I Was Wrong: There Are 8 Planets

Last week, I posted an article titled, "There Are 12 Planets," I was almost certain that the International Astronomical Union would accept a proposed definition of ‘planet’ that would give the solar system twelve planets. The proposal came from a committee that had studied the issue for two years. I figured that whatever they came up with, the IAU would accept.

I was wrong. A group of rebel astronomers got together and drew up an alternative proposal – one that would leave us with only eight planets. They submitted this proposal in competition to the 12-planet proposal. The rebel definition said that a planet must have Nearly) cleaned out its section of space – something that could not be said to be true of Ceres, Pluto-Charon, or the new discovery 2003UB313.

Consequently, this definition gave us eight planets.

The debate over which definition to adopt was highly political. One of the arguments in favor of the definition that allowed Pluto to be a planet was an attempt to yield to the political pressure of a pro-Pluto faction. The idea that Pluto might be removed from the list of planets brought protests from grade-school children that included an extensive letter-writing campaign to “save Pluto”. Committee members weighed the possibility that demoting Pluto would mean that astronomy itself would become less popular among school children who would be made to suffer the pangs of disappointment.

These are not the types of reasons that scientists usually weigh when they consider competing options. This was not a question that astronomers could answer by designing some sort of experiment and testing its results. The definition of 'planet' was going to be whatever the IAU said it was. The IAU could not make a mistake. When the votes were counted, whatever definition passed the approval process would become the new definition of a planet – unless and until the IAU changed its mind.

When people see these features in ethics, they say that this proves that morality is subjective and that there are no “right answers” at all in the realm of morality. Everything in morality is merely a matter of opinion.

Yet, these same traits, when they are found in astronomy, do not support that same conclusion.

This, by the way, is a reductio ad absurdum to the argument that these features prove the subjectivity of morality. If they fail to prove the subjectivity of astronomy, then how can they prove that morality is subjective?

Why I Bring This Up Again

I think that this issue is extremely important. I think that one of the reasons that theists are successful at painting atheists as morally backwards is because, in this area, atheists tend to adopt moral positions that make as little sense as those that theists adopt.

I am not going to repeat the same arguments from last week. I want to add another argument to them.

Critics of Atheism

Critics of atheism say that atheism requires a totally subjective morality – one in which the Holocaust can be made 'right' by the mere fact that a group of people get together and define 'right' in a way that includes the Holocaust.

A substantial number of atheists listen to this objection and answer, “Yeah. So? What’s wrong with that? Morality is subjective. We can make the Holocaust 'right' simply by adopting a definition of 'right' that includes the Holocaust. At the same time, we can make the Holocaust wrong by adopting a definition of ‘wrong’ that includes the Holocaust. Most of us prefer to define the term ‘wrong’ in ways that include the Holocaust, just like you do. So, it is a mistake to say that we approve of the Holocaust. We do not. We have defined it as being wrong. But, we did so in a way consistent with the idea that morality is subjective."

Against this, the "moral objectivist" argues that there has to be something more to calling the Holocaust wrong than merely defining 'wrong' to include holocausts. There has to be something really wrong with it.

The Pluto Express

Now, let’s go to Pluto.

Imagine this argument:

Astronomy is subjective. We can make Pluto a planet simply by adopting a definition of 'planet' that includes Pluto. At the same time, we can make it the case that Pluto is not a planet by adopting a definition of ‘planet’ that excludes Pluto. Whether Pluto is a planet or not does not depend on any ‘objective’ fact. It depends entirely on our subjective opinion. Therefore, astronomy is subjective.”

There is clearly something wrong with this argument. Even though everything that I say about Pluto being a planet being dependent on a rather arbitrary definition of ‘planet,’ the question of whether Astronomy is subjective or objective is independent of these considerations.

Blending Objectivity and Subjectivity

Both the moral subjectivists and their critics are making the same mistake. I can demonstrate this mistake by showing what it would be like if astronomers made the same mistake.

Assume that astronomers were in disagreement over the meaning of the word ‘planet’. However, at the same time, astronomers assumed (subconsciously, without thinking) that a ‘planet’ was any large body with a 24-hour day. They can choose whatever definition they want for ‘planet.’ In their debates, whatever definition they come up with, that is the definition that ‘planet’ will have. Yet, at the same time, they will also assert that anything that ends up being called a ‘planet’ under any definition must also have a 24-hour day.

This 24-hour-day requirement just sits there in the background. Nobody ever talks about it. Nobody ever acknowledges it. Yet, whenever you hear astronomers talk, this assumption sits in the background. While they debate whether to adopt an 8-planet definition or a 12-planet definition, it is simply assumed, quietly and without discussion, that everything that becomes a planet will have a 24-hour day.

Now, the whole issue of defining a ‘planet’ will encounter all sorts of problems. Whatever definition they come up with, somebody is going to point out that the definition includes something without a 24-hour day. Somebody is going to point out that you can’t simply cause something to have a 24-hour day just by calling it a planet. Yet, the astro-subjectivists will still be correct in asserting that whether something is a planet depends entirely on what definition of ‘planet’ we adopt, and that decision is fully subjective.

Astronomy, under this set of assumptions, becomes a mess. It becomes exactly the same type of mess we discover in discussions of morality.

Here is what those who debate ethics are doing. They are correctly asserting that whether something such as the Holocaust is bad (whether Pluto is a planet) depends on our definition of bad (planet). We are free to adopt one definition where the Holocaust is bad (Pluto is a planet), but we are just as free to adopt another definition where the Holocaust is not bad (Pluto is not a planet).

Hidden in the background at a level that everybody assumes and nobody really talks about there is this requirement that whatever ends up being called ‘wrong’ must be something that there is reason for us not to do (whatever ends up being called ‘planet’ is something that has a 24-hour day).

Now, the whole issue of defining ‘wrong’ (‘planet’) encounters all sorts of problems. Whatever definition we come up with, somebody is going to point out that the definition will call some things ‘wrong’ (a ‘planet’) that we do not have any reason not to do (that does not have a 24-hour day). Somebody is going to point out that you can’t simply cause something to be a thing we have reason not to do (to be a thing with a 24-hour day) just by calling it ‘wrong’ (just by calling it ‘a planet’). Yet, the moral subjectivists (astro-subjectivists) will still be correct in asserting that whether something ‘wrong’ (is a planet) depends entirely on what definition of ‘wrong’ (‘planet’) we adopt, and that decision is fully subjective.

The way that astronomers avoid these complications, and the way that those who discuss ethics should be avoiding these problems, is that astronomers do not allow any riders in their definitions. For example, they simply do not allow any riders that would require ‘planets’ to have 24-hour days unless this is a part of their definition of ‘planet’ The definition they choose for ‘planet’ is subjective. However, the only thing that necessarily follows from the definition they choose is that which actually, literally, follows from their selected definition – and nothing more.

Answering the Subjective/Objective Debate

What those who discuss morality should be doing is, if they are going to subjectively choose definitions for ‘wrong’, they should not allow any riders. Nothing follows from a particular act being called ‘wrong’ that does not literally follow from whatever definition they choose. In particular, it does not follow that what is ‘wrong’ is something that there is a reason not to do unless this is a part of our definition of ‘wrong’ – that it is ‘those things that we have reason not to do.’

If the moralist accepts this condition – if the moralist actually limits the definition of ‘wrong’ to those things that there is reason not to do, then moralists cannot, at the same time, assert that the definition of ‘wrong’ can be whatever they want. The definition of ‘wrong’ cannot be anything that is incompatible with ‘that which there is reason not to do.’

