a desire that is equally bad for men as for women.

So, as I said, when it comes to the morality of homosexuality, we cannot get past the first question. Because it is not a bad desire, we do not need to ask whether and to what degree it is possible to bring the tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment to bear against this desire. Nor do we need to inquire into the possibilities of treatments or cures. These questions are irrelevant.

Summary

So, the news that homosexuality is related to brain structure is morally irrelevant. Of course it is related to brain structure. All types of behavior are related, in one way or another, to brain structure.

The relevant moral question is whether this desire tends to thwart other desires.

To answer this question, we have to specify the nature of the desire we are talking about. The things desired, not by the gender of the person who desires them identify desires. In this case, we are really talking about the desire to have sex with men, or the desire to have sex with women.

Since these desires are not bad, we have no reason to ask any further questions about whether the desire can be inhibited using the tools of morality (praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment), or if we should promote treatment.

On The Other Hand

If we apply this same analysis to the aversion to people engaging in homosexual acts, we get a different result. This clearly is an aversion that causes people to behave in ways that are harmful to others -- harmful of the interests of those who value homosexual relationships. We see them virtually obsessed with pursuing options that harm the interests of homosexuals.

So, here, we do make it past the first question and can ask the second. Is this aversion learned (can we inhibit it by using the moral tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment), or should we be looking for some type of medical treatment for those who have this aversion?

Observations suggest that this harmful aversion to others having homosexual relationships is learned. Consequently, this aversion can be categorized as an evil, rather than a sickness. Moral condemnation is quite appropriate against those who acquire this disposition.

Picking Battles: The Pledge Case

Vjack pointed out in a comment to Saturday's blog on “Militant Atheists” that some atheists consider the Pledge issue to be a poorly chosen battle. According to critics, this issue does nothing but generate a great deal of hatred for atheists for the sake of a relatively minor gain.

I disagree with this assessment. I hold that the Pledge case is one of the most important issues facing atheists today in the realm of civil rights.

It is NOT important, by the way, when held up against such wrongs as that of a President seeking to usurp the authority of the legislative and judicial branches of government. It is not important when compared to the genocide in Darfur, or a project to get malaria under control, or to take steps to deal with global warming.

In the realm of atheist civil rights, however, it looms quite large.

The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a promise to hate.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to hate tyranny -- which is fine. I hate tyranny, and I encourage all of my friends and readers to do the same. This hatred of tyranny is the foundation from which I criticize the Bush Administration. Its support for torture sometimes until death, kidnapping, secret prisons, gerrymandering, warrantless searches, usurping the power of the legislative and judicial branches of government . . . these are the hallmarks of tyranny.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to hate injustice, which I certainly endorse. The very essence of injustice is that it is what all good people should hate. It would help, in teaching children to hate injustice, if we would also include a few sentences on how to recognize it. Otherwise somebody might call right and good acts unjust, and be able to direct hate at the wrong targets.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise to hate rebellion. Francis Bellamy explicitly stated that he inserted the word 'indivisible' into the pledge to support Union over rebellion. In 1892, when he wrote the Pledge, the country was still surrounded by the living memory of the loss of 600,000 husbands, brothers, and fathers in the Civil War. They were surrounded by friends, family, and neighbors suffering the loss of limbs and other wounds. It is not surprising that Bellamy would score points with an oath that the current generation could use to tell the next, “Promise me that you will not take the country down that road again.”

When Congress added the words 'under God' to the Pledge in 1954, they wanted to teach hatred as well. They hated communism, and they wanted their children to learn the same hatred for communism that they had learned for tyranny, injustice, and rebellion. But they did not name communism as the enemy; they named atheism.

Now, children start each day by standing, facing the flag, putting their hands on their heart, and promising that they will think of atheism the same way that they think of tyranny, injustice, and rebellion. Thanks to these efforts, atheists are now the most hated group in America.

This is not a message of hate? The words ‘under God’ were simply added to the list of anti-American concepts. It is nonsense to suggest that of these four items, listed in the same context, have different meanings. If you have trouble seeing how this message could be a message of hate, I invite you to consider “A Perspective on the Pledge.”

Atheists can refuse to say the Pledge if they wish. This is supposed to make everything okay.