The moralist has to pick one of these two options. He either has to limit ‘wrong’ to ‘things that there is reason not to do’ and deny that there is any freedom to arbitrarily select or change definitions. Or he can assert a freedom to arbitrarily select or change definitions, but allow that what is ‘wrong’ might be totally irrelevant to questions of what we have reason not to do.

Which ever option he picks, morality comes a little closer to astronomy – a perfectly objective field of study, using perfectly subjective definitions. And you can go from nine planets to twelve planets and end up with eight planets within the course of a week, using fully subjective decision procedures, without even slightly questioning the objectivity of the field of study that is having this debate.

Strong Arguments and Offensive Conclusions

In an anonymous comment to yesterday’s post on "Dim-Witted, Hypocritical, Hate-Mongering Bigots," a reader wrote, “I reserve the right to criticize religion.”

Actually, nothing that I wrote implies that there is no right to criticize religion. What I wrote was a criticism of using unsound arguments in any form of criticism, and that the argument, “Some members of a group have done evil; therefore, all members of that group are evil.” It is an argument that can be used to say, “Some Darwinists have done evil; therefore evolutionary theory itself is evil,” or “Some Christians have done evil, so Christianity itself is evil.”

If you have a deductively sound argument with demonstrably true premises, or an inductively strong argument with well supported premises, then (except in very rare and circumstances) you have a right to present that argument. The fact that somebody else does not like the conclusion of a sound argument is (or should be taken to be) the problem of those who do not like the conclusion, not of those who have a sound argument to present. The problem rests with those who want to bury the truth, not with those who seek to present and defend it.

In this blog, I have delivered my own attacks on religion. In the posting, "Fact-Based vs. Fiction-Based Policies." I expressed the importance of knowing the difference between fact and fiction – of drawing conclusions based on evidence. I wrote of how fiction-based policies are more likely to get people killed, maimed, or otherwise harmed.

In another post titled "Talk to the Kids" h I wrote about the importance of tutoring children in how to tell truth from fiction in order to prevent themselves from becoming a threat to themselves and others.

In neither case did I use the invalid inference, “Some Christians have done evil; therefore, all Christians are evil.” It’s a bad argument, and I promise never to use it for that reason.

The Structure of Reasoned Criticism

In yesterday’s posting, I attempted to follow what I consider to be the morally appropriate model for legitimate criticism. Each time, my criticism of those responsible for producing and distributing the video “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” took two steps in deliberate order.

Step 1: Demonstrate that the argument is flawed.

Step 2: Explain the moral flaw in the character of a person inclined to make the mistake identified in Step 1.

Example 1: The inference from "Some Darwinists derive unfounded moral principles" to "All Darwinists are evil" is an invalid inference. It is just as invalid as the inference, "Some Christians have used the Bible to defend slavery; therefore, all Christians are evil." Yet, there are Christians who condemn slavery. It is hardly just to condemn all Christians as defenders of slavery when there are clearly some Christians who condemn slavery. Accordingly, it is just as unjust to condemn all those who believe in evolution as responsible for the Holocaust and eugenics because some used Darwin’s theory to defend the Holocaust and eugenics.

After I demonstrated that the inference being used is invalid, then I went on to ask the question, “What is the moral character of the person inclined to make this type of mistake?” I suggested that the type of person likely to use these flawed types of arguments are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots.

Example 2: I criticized any who would actually try to draw conclusions in defense of the Holocaust or eugenics from Darwin's theory of evolution. Any attempt at this line of reasoning makes an invalid logical leap from ‘is’ premises to ‘ought’ conclusions. Again, once we have identified that the form of reasoning is flawed, we can conclude that those who did not see this flaw were those who did not want to see it. Those who did not want to see the flaw would be those who found value in the conclusions they were trying to defend. In other words, those who did not want to see the flaw are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots looking for any excuse they can find to give their hate an air of legitimacy.

In both of these examples, the demonstration of a logical error came before the moral accusation against those who are guilty of that error. In neither case did I argue from a premise that stated that, "Before we even look at the quality of the arguments being used, we must begin with the principle that it is wrong to derive these types of conclusions.”

In other words, having a sound deductive argument or a strong inductive argument – an argument immune to criticism – would have been sufficient to defend against the type of criticism I used in my post. If you have a sound criticism to make against religion, my objections do not work. They only work against those who use invalid arguments or unfounded premises.

Sound Reasoning and Offensive Conclusions

This discussion leads to another principle that I have been wanting to discuss for quite a while now. It is the principle that offense is not a legitimate rebuttal to a logically strong argument.

In short, if a (likely) truth is offensive, then the fault lies with those who are offended by and who refuse to accept the truth. It does not rest with those who wish to present or defend that truth.

Here is an example of the type of argument that I have in mind in expressing this principle:

(1) The physical bodies of men and women are structurally different in part because of genetic differences – because men have Y chromosomes where women have X chromosomes.

(2) These physical differences result in differences in physical aptitude. Recognizing that the concepts of “male” and “female” each represent a range of aptitudes, and that those ranges overlap, it is still the case that there are gender-related differences in the range of physical aptitudes that can be linked to genetic factors.

(3) The brain in a physical entity. When we are talking about structural differences in male and female bodies due to genetic differences, we must include in this differences in the physical structure of male and female brains. At the very least, we must account for the fact that women are disposed to desire sex with men and men are disposed to desire sex with women.

(4) Just as differences in the physical bodies of men and women imply different ranges of physical aptitudes, it is reasonable to expect that differences in the physical brains of men and woman will imply different ranges in mental aptitudes.

I suspect that there are people who would react rather violently to item (4) on this list. They wish to assert that no morally concerned individual would ever even bring up this item – that moral people will bury it and never refuse to consider it as true.

They do have a legitimate reason for concern. There are people (dim-witted bigots) who will take (4) and draw bigoted conclusions from it. They may conclude, for example, that a woman’s place is in the home and women are not fit to run a business or a government. The idea of different aptitudes will cause some to make unjustified assertions as to one gender being ‘better’ than the other.

I am not making any assertions as to what these differences are. I have not even said that their are any. I have simply said that the fact that genetic differences affect the physical structure of the body, including the brain, that it is not unreasonable to find differences. I would leave that up to scientists to reveal what those differences are, if they exist.

However, for others, avoiding the situation of people in power - or whole cultural segments - drawing unjustified and bigoted conclusions from such premises, we are supposed to suppress the premises. We are told that the moral person would even consider possibly being true, regardless of any argument that can be brought to its defense.

However, please note that this is the same form of argument that those involved in the production “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” are using in their film. They wish to argue that Darwinism, even if true, is something that Hitler-like people will think (incorrectly, as it turns out) that they can use to defend the holocaust. In order to prevent people from making these invalid inferences, they argue that we must bury the premises (even if they are true) that would be used in these attempts.

This policy is actually a policy that says that we, as a society, are not going to take a stand against the bigot’s disposition to draw invalid (bigoted) conclusions from true premises. Instead, we are going to accept their practice without question and without contest. Instead, we are going to bury propositions that they might misuse and not even consider whether they are true or false.

This means that we are going to tolerate the bigot’s form of reasoning from true premises to unjustified hate, and condemn any truth that they might find useful.

I suggest, instead, that we promote a love of truth, and a hatred for the bigot's disposition to argue from true premises to unjustified hate.

My proposal is this:

Offense is not a legitimate objection to a strong argument. The person who is offended by truth is the one with a problem, not the person who can defend his conclusions through strong argument.

However, the use of a weak argument gives us an opportunity to ask, "Why, of all of the mistakes that this person could have made, did they make this mistake?" If it is a mistake that a dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigot would make, this gives us reason to ask if the perpetrator is a dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigot. We do have right to be offended at the mistakes that people make, when they are mistakes that reveal an affection for hate. However, there must first be a mistake.