However, this only reinforces the message. There sits the atheist -- refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. There sits the atheist – refusing to join the American cause of fighting rebellion, tyranny, and injustice. Of course Atheists cannot be considered true Americans. After all, true Americans are all ‘under God’, and Atheists are not. Thus, it is clear, even to a child, that no atheist can be a true American.

This was actually the argument that sat at the heart of Michael Newdow's court case. What he told the courts is simply this: The school system should not be made a tool whereby others encourage my daughter, every day, to hate her father’s beliefs. They have no right to be telling my daughter that her father is not a good American.

Those who criticized Newdow’s lawsuit made a great deal out of the fact that the girl liked to say the pledge -- she wanted to say it. To them, the fact that the State was successful in teaching a girl to hate her father’s beliefs proved that they were right to do so.

The Pledge of Allegiance will hit the news again later this year. Newdow is chaperoning another case, which is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – the same court that granted him his victory last time around.

If you are concerned with the image of atheists in this country, I have a proposal.

I would like to propose that you decide where you want to make your voice heard when the next piece of news hits the internet. I would also like to propose that you go there and point out to those who are discussing the pledge and condemning 'militant atheists' what the real issue is.

We can speak in terms of separation of church and state and the wishes of the founding fathers. Yet, the real issue is why we should care about the separation of church and state and the wishes of the founding fathers.

I would like to ask you to remind them that the Pledge of Allegiance is a promise to hate. It is a promise to hate tyranny. It is a promise to hate injustice. It is a promise to hate rebellion. And, in 1954, it also became a promise to hate atheists.

See if you can get them to understand why a national campaign, where teachers urge their students every day to promise to hate atheism at the same time it teaches them to hate rebellion, tyranny, and injustice, is unfair and unjust.

The moral high ground goes to those who reject this policy, not to those who defend it.

Why Don't Atheists Build Hospitals?

Yesterday, I wrote about how ‘militant atheists’ are made a scapegoat for bigotry against atheists – a claim that, it seems, even many atheists and agnostics fall for.

Another argument that I often hear along these same lines can be expressed by the question, “Why don’t atheists build hospitals?”

When somebody asks this, the first question that I have for them is, “What makes you think they don’t?”

They may answer that they have never heard of an atheist medical center – that every medical center they know of has been funded by a church organization.

Actually, most hospitals are funded by insurance companies. However, it is true that religious organizations have built a number of hospitals and charity organizations. Atheists do not have many of either.

There are some atheists who think that we need to remedy this impression by creating atheist charitable organizations. Once people see that atheists can be as charitable as others, then perhaps they will learn to like us more and will not speak of us so harshly.

I don’t think this plan will work. Part of my argument is the same argument that I used yesterday against the claim that ‘militant atheists’ are responsible for the poor opinion of atheists generally. It makes no sense to say that Africans could have avoided slavery, or that black slaves in America could have earned their freedom, by establishing charities and proving their kindness. We cannot blame the Holocaust on the lack of Jewish charities in Europe in the 1930s. It is stupid to try.

People who hate will always be able to find a rationalization for that hate. No amount of kindness or charity will change that fact.

Why are there so few Atheist charities?

First, there are atheist charities. Those who claim otherwise are, once again, lying for the sake of promoting unjustified hatred.

Second, the bulk of atheist charitable contributions simply do not need to go to an atheist organization. Please note that there are also few Atheist churches. There are not many Atheist hymns or prayer books. In short, there is no Church of Atheism (though there are some churches that are friendly to atheist beliefs). There is no organization for collecting money and building hospitals or distributing charity.

Please note that there are no String Theory churches either. String theorists do not write hymns or prayer books. In short, there is no Church of String Theory to collect money for building hospitals or distributing charity. Similarly, I have never heard of a “American Stamp Collector’s Urgent Care Center” or a “Blue Car Drivers’ Children’s Fund.”

These are not the types of organizations that collect for this purpose. When people give to charity, they simply have no reason to do so in the name of string theory, stamp collecting, or blue-car driving, or atheism. They typically look for the best group for doing the work that needs going.