Dim-Witted, Hypocritical, Hate-Mongering Bigots

God is for Suckers carried a posting today on a video called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” this weekend that draws the conclusion that Darwin personally and evolutionary theory in general were responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust.

The article has caused me to wonder whether a video should be produced drawing a link between Christianity and the dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots that would produce and distribute a video such as this, and those who may find it convincing.

I do not advocate name-calling. However, it is not name-calling for a prosecuting attorney to stand up and say to the court, "I intend to prove that the accused is a murderer." A morally-charged proposition can, in fact, be made the conclusion of a logical argument – it can be proved – in the same way that one may be proved to be a murderer or a rapist.

That is my intention in this post.

Opening Statement

Ladies and gentilemen of the jury, in order to prove that those who produced, distribute, and stand to be convinced by the arguments that will be presented in this video are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots, I wish to start with a reductio ad absurdum of the validity of the argument that lies at the core of the inference that the accused seeks to draw between Darwin and Hitler. This reduction will show that not only is the inference invalid, but that it would have been seen as such by morally responsible people. From this we can infer that those who failed to see the obvious inference are not morally responsible. More importantly, we can ask, "What sort of person would overlook or ignore such an obvious point?" The answer will be those most likely to commit this error are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots. Thus, my accusation would have been proved.

Step 1: The Reductio

A reductio ad absurdum argument begins with premises that the individual one is arguing against cannot easily accept, and draws from them an absurd conclusion, using an argument that has exactly the same form as the argument being criticized.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Clearly, the words in the Bible, and even the words of Jesus Christ, have been used by people from time to time to commit great evil. Christian Europe endorsed and expanded the institution of chattel slavery http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm , culminating in the slave trade in the 1800s that lead to America’s Civil War. the institutions and For example, it was a substantially Christian culture laid the foundation for the institution practice of chattel slavery. Darwin's theory of evolution had not been invented yet and cannot be blamed for this institution. In fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is co-incidental with the abolition of chattel slavery, not with its creation.

The defense of chattel slavery largely came from biblical sources. The Bible did not condemn slavery. In fact, it contained many passages concerning the proper treatment of slaves -- none of them being a commandment to end the practice of slavery. Many Biblical stories has God commanding one group of people or another to take slaves. To cap it all off, there is the oft-quoted passage, particularly relevant to the defense of chattel slavery, whereby God decided to punish Ham by giving him dark skin and declaring that he and all of his descendents are to serve as slaves to whites.

Considering these facts, we can ask whether those who produced, distribute, and stand to be convinced by this video would be convinced by the argument that, because of this history, Christianity itself is responsible for slavery. We can ask if they would accept the conclusion that Christians today share in the guilt of chattel slavery and that Christianity itself (and all those who would call themselves Christian) is to be condemned on the streets, in the schools, and in the public square.

It clearly does not follow from the fact that, in the past, some Christians have found a defense of slavery in the Bible that all Christians are to be condemned. It is particularly absurd to blame those Christians who found reason to condemn slavery that they, too, are to be blamed for its defense.

More importantly, those same Christians who produced, distributed, and stand to be convinced by this video would be among the first to condemn any who tried to saddle all Christians with the guilt of slavery, simply because some Christians used the bible to defend slavery.

This argument reduces to absurdity the argument that because some evil people couch their evil in terms of a particular belief, that the belief itself (and all of those who hold to that belief) are to be condemned. The argument is as absurd when the belief in question is Darwinism as it is when the belief in question is Christianity. In neither case does this argument make it legitimate to condemn those who hold that belief on the streets, in the schools, and in the public square.

Of course, there are atheists who have used the inference I spoke of above to condemn all Christians. They have argued, "Because some people have used religion as a basis for doing evil, all religion must be condemned." Because this argument commits the same fallacy, my argument here justifies saying that those atheists are also dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots.

Step 2: The Obviousness

The readiness with which we can expect the bulk of those who produce, distribute, and stand to be convinced by the video Darwin’s Deadly Legacy to leap to denying the implication from the biblical defense of slavery to the condemnation of Christianity and all Christians suggests that the point that I am making is not some obscure and deeply buried argument. It is on the surface of the consciousness of all of those who can call it up on a moment’s notice to defend Christianity. They intimately understand and accept the idea that a good and decent person will not infer the hatred of all of those who adopt a particular belief from the fact that some who adopt that belief do great evil.

Step 3: Moral Character

The last step then is to ask, "What type of people are these who find it so easy to ignore such basic principles of common sense and fundamental justice?”

In all cases, a person's intentional actions aim to fulfill the more and the stronger of their desires, given their beliefs. Every intentional action gives us evidence that we can use to deduce an individual's beliefs, along with his more and stronger desires.

In fact, this is how proof of intent works in a court of law. The prosecution provides evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that only a particular intent best explains and predicts the behavior of the accused.

I have shown that the bulk of those who produced, distribute, and stand to be convinced by this argument accept the common-sense principle that all of the holders of a belief cannot be condemned because some of them have used it to defend evil institutions. They cannot claim to be unfamiliar with this principle because, if they were, they would not use it so easily in their own defense.

I have also shown that the bulk of those who produced, distribute, and stand to be convinced by this video accept the common-sense principle of justice that it is wrong to condemn a person for acts that he personally never participated in or endorsed. So, we cannot blame the fact that those who produced, distribute, and stand to be convinced by this video that they lack the ability to understand the wrongness of their actions.

The most obvious intent of Darwin’s Deadly Legacy is to impugn the character of any person who believes in evolution.

Technically, we can deduce that an agent has a desire that ‘P’ if the best way to explain and predict his behavior is by saying that his choices attempt to make or keep the proposition ‘P’ true. For those who produced, distribute, and are inclined to be convinced by the video Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, the best way to explain and predict their behavior is that they seek to create a situation in which there is general and widespread hatred of those who believe in evolution. One may want to suggest that their interest is in preventing another holocaust, but we must recall that we need a theory that explains their acceptance of failed logic for thinking that evolutionists are responsible for the holocaust. Why did they make this mistaken inference? The best explanation for the mistake is that they wish to see evolutionists as objects of hatred.

In other words, those who produced, distribute, and are inclined to be convinced by this video are those who like the idea that evolutionists are “like Hitler” so much that they are willing to grasp and hold on to any excuse that suggests that they can see evolutionists as “like Hitler.” They are attempting to get people to reject evolution, not because the evidence suggests that evolution is a poor theory, but because the reader must either reject evolution or risk being accused of being "like Hitler".

Step 4: Hypocrisy

From Step 3, the charge of hypocrisy can easily be proved applicable.

We are speaking about people who would condemn anybody who dared to argue from the premise, "Some Christians do evil" to the conclusion "Christians (and Christianity) are evil."

At the same time, these people find it perfectly acceptable to argue from the premise, "Some Darwinists do evil" to the conclusion "Evolutionists are evil."

A hypocrite is defined as somebody who demands that others live by a set of moral principles (and condemns those who fail to do so), while at the same time refusing to live by those same moral principles.

Clearly, those responsible for producing and distributing, and who are inclined to be convinced by this video are hypocrites, in that they insist that others follow a moral principle that they, themselves, willingly violate.

Step 5: Dim Witted

In order to make a case for Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, an individual needs to provide evidence that these evils are somehow entailed by Darwinian theory. If, instead, people get from Darwinism to eugenics or a holocaust by means of a logical or factual mistake, then the fault does not rest with Darwinism. It rests with those guilty of making this logical or factual mistake.

Any who did infer some type of social Darwinism, eugenics, or genocide on the basis of Darwinian evolution would, in fact, be guilty of a logical mistake. There is nothing in Darwinian theory that entails or implies any moral principle – any more than Newtonian theories of motion or Einsteinian theories of relativity entails or implies any set of moral principles. Any who claim to see such an inference is seeing something that does not exist.

Scholars have known for nearly 300 years that any inference from a set of 'is' statements (which is what scientific theories are) to 'ought' conclusions is logically invalid (or, at best, requires an explanation). If somebody actually asserts that such an inference exists, they are making a mistake. The problem rests with their inability to understand basic logic, not with Darwinian theory.

Whenever anybody makes this kind of mistake, we have reason to ask (and to seek to explain) why they made that mistake of all of the various mistakes they could have made. If a person makes a logical mistake supporting a particular conclusion, it is not unreasonable to believe that they made the mistake because they want the desire to be true, and they are just looking for excuses (or rationalizations) for what they want to believe.

If the Nazis drew any type of moral implications from Hitler then this was a case of rationalization. They wanted a way to rationalize their hatred, and they made invalid inferences to do so. If they could not draw their invalid inferences from Darwinism, they would have drawn them from someplace else. After all, they are looking for (irrational) inferences used to support an attitude of hate. They are not looking for inferences that actually make sense. If Darwinism had not been available, they would have found their excuse someplace else (e.g., in the Bible – like those who murdered Jews had been doing for over a thousand years).

In short, if Hitler and his kind drew inferences from Darwinism to support the holocaust, it is not because those inferences are valid (they are not). It is because Hitler and his kind were dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots. Using invalid inferences to support their hate is what dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots do.

Conclusion

When we look at the people responsible for producing and distributing Darwin’s Deadly Legacy we see a group of people seeking to promote hate (a.k.a., 'hate-mongering'), eager to accept invalid arguments purely because those invalid arguments are useful in supporting and feeding their hatred.

These producers and distributors depend on a violation of a fundamental principle of justice -- that no person shall be accused of wrongdoing by accidentally sharing a trait with those who are guilty of some evil. Thus, those who are responsible for producing and distributing this video are guilty of being bigots.

The people who produced and distribute this video not only violate a basic principle of justice in doing so; they violate a principle of justice that they insist that others uphold. They would instantly object if somebody were to come to them and say, “Some Christians do evil; therefore, all of Christianity is evil” (e.g., some Christians defended slavery; therefore, Christianity should be abolished). Yet, they freely violate principles that they insist that others live by. Because of this, they are guilty of the moral crime of hypocrisy.

Finally, they make their argument in clear contradiction of the basic principles of logic that any intellectually responsible clear-thinking person can easily recognize, allowing us to charge them with being dim-witted.

By the way, I am not using the term ‘dim-witted’ in a purely descriptive sense. I am using it in a morally derogatory sense to refer to somebody who refuses to live by basic standards of intellectual responsibility – those who are ‘dim-witted’ not by chance, but by choice.

Ladies and gentlemen, on the basis of this evidence, I conclude that you have no choice but to conclude that the accused – those who produced and distribute and who stand to be convinced by the video Darwin’s Deadly Legacy are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots, and ought to be regarded like any other dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots.

They are not the only ones. Some atheists (those who hold "some religious people do evil deeds; therefore, all of religion must be abolished) are also dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots. Of course, the Nazis were dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots. No dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigot can defend his actions by saying, “But I am not the only one.”

One conclusion that I want to put some emphasis on is that we are doing no good by promoting hatred against others on the basis of their being theist or atheist. We should be directing moral contempt on those who are dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots regardless of their religious stripes. The fewer dim-witted, hypocritical, hate-mongering bigots we have, the better the world will become.

Talk to the Kids

If you share my interest in making the world better than it would otherwise be -- making the future better than it would otherwise be -- here is one of the most important things you can do:

Speak to the kids.

Many rationalists, materialists, evidentialist, secular, scientist types that I know say that they do not like to express their views in front of (other peoples') children. The consequence of this is that those children grow up undereducated in how to base their conclusions on evidence, and why it is useful to do so. These are the children who will grow up to become victims of whatever con men can take advantage of their untrained will to believe.

In fact, I know many who refuse even to speak to their own children about such things. "I am going to let my children make up their own mind."

Based on what?

However, the act of "making up one's own mind" requires information. You can rest assured that, in this society, every child will get a large dose of information on the irrational and the just-plain-false. Such a child is probably going to embrace the irrational and just-plain-false unless somebody gives that child information on how to distinguish the rational from the irrational, and how to distinguish truth from fiction. Without those tools, it is not rational to expect any child to grow up and make an informed choice as to these options.

Children are going to "make up their own mind" regardless of what we do. The only question we have to answer is whether they will have all of the information they need as they go about the process of making up their minds. We should feel free to give children this information. We certainly have no obligation to help the advocates of the irrational and just plain false create an environment where children see no alternative to their ways of thinking.

Think of some child that you know.

Think of that child's health. Will that child grow into a person who knows how to make healthy choices? Or will that child become the victim of snake-oil salesmen seeking a willing target for remedies that, at best, do not good and, at worse, actually do harm? Will that child grow up to make good sound choices on diet, exercise, drugs, tobacco, alcohol? Will the child grow up to be somebody who can look at a group of studies and decide, "These are based on sound science and draws conclusions that I should pay attention to; those are based on heresay and anecdotal evidence of a type that tends to be highly unreliable?"

The child that grows up unable to think -- unable to base conclusions on the available evidence -- is a child that will grow up lacking a certain capacity to make the best decisions. The child that grows up appreciating the value of peer-reviewed scientific research and knowing that anecdotal evidence cannot be trusted will be better able to avoid things that will do them more harm than good.

Those who care that a given kid grow up to be able to make wise decisions based on the best evidence available needs to take the time to talk to that kid.

In addition to concern over whether the kid will become an adult able to take care of himself, we need to ask whether the kid will grow into an adult that will be a threat or a benefit to others. I am not talking about children growing up to be murderers, thieves, and drunk drivers (though these are certainly relevant). I am talking about children who will grow up to be a threat to others in the form of blowing up airplanes, advocating laws that prohibit women from teaching or learning, prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, or standing between people and the health benefits they would have available from stem-cell research.

The child who grows into an adult incapable of honestly evaluating the pros and cons of any policy is at risk of supporting policies that do more harm than good. Their poor choices will not only adversely affect themselves; they will adversely affect others. They will vote for poor politicians, support poor laws, and make choices not only for themselves but for others in their care -- children and elderly parents -- that thinking people would not choose.

By definition, a "better future" is a future in which more people are able to exercise more wisdom in evaluating the options available. A better future is one in which decision-makers can make honest and accurate comparisons between different options and pick the better option.

If one want to help future generations to make wiser choices, then speak to the kids.

The options that I am talking about do not require pulling children aside and giving them long and boring lessons. It requires doing little more than putting oneself in an option to make comments on what others say (e.g., the characters in a television show or movie), or listening to a child speak with two questions in mind.

"How do you know?"

It's an easy question to ask, and a question that never lacks for opportunities to ask it.

The child may answer, "I just know."

This leads to an easy response. "History is full of examples of people who 'just knew' something that turned out to be completely false. People 'just knew' that the world was flat, but they were wrong. People 'just knew' that the earth was the center of the solar system, and they were wrong. The 9/11 hijackers 'just knew' that they were doing the right thing. Are these things that you 'just know' like them?"

The second question to keep in mind to ask a child, which is asked too seldom, "What if you're wrong?"