Atheism is more like these other views than it is like a church. It simply represents the belief that the proposition “God Exists” is false. (I know that there are some who claim that atheism is the lack of a belief in God. I have expressed my reasons for rejecting that view elsewhere. It is not the definition that I use in these posts.)

There is no more reason to donate to charity in the name of “’God exists’ is false” than there is to do so in the name of ‘having a blue car.”

When atheists give to charity, they typically have something else in mind. They certainly are not thinking of the rewards of heaven and hell. I suspect that they are focused on the fact that there are people whose suffering could be lessened or whose life could be spared. There is no need to think of anything else.

The absence of string-theorist hospitals or charities does not support the conclusion that string theorists are not charitable. The same is true of stamp collectors and blue car drivers. Anybody who claimed that string theorists are particularly wicked because of this absence of string-theorist hospitals and charities will be jumping to an entirely unwarranted conclusion.

Condemning atheists for the lack of atheist hospitals and charities is not less irrational.

Why do people jump to irrational conclusions? It is typically because they have some sort of emotional attachment to that conclusion and are willing to grasp any straw they can to give that conclusion an illusion of support. This is a process called ‘rationalization’ – inventing a reason to embrace a conclusion one wants to embrace.

In this case, people are inventing a reason to embrace the conclusion that they may condemn and denigrate atheists.

The name for the type of person who embraces a doctrine of hate against others is ‘bigot’. This is how one proves bigotry – by proving that a person has an attitude of hate towards others that he ‘rationalizes’ with arguments that make no sense. This type of evidence proves that he wants that hatred enough to find excuses for it.

How much do atheists give to charity?

Well, we do need to define charity. For example, atheists will tend to think that giving a group of starving people a bible and building them a church does not really count as charity. Instead, atheists will tend to view a tractor and some seed would be more useful. One good way to give the appearance that atheists are selfish is to include contributions to churches, which, admittedly, atheists do not do.

Atheists would also want to exclude contributions to hate groups -- such as anti-gay and anti-atheist -- as being more anti-charity than charity.

Ultimately, I do not know the answer to this question. Anybody who claims to know is making an assertion that has no foundation. This, then, leads us to ask why they would make such an unfounded assertion? Is it, perhaps, because they value hate more than they value truth?

Militant Atheists

I have been spending some time browsing through some discussions on the claim that atheists are the most hated group in the nation. I find that many of the postings discuss the damage that ‘militant atheists’ are doing to the image of the population of atheists in general.

What I find particularly interesting in these discussions is the number of people who called themselves atheists or agnostics who shared this impression. They wrote to say that these ‘militant atheists’ should restrain themselves because they are the ones who are ruining the image of atheists in this country.

When fundamentalist Muslims detonate bombs all around the world and fly airplanes into (civilian) sky scrapers, and call for the execution of people whose only wrong is drawing a cartoon, people rush to assert that it would be wrong to allow these radicals to tarnish the image of all Muslims.

When the Catholic Church is found to be covering up the activities of pedophile priests we are told not to allow this to justify the condemnation of all Catholics.

However, when ‘militant atheists’ perform the heinous crime of filing lawsuits in federal court that the Constitution be obeyed, people not only allow, but encourage, their fellow citizens to take this as a sign that all atheists are evil and deserve condemnation.

This should tell us something. If blowing up civilians is not enough to tarnish the images of Muslims in this country, and covering the crime of child abuse by priests does not put Catholics near the bottom of the list, then ‘militant atheists’ are doing nothing to harm the image of atheists in general. These people are being used as scape goats -- as an excuse to support hostility that was sitting there before their names ever hit the newspapers. They are its target, not its cause.

The Militant Atheist

What is a "militant atheist?" I suspect that the term is used to conjure up the image of a person who is so repulsed by religion that he wants to drive it into the closet. He wants to create a situation where nobody is permitted to express a religious opinion where an atheist might actually happen to see or hear it – because atheists are too offended by the site to tolerate it.

This is a boogey man created to frighten children and others into giving money and political power to those few people who have best exploited this image.

I am not saying that there are no atheists that fit this description. Atheists are a diverse group and there are certain to be some atheists with views that deserve contempt. I am saying that they are rare and that have no power. More importantly, one of the reasons that they have no power is that moderate atheists do not tolerate them. These are atheists who are so familiar with the bitter taste of religious oppression that they are as opposed to serving it to others as they are to having others continue to serve this drink to them.