This is another question that children need to learn to confront. "Who is going to be harmed if you make a mistake?" This question suggests a follow-up, "If people could suffer and die if you make a mistake, then don't you have some type of obligation to make sure that you don't make a mistake?"

This is a moral principle that I have been calling, "Intellectual responsibility." It is a moral principle that says that we have as much of an obligation to make sure that our beliefs are well secured (when unsecured beliefs may be a threat to others) as a truck driver has to make sure that his load is secured.

"Have you lived up to your intellectual responsibility to make sure that your beliefs are well secured? How would you like it if somebody came up with something that hurt you -- that he charged you with a crime and had you hauled off to jail, and when you asked him what proof he had that you were guilty or that you needed to suffer this harm, he only answered, 'I just know'?"

The ideas that a child becomes familiar with early are the ideas that the child can then use to measure other ideas. The sooner the child knows the rules of evidence, the sooner the child knows to elevate the certainty of scientific research and to dismiss the likely error of anecdotal evidence. The sooner the child knows how to question the claims of others, the sooner the child can start questioning those claims.

These are things we can teach the children.

They will not learn a thing from us, however, if we remain shy and afraid to demonstrate our own willingness to question what others say and to challenge children to do the same. If we remain meek and passive so as not to offend, then those children will grow up with the same dangerous ignorance as their parents.

Talk to the kids.

NASA's $500 Million Investment in Space Development

One of my interests in this blog has been the survival of the human race (in whatever form our descendents may take), and the idea that the best thing we can do towards that end is to expand our civilization into space.

Briefly, the main argument starts with the fact that we exist in a universe that is as indifferent to our survival as a species as it is to each of our survival as individuals. We would be foolish to sit around on our hands expecting some divine entity to protect us from the dangers of the universe. Those dangers range from collision with a large object traveling through space, gamma-ray bursts and other interstellar phenomena, disease, climatic disasters (caused either by human activities or events such as a supervolcanic eruption, various forms of planetcide that we may inflict on ourselves.

Whenever I look at a picture of a distant galaxy, I think that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that somewhere in that swirling haze of stars there are the archaeological remnants of a civilization that made it as far as ours did, only to get wiped out because it did not act to ensure its own survival.

Even though the odds of such an event are low (though I sometimes wonder how low they are when we consider the destruction that we may cause to ourselves), risk analysis says to multiply the odds by the value of an event. We are, after all, talking about the destruction of civilization.

The best protection is to spread our race out through the solar system and, later, to solar systems other than this one.

On Friday, NASA announced a milestone in a new project that I think is taking us in the right direction. NASA held a contest to find two new companies that can build rockets for delivering men and supplies to the International Space Station. On Friday, NASA announced the results of the contest. Two companies -- SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler, will be splitting $485 million in development money and the hope of getting contracts to ship supplies to the space station.

What’s new about this?

Since the first days of the space race – with Project Mercury, through Geminii, Apollo, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station, all of our manned space projects have been designed and run out of NASA. These projects have been expensive and, after 45 years of space development, we have very little to show for it.

On this new model, private companies own and operate the launch systems. NASA will not plan its own missions to deliver people and supplies to the Space Station. It will, instead, announce that it has some supplies to deliver, and one of these private companies will arrange to deliver the supplies for them.

A private company that hires launch services out to NASA will have the freedom to hire its launch services to others as well. This means that anybody who wants to go into space, who will be able to afford a ticket, will be permitted to do so. In order to get a trip into space, you will no longer need to try to get into NASA’s astronaut program. You will simply need to convince one of these private companies to send you up.

By the time these systems are ready to deliver crew to the International Space Station, there may be other destinations as well – such as the private space station that Bigelow Aerospace started testing technology for in July.

Perhaps, in addition to hiring out private launchers, NASA could also start renting space on a private space station – one that has the liberty to have tourists and others as well.

It is almost certain that space development will continue to require some sort of public funding. Yet, space development is more like the national transportation infrastructure, education, military, court and police system, than it is like, say, sports. Space provides an important public good – a good that benefits everybody (or, at least everybody who has desires best fulfilled if the human race survives), yet sports provides no enduring public good other than entertainment. Yet, people in the United States spend $200 billion per year on sports, while NASA's budget is less than $17 billion per year, with much of that having nothing to do with space development.

Nor does this include the other benefits we obtain with that money, such as a GPS system, weather prediction, climate monitoring, land-use satellites, communication, and space weather monitoring.

So, this is a very important “next step” to one of the most important projects that we humans are involved in – protecting our species from extinction. It is an experiment that we really cannot afford to let fail.

The Republican National Committee vs. Representative Murtha

FactCheck.org has a recent entry called “RNC Ad Mischaracterizes Murtha” on an internet advertisement from the Republican National Committee that quite blatantly tells a lie about Representative John Murtha.

The advertisement is a lie. It is not one of those adds that take a truth and gives it a political spin that conceals the truth. This is a flat-out, no qualms, “We care absolutely nothing about the truth” type lie that tells us a great deal about the moral character of all of those who were involved in it.

The advertisement shows Representative John Murtha (D-Penn) saying, “We're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran.”

The quote is taken from a speech in which Murtha actually said,

Fifty-six per cent of the people in Spain think it's more dangerous, the United States is more dangerous in Iraq than Iran is. Every one of our allies think that the United States being in Iraq is more dangerous to world stability and world peace, every one of our allies, Great Britain, every single country, they think it's, we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran. That says something.

The Republican National Committee could have used the fact that Murtha himself had lied. Murtha himself was not interested in giving his audience the facts about Bush’s policies. Murtha, instead, showed that he was just as willing to manipulate his audience with fiction as the Republican National Committee was.

Indeed, we can say one thing about the RNC that we cannot say about the liberal defenders of Murtha. The RNC did not engage in the hypocrisy of condemning those who distort somebody else’s record while they were, in fact, engaging in the act of distorting somebody else’s record. Liberal defenders of Murtha, on the other hand, are hypocrites for their condemnation of the RNC’s deception while they ignore Murtha’s deception.

Both Murtha and the Republican National Committee showed themselves to be liars.

This, as I said, tells us a lot about their moral character.

In this blog I have been defending the idea that morality is concerned with molding desires. Desires work to influence our actions even when there is nobody to watch over our shoulders. My dislike of pain helps to ensure that I will not put my hand on a hot stove even if I am alone in a room and I know that I can get away with it without anybody discovering what I did. My child’s dislike for liver will bring it about that the child is extremely unlikely to sneak off with a piece in a way that the same child might be tempted to some cookies hidden on the top shelf of the cupboard.

So, to keep others in our community from taking our property even when they are able to do so, we give them an aversion to taking property – an aversion, like the aversion to the effects of putting one’s hand on a hot stove – that will motivate them to leave our property alone even when they can get away with taking it. We give them a desire to help those in need so that, when they encounter somebody in need, they will give assistance because they want to and will not walk away even when they know they can get away with it.

If we want a person to speak the truth even when he can benefit from a lie, we do this by giving them a love of truth. We do this by molding his character in such a way that lying, even when it can produce a benefit, is personally unpleasant, much like putting one’s hand on a hot stove. A person who has this characteristic – a person with this moral virtue – is somebody we can trust. This is somebody of which we can say, “He is not telling us this merely because he can benefit from our knowing it. He truly believes this – because, if he did not believe it, he would be averse to saying it.”

When we see somebody display such a blatant disregard for truth as is found in this advertisement, we can know right away that we dealing with somebody who has no love of truth. He is somebody who views truth as a tool. He will use it when it benefits him to do so, and discard it for fiction when that will benefit him. Once we know that we are dealing with somebody who has this characteristic we know that only a fool will trust him. From this moment on, everything that individual says would become suspect to the rational person. The moral person, at the same time, will know him from that point on as a liar.

Assume, at work, an employee is discovered taking money from a co-worker’s purse. Once we catch him in this act we know that he does not have the aversion to taking the property of others that he should have. We know from this discovery that if his actions are governed at all that they are governed only by the fear of punishment. From this, we know that any time the fear of punishment is removed – any time he has a chance of getting away with taking the property of others, he is at risk of doing so. We know never again to trust him with our property. In fact, to restore a sense of security at the work place, we would insist that this perpetrator be removed (be fired), so that we can once again trust that the property we bring to work is secure.

So, what does it say that we find Murtha and the Republican National Committee engaged in these most obvious lies.

One thing we know is that, in their dishonesty, they do not even fear the possibility of discovery. This is not like an employee sneaking money out of co-worker’s desk. This is like an employee walking to a co-worker’s desk in full view of everybody, taking her purse, taking what he wants from it, going back to his desk, and boasting, “What are you going to do about it?”

This is the behavior of a pack of schoolyard bullies who know that the teachers will turn their backs. These are people who know that they have nothing to fear from others who might otherwise stand up and say, “This is wrong!” With no restraint coming from a moral conscience, and no restraint coming from social consequences, they flaunt their power precisely by giving people a live demonstration that, “I can do whatever I want, even that which is blatantly wrong, and nobody will touch me.”

They strongly believe that nobody will touch them.

Yesterday, I wrote a post on the need to avoid “fiction-based policies.” Murtha fed us a fiction about the effects of Bush’s decision. On the basis of this fiction, Murtha is recommending a change in policy. However, he is advocating a change grounded on fiction if it is foreign policy.

We are so heavily surrounded by deceivers these days that the job of calling them to task seems overwhelming. Yet, the situation may be like living in Baghdad, where the citizens are so heavily surrounded by murderers that there seems little to be done in holding them accountable. Yet, this is also the only way to put an end (or, at least, to reduce the commonality) of these moral crimes.

The example that I gave above of the employee sneaking money out of a co-worker’s purse does not fully apply here. A better analogy would be of an employee who goes up to a co-worker who is sitting at her desk and takes money from her purse in full view of other co-workers and the manager. This, let us assume, happened on Monday. Now, it is Friday, and still nothing has been done. So, the thief now swaggers up and down the office halls making every employee aware of the fact, “I can do whatever I want to you, and nobody is going to do anything about it.”

So, he does whatever he wants.

In this case, the Republican National Committee swaggers across the airwaves telling their political foes, “I can tell whatever lies I wish about you – destroy your character and turn others against you – because there is nobody out there willing to stand up against me.”

The office bully in my analogy requires only the passive cooperation of the manager and other employees. He requires that, through fear and intimidation, that others do nothing. The liar, in this case, actually requires the active cooperation of others to succeed. For example, the RNC requires a group of followers who are willing to accept and live by the rule, “Our rule is to repeat whatever the RNC says, with no regard for the truth, with no aversion to the fact that what the RNC wants us to repeat involves bearing false witness against others. If the RNC says that Representative Murtha believes that we are more dangerous than North Korea or Iran, then you must all agree to act as if it is true even though it is clearly false.”

Without the active participation of those who spread and promote lies of this type, the lies themselves will have no effect.

In case of the RNC, a large part of those who assist in these campaigns of deception (and, in fact, a large percentage of those who engineer, approve and fund these campaigns of deception are those who claim to believe that there is a God that prohibits them from bearing false witness against their neighbor. The condemn a number of biblical transgressions (including many that I would hold were falsely believed to be wrong 2,000 years ago but were not wrong in fact).

Yet, they do not condemn the bearers of false witness (a moral transgression believed to be wrong 2,000 years ago and wrong in fact). In fact, they choose to have themselves represented by these bearers of false witness and, indeed, to engage in the practice of bearing false witness with these representatives. This, to me, strikes the same moral cord as having these people not only choosing to have themselves represented by a group of homosexuals but agreeing to engage in homosexual acts with those representatives.

I find it so odd that these people find such energy and devotion to enforcing what those 2,000 years ago falsely believed to be wrong, but so clearly allow themselves to participate in moral crimes that even primative people 2,000 years ago were able to understand to be wrong in fact.

They cannot, in fact, completely escape the charge of hypocrisy.

The rest of us, in the mean time, would be well served to adopt a standard under which, when asked to choose between a loyalty to truth and a loyalty to party, will have the moral fortitude to choose the former.

Fact-Based vs Fiction-Based Policy

I will offer a warning that, today, I am simply going to rant a bit. I hope you don't mind.

I wonder if President Bush is the least bit curious about the fact that so few things seem to work out as he had planned. They used to work out almost miraculously. It must seem to him that the way he became President was a miracle -- proof that God had personally selected him to be President. If God wanted him to be President, then it must be for a reason. It must be because he was going to do great things. So, he came up with these plans to do great things . . .

. . . and they don't work.

We were supposed to take out Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq were supposed to welcome us as liberators. With the yoke of dictatorship removed, they would eagerly and enthusiastically adopt a classic Western democracy, and a wave of freedom would sweep through the Middle East.

Remember the “Mission Accomplished” display? People, I think, fail to fully appreciate one of the implications of this publicity stunt. At the time it happened, President Bush and the bulk of his administration actually believed that it was true. It turned out to be an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment because it demonstrates so clearly the chasm that exists between the Bush Administration perception of reality and the way the world is in fact.

Bush himself did not need to actually know anything about Middle East culture and society. This is the way all people are. Besides, God told him that this was a good idea. Bush often says that he listens to his gut, and his gut tells him what is right and wrong. Ultimately, he must think that God is in control of his gut and that, by listening to his gut, he is actually listening to God. God cannot be wrong.

God can, however, work in mysterious ways. Therefore, even though he expected us to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, God obviously had other plans. God is beyond error. God must have told Bush to invade Iraq for some reason that Bush, being finite and incapable of understanding God's infinite wisdom, cannot yet understand.

It must be wonderful being perfect all the time -- in believing, "Because I have given myself to God and allow God to speak and act through me, I cannot possibly screw up, because the very idea that I screwed up means that God screwed up in acting through me, and that clearly cannot happen."

Bush screwed up.

He screwed up precisely because there is this vast chasm between what he thinks is real, and what is real in fact. Bush is not even curious about what is real in fact. Bush not only ignores, but is dismissive and condescending towards those who have a genuine interest in those who are interested in what is real in fact. He is so certain that he is right -- that his 'gut' tells him God's truth -- the thinks he has the authority to judge scientific findings according to whether or not they agree with his gut.

Those people who care about what is real in fact keep saying these strange (and obviously foolish) things like, "The earth is over 4.5 billion years old" and "We are the product of a long chain of atoms called 'DNA' that, over time, have grown more complex," and "CO2 is transparent to sunlight but opaque to infrared light so if we put gigatonnes of CO2 in the air the earth will get warmer."

Good plans require true beliefs. They require that one's beliefs be connected to the real world.

A man who is thirsty sees a glass with a clear, colorless liquid on the table. It contains poison. Not knowing this, the agent drinks from the container, and he dies. True belief would have saved his life. It is false belief that killed him.

President Bush comes up to a glass with a clear liquid on a table. Scientists tell him that this is probably poison. This is, for example, CO2 in the atmosphere, which has the potential to cause sea-level rise, which will either destroy trillions of dollars of coastal property over time or cost trillions of dollars to prevent the destruction of coastal party. But Bush listens to his gut. His gut tells him that he is thirsty. So, he drinks.