These are atheists who would protest 'We Trust In No God' as loudly as they would protest 'In God We Trust'; who would object to 'One Godless Nation' as loudly as they object to 'One Nation Under God'; who think that it is as inappropriate to post atheist symbols in the public square as it is to post any religious symbol.

And, yes, there is a recognized symbol for atheism.

The proper word to describe the Christian who condemns atheists for seeking the removal of religious symbols from the public square, but who would scream in protest if the public square were filled with this symbol, is 'hypocrite'

Those who speak against ‘militant atheists’ will sometimes attach this name to the likes of Michael Newdow, the ACLU, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Yet, as the examples above show, none of these individuals or groups would meet the definition of a ‘militant atheists’. They are not trying to ‘drive religion from the public square.’ They are trying to prevent people from turning the public square into a public church – from making church attendance a mandatory part of participation in civic events by having both at the same time.

Expressing Bigotry

What has happened with those who blame the ‘militant atheists’ is that they have bought into a doctrine of bigotry – a practice of “blaming the victim” for his own abuse.

Consider what we would say of a person who dared to suggest that blacks were enslaved because they refused to treat their European visitors with sufficient kindness and subordination. I can well imagine a tribal advisor telling the leader, “If we only greeted the Europeans with more open arms -- if we were friendlier towards them and lavished them with gifts -- then they would not have come here to enslave us. It is not the Europeans' fault that are brothers have been hauled away in slavery. It is our own fault."

This type of thinking -- blaming the blacks for their own enslavement -- is pathetic and insulting.

It would be just as insulting to say that the Jim Crow laws and the violence that white society used to enforce those laws in the 1950s were the result of the ‘uppity’ nature of the blacks who challenged those laws. There were those who said that if only blacks learned to accept their place than this hostility towards blacks would not exist. Yet, the very idea that blacks had a place betrayed the fact that a hostility and bigotry was already present well before any black decided to protest against it.

Finally, what would we say of the Jew who had said, "It is our fault that Hitler and the Nazis became powerful. If we had only been more generous with our money and condemned those amongst us that the Nazis said were responsible for the plight of the average Ayrian, we might have avoided this Holocaust. The Holocaust was not the fault of the Nazis; we brought it among ourselves. We are to blame.”

These arguments are not only unreasonable, they are morally depraved in their own right. They exonerate evil and shift the blame onto its victims.

Victims Blaming Themselves

It is not all that difficult – it is not even all that uncommon – to get victims to blame themselves for the abuse they are made to suffer.

Those who deal with abused spouses and children are familiar with abusers who claim, “I love you, but you make me so mad sometimes. Why do you make me so angry? If you will just do what I tell you then none of this will happen.”

Some spouses and children believe these claims. They blame themselves, and find themselves in an abusive situation they cannot think of escaping. With every abuse, they remind themselves that, "I must truly be a bad person to have brought something like this on."

It is a horrible mental trap to get into. However, I can see no better account of atheists and agnostics who blame the ‘militant atheists’ for the fact that atheists are the most hated group in America.

The blame rests on the shoulders, not on those who are the victims of hate, but those who market in hate – those who seek greater power for themselves by doing harm to others.

A Challenge

If anybody wants evidence that it is not the 'militant atheist' who is responsible for this hatred, I offer this test.

Suggest, for example, that we modify the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead of saying 'under God', we remove these words and allow each person to freely add,whenever they say the Pledge, the words, 'So help me God' or whatever phrase they want. This compromise would sidestep the objection that we are trying to remove mention of God from the public square. What we are removing is a phrase that equates those who are not ‘under God’ to those who would support rebellion, tyranny, and injustice.

I suspect that those who condemn ‘militant atheists’ and blame them for the plight of all atheists would reject this proposal. This is because their hatred has nothing to do with 'militant atheists' trying to remove God from the public square. It has everything to do with religious bigots wanting to insist that our national rituals continue to express the sentiment that those who do not share their religious beliefs are to be considered inferior.

The 'militant atheists' line is just a convenient excuse. The concept of the 'militant atheist' plays the same role in the denigration of atheists as the concept of the 'uppity nigger' played in the defense of racism.