Only, Bush is forcing the whole world to drink this poison. Bush is standing there making laws that state, in effect, we must all drink from the liquid, because he is thirsty, his gut tells him that the liquid is safe, God speaks to him through his gut, and any scientist who contradicts God's message to him is either a fool or an agent of evil.

Bush's Middle-East policy is another poison. Bush has this overly-simplistic (idiotic, really) idea of how the world works. He gets this idea from his gut. His gut tells him foolish and simplistic things that his limited brain can understand. However, he thinks that his gut is the word of God and that it cannot be wrong. He has no interest in listening to others, because 'others' are mere mortals. God is infinite. We cannot expect mere mortals to understand the word of God, so it is no surprise that these mere mortals are telling him that his gut is mistaken. They are so arrogant -- these mere mortals -- thinking that they are smarter than his gut -- thinking that they are smarter than God.

President Bush has his faults, but the real fault does not rest with Bush.

I have a fear that the true power brokers are going to adopt a new strategy. They are going to make Bush a sacrificial lamb. They will say that he is the source of all of our problems. Bush alone betrayed the Conservative cause. Bush was not able to understand God's commands correctly. It is all Bush's fault. Once Bush is sacrificed on the altar of public opinion, the political and social culture that put him in office will be cleansed of this corruption, and free to try again.

They will find somebody else who believes that God speaks to him through his gut. They will find somebody else who will profess how he gets his answers through prayer, rather than through research and consultation with experts who, in turn, have examined real-world events, come up with real-world theories to explain and predict those and similar events.

We will be just as blind. We will enter into policies that are just as catastrophic. Unfortunately, the list of those who will suffer for this mistake is not limited to those who are responsible for it. These mistaken policies will have global consequences. Their effects will fall heaviest on the poor in other countries who have no ability to avoid the harms that will result from the policies America adopts.

The real culprits here are the People of the United States -- the voters. If they were sensible and rational people, they would know better than to trust the fate of the world to blind leaders who think that their gut is smarter than those who actually study and pay attention to the real world.

If not for those voters, Bush would have remained a failed manager in Texas wondering why he cannot convince anybody that his grand and delusional plans actually make sense. The answer being because others are smart enough to recognize that his grand and delusional plans have no connection to reality.

And we would not have to worry about selecting a new leader whose grand and delusional plans also have no connection to reality -- because he, too, has no respect for the findings of those who actually study the real world.

I have heard a slogan mentioned from time to time that I think sums up the current situation quite well, and identifies most accurately what we need to fix it. I am curious about the fact that it has not caught on.

This slogan calls for devotion to "fact-based government programs" (as opposed to faith-based programs). I suspect that its unpopularity may rest in the fear that it will turn off or alienate faith-based voters. Yet, its purpose is to ward off the ill effects of policies that gain the unwavering support of advocates of fiction-based programs.

The instant that somebody seeking public office demonstrates a fundamental unwillingness to look at the facts and expresses the belief that he can better trust 'his gut' instead, at that moment the individual should be considered incompetent to stand for public office -- incompetent at telling the difference between a glass of water and a glass of poison.

It should not be sufficient that the person claims to have an interest in looking at the facts. He should have a demonstrated ability to sort fact from fiction. He must have a demonstrated ability to sort sound arguments from fallacious reasoning, to value the former and to view the latter with contempt.

Ultimately, the consequence of passively accepting the dominance of those who advocate fiction-based programs, and refusing to confront and challenge them, is that we can expect the world to continue to be force-fed a lot of fiction-based poison.

Judicial Decisions and "Good Law"

It is good news that, along with her opinion in the case of American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. National Security Agency et al., United States District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued the following judgment on the NSA warrantless surveillance program:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;

However, before there is too much celebrating, there are two weaknesses with this result so far.

The first is that the Bush Administration will undoubtedly appeal this ruling and, somewhere up the chain of command, he will certainly get to a judge or set of judges that he appointed who will accept the Bush Administration’s view that the President alone has sole authority to make, enforce, and judge the law.

The second is an issue that is too often overlooked in judicial decisions. Judges are supposed to render decisions on what the law does and does not say. They are not supposed to infuse their interpretation of the law with their own beliefs about what the law should or should not be. That is to say, a judge has an obligation from time to time to reach a judgment that says, “This is a bad law, but it is the law, and thus it is my decision.”

The people, on the other hand, are under no such obligation and tend to be a lot less reckless in this regard. Talk to any private citizen about any judicial decisions and you will find a very close match between what he things the law actually says and what he thinks the law should be. In fact, it is not unreasonable to hold that a vast majority of the time a person who comments on a judicial decision begins by making a judgment as to what the law should say, and proceeds from there to render an interpretation of the law that “coincidentally” (not really) brings the interpretation of the law into the speaker’s normative judgment.

The problem with this is that when a judge renders a decision that the people do not like, most people rush to the ill-founded conclusion that the judge did not interpret the law correctly. A fair assessment of the public train of thought would report it as being something like, “You did not reach a decision that conforms to what I think the law should be; therefore, your decision sucks and you are a poor judge.”

This immediately sets in motion a movement to replace those “poor judges” with those who are capable of interpreting the law correctly. That is to say, not according to what the law actually says, but according to what those who are passing the judgment want the law to say.

When we have good laws that are correctly enforced, it is not sufficient to say, “This is the law.” Anybody who has a genuine interest in the defending the law must go further and say, “This is the law, and it is a good law.” The judge in the case cannot add the latter part – this is not a part of her job. In fact, it is her duty to leave those judgments out of their opinion. Because they cannot include this part, we must make an extra effort in that regard, if we have an interest in making sure that the law stands.

I suggest that this is a significant strategic mistake that secularists make with reference to the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. They are quick to point out that particular actions are a violation of the First Amendment and, as such, they are against the law. However, far too often they stop there and fail to add much in the way of defending the claim, “…and it is good law.” Consequently, theocrats who dislike the idea of separation of church and state have not been sufficiently challenged when they claim, “…and it is bad law.”

The propaganda on this issue then takes a natural progression. First, a substantial portion of the population is convinced, “…and it is bad law.” Second, they apply their natural disposition to interpret the law so that it appears to them to be good law. This then brings them to believe that the best and proper interpretation of the law is that interpretation which denies separation of church and state and denies the church the legal right to establish themselves as the state religion.

No doubt, there are conservative pundits who are going to start making claims that can be reduced to, “Because of Judge Taylor’s decision, AL-QUIDA IS GOING TO WIN AND WE ARE ALLGOING TO DIE!” This form of propaganda will have the effect of convincing a number of people that the law ought to allow these types of warrantless wiretaps. This means that any decision that these types of wiretaps are illegal is a bad decision and the judge who makes it is a poor judge. Anybody who wants to defend the law needs to say more than, “See, what Bush did was illegal.” They have to say, “What Bush did was illegal, and it was a good law”

Since this is an ethics blog and not a legal blog I have been focusing more on what the law ought to be than what the law actually is – recognizing the fact that the two sometimes deviate.

The greatest argument in favor of separation of powers arises from the fact that the most evil tyrants typically think of themselves as moral saints who have perfectly good reason to do what they do. Even Hitler believed that he was a great man serving a cause much higher and more noble than himself – in his case, serving the Arian Race. The purpose of a system of checks and balances is to put a check on one person’s (or one group’s) inability to see when they have crossed a moral line. To do this we say to them, “You must present your plans to somebody else so that they may judge whether you have blinded yourself to your own moral transgressions.”

As I have written in the past, the purpose of obtaining warrants is not to prevent the government from spying on Al Quida and other enemies who threaten our safety, it is to make sure that the government is directing its powers to spying on Al Quida and other enemies who threaten our safety.

It is far too easy for a leader to decide that anybody who gets in his way, who threatens or questions him, is “an enemy of the state” and to treat them accordingly. It is far too easy for those who work for a leader to be tempted to use the powers at their disposal to think of personal and professional opponents as threats to national security. Therefore, it is essential that somebody look over their shoulder to make sure that the people they use the powers of their office to target and destroy are truly enemies of the state.

If an administration is worried about somebody looking over their shoulder to make sure that they are targeting the nation’s enemies and not their personal enemies with these powers, we have reason to ask, “What do you have to hide?”

It is, of course, imprudent to demand that they post information on these clandestine activities for all of us to see. This is why courts such as the FISA courts are established. They provide a way for us to appoint somebody to look over the Administration’s shoulders while still keeping legitimate activities secret. It is a reasonable compromise what satisfies the Administration’s obligation to go after this country’s enemies, while satisfying our need for security against an Administration that might otherwise use these powers against their political opponents and personal enemies.

Judge Taylor’s decision in this case tells us what she thinks the law actually says. If she is right, then these limitations on Presidential power are not only the law of the land. They are also good laws.

Other posts defending the idea that this is good law include:

The "It Works" Argument

We Are All Terror Suspects

Feingold's Motion to Censure President Bush

Are These Your Moral Values?

Unchecked Power = Tyranny

There Are 12 Planets

Yes, this blog entry has a great deal to do with ethics. I have repeatedly used the example of astronomers struggling with the definition of 'planet' as a counter-example to an extremely common argument used in defense of claim that morality is subjective. Previous examples can be found in my blog entries titled, "Morality and the Subjectivity of Definitions" and "Desires and the Definition of ‘Good’".

Now, it appears that astronomers will be reaching a decision -- one that will give us at least 12 planets, with three contenders (waiting the results of future experiments), and perhaps dozens to hundreds of additional planets.

According to the resolution (which will get a thumbs-up or thumbs-down from astronomers in a few days):

(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape1, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

So, the known planets, in order, are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto/Charon (double-planet), and 2003 UB313 (temporary ID).

What does this have to do with ethics?

Here is the argument that I seek to refute.

(1) Whether something is good or bad depends on your definition of 'good' and 'bad'.

(2) No objective scientific experiment can be constructed to determine whether one definition is better than the next -- the definitions are a matter of (subjective) preference.

Therefore, there can be no objective morality.

Here is my disproof by counter-example

(1) Whether something is a planet or not depends on your definition of 'planet'.

(2) No objective, scientific experiment can be constructed to determine if one definition is better than the next -- definitions are a matter of (subjective) preference.

Therefore, there can be no objective astronomy.

The premises in both cases are true. Those who say whether something is good or bad depends on the meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and that these definitions are arbitrarily made with no scientific test to prove one definition better than the other are totally correct.

Yet, this does not, in any way, prove that morality itself is subjective. If it did, then astronomy would have to be subjective.

Clearly, the number of planets that we have depends on the meaning of ‘planet’. There is no scientific test that will prove that one definition is ‘right’ and another definition is ‘wrong’. Yet, in spite of this fact, astronomy remains an objective field of study.

Once a person realizes how we can have objective astronomy with subjective definitions, one can start to realize how it is possible to have objective ethics with subjective definitions.

The Meaning of 'Planet'

An underappreciated fact in all of this concerns how astronomers came up with a definition of 'planet.' They did not get this definition by looking through telescopes, taking observations, and writing peer-reviewed journal articles saying, "Here, I have a set of observations that support the theory that the term 'planet' means 'X'."

They formed a committee. The committee negotiated and bargained and eventually formed a compromise that they unanimously agreed to. They are presenting this compromise to the members of the International Astronomical Union in the form of a resolution. The IAU will then vote on the resolution, approving or disapproving the definition. I am betting that they will approve it.

A vote?

A vote!

Imagine taking the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design, putting them into the form of a resolution, submitting them to a vote, and deciding in this way which theory to accept and which to reject.

It is absurd.

However, in the case of the IAU resolution, we are not talking about theories, we are talking about definitions. There are no experiments or studies that we can use to decide on a correct definition of anything.

Here's another question (the likes of which I often see in ethics): Who gave the International Astronomical Union the authority to decide what a planet is? Were they elected? Did I get a vote? I can conceivably get a different group of people together, and we can come up with another definition. If I did, there is nothing objective that states that their definition is right and mine is wrong. There is only the perceived cultural fact that they have this 'authority' to determine the definition of a planet and me and my committee do not.

My point here is that all of these issues – all of these facts that subjectivists point to as ‘proof’ that ethics must be subjective – apply equally all fields of study, including the hardest of the objective sciences. This so-called ‘evidence of subjectivity’ is evidence of nothing of the kind.

The Objectivity of Astronomy

How can astronomy continue to be 'objective' in the face of all this arbitrary subjectivity?

Astronomy can remain objective because astronomers recognize that the size, shape, average temperature, orbital velocity, distance from the sun, and whatever of all of the bodies of the solar system are not affected by our decision of what the term 'planet' means.

The International Astronomical Union has no power to vote on the astronomical facts. It is only voting on the language that we use to express those facts. The choice of which language to speak is a subjective preference. We want a language that makes it easy to communicate on those topics that are important to us. However, the criteria that is truly important is not what any particular term means, but that we all agree to the same meaning. There may be some passion pulling definitions one way or the other. However, when all is said and done, the definitions we end up with are of little significance. Only their commonality matters.

Any theory that depends on a particular definition of ‘planet’ for its claims to be true or false is, by that fact alone, a bad theory that needs to be tossed. Changing from one definition to another does not affect any theory, it only affects the words that one chooses in expressing that theory. It affects the language that the person is speaking, but not what he says within that language.

The same is true in ethics. A group of ethicist should be able to walk into a room and decide on a definition of ‘good.’ Every moral theory that is materially affected by that definition – where it changes the substance of the claims made within that theory – needs to be thrown out. The only theories that are worth their salt are those where the author says, ‘Now that I have these definitions, all I need to do is to translate my theory into those words.’

The Meaning of 'Atheist'

A couple of days ago I posted an entry concerning "The Meaning of 'Atheist'". These claims are relevant to that dispute as well.

No astronomer would have thought it sensible to write a book defending a particular theory of the solar system by starting off with the claim that a given definition of planet is ‘the’ definition.

If he did, the book would say that the original Greek term meant, 'wanderer'. It referred to points of light in the sky that moved in relation to the background (fixed) stars. The term did not say anything about size and shape. This is because the ancient Greeks could not see size and shape – only points of light. If we were to extrapolate their definitions to the modern times, then every object that we see circling the sun and moving in relation to the background stars would have to be called a ‘planet’ (or a ‘wanderer’). Instead of 12 planets, we would be sitting at around 120,000 – with some modern findings suggesting that the number may get as high as 1,000,000,000,000 planets.

The International Astronomical Union did not even pretend to offer ‘the correct’ definition of planet. They sought to offer a definition that would be useful to astronomers – one whose distinction could be read off of the natural observed facts. As such, they proposed a new definition – a changed and more precise definition. Not, ‘the correct’ definition, because ‘the correct’ definition is nothing more than what a group of people decide that its definition will be.

The Meaning of 'Good'

I identify 'good' with 'is such as to fulfill the desires in question,' where 'the desires in question' are determined by the context in which the term 'good' is used. A desire is fulfilled in a state of affairs S if P which is the object of a 'desire that P' is true in S. A good desire, on this account, can only be a desire that tends to fulfill