Civil Disobedience

Some recent discussion has focused on the issue of civil disobedience and the requirements for such an act.

In principle (and in practice) I am an admirer of those who engage in civil disobedience.

One of the most inspiring actions committed in the 20th Century was Mahatma Ghandi's 'Salt March' in 1930. The British government had passed a law making it illegal for citizens to make their own salt. They were required to purchase their salt from the British. This was an expense that few people in India could well afford. The poor people of India -- those who lived near the ocean -- could easily manufacture their own salt, if it was not against the law.

Ghandi started his protest by sending a letter to (person) stating his objections to the salt tax and demanding that it be repealed. He also told the British government that if they did not repeal the tax, then he walk to the ocean himself to manufacture salt. He told the authorities when he was going to do this, and why. The British kept their tax on salt, so on March 12th, 1930, Ghandi started his walk to the beech to manufacture salt in violation of the law.

He had to walk for more than 230 miles to get to the ocean. This took three weeks. However, that was a part of his plan. The three weeks allowed news of his protest to spread. He gave speeches in each town he walked through, and picked up additional supporters along the way. By the time he reached the shore, he had picked up a crowd of thousands. Then, he began the process of manufacturing his own salt. He told his followers to do the same.

Within a month, the British government had arrested over 60,000 people. They came in the middle of the night to arrest Ghandi. The Salt March began a general strike and boycott of all things British that imposed a high burden on the British government. Yet, they did all of this in the spirit of nonviolence.

This story illustrates the moral requirement for civil disobedience.

First, it must be civil. Blowing oneself up in a crowded theater or assassinating a political leader are not examples of civil disobedience. They are examples of criminal violence.

Second, an act of civil disobedience must be public. Somebody who cheats on his taxes or lies to get a government grant cannot claim 'civil disobedience' in defense of his actions.

Third, the person who performs the act of civil disobedience must be willing and eager to pay a cost for his actions -- including arrest and imprisonment. This is a part of his message. "I am willing to risk life, limb, and liberty in defense of this principle." In this, he shares an important trait with the soldier, who is also willing to risk life, limb, and liberty in defense of a principle.

The reason for the nonviolence is that the person who engages in civil disobedience wants to make it clear that he is not a threat to others. He wants to highlight the fact that he is defending principles that are compatible with peace. Others have nothing to be afraid of. Indeed, they have more to fear from those who oppose the person who engages in civil disobedience than the person who engages in such an act.

These are not what you would call rules, exactly. They are more like guidelines. Specific situations may dictate some reason for variation -- except there can be no variation in the principle of not doing physical harm to others.

For example, two of the most popular responses to having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance strike me as being counter-productive.

One response, of course, is to sit it out. Yet, this delivers exactly the message that theocratic sectarians want to give -- that those who are not "under God" are also unwilling to express any type of loyalty to America as a country. In short, it says that Atheists and others with similar beliefs are un-American.

The other response, to stand and mouth the words in silence or skip over them, still gives an appearance of loyalty to the idea of one nation under God. The average person, during the Pledge, is not paying attention to the other participants. Indeed, he or she is supposed to be looking at the flag. Consequently, few if any recognize the silent protest of the person who leaves "under God" out of the pledge. To the average observer (not paying that much attention, all who stand are showing they support and endorse the doctrine of "one nation, under God."

Both of these responses have the sectarian theocrat tickled absolutely pink.

A civil disobedient act that would avoid this objection would be to sit and wait until others have said the Pledge. Then, after they have finished, stand and loudly give a pledge that does not include the words "under God." This type of act would violate the rules of the meeting. However, it does communicate the message that one is willing to pledge allegiance to the United States. At the same time, it clearly states that the agent is not in any way endorsing the theocratic pledge that the Pledge has become.

Anybody who does interfere with this option can be accused quite loudly of interfering with somebody attempting to pledge allegiance.

Yes, it takes a bit of courage to do something like this. Yet, that is a part of civil disobedience. Rest assured, it takes less courage than driving a supply truck down the streets of Baghdad, storming Normandy Beech, or standing ground on Breed's Hill. People have faced much worse in the defense of principles worth defending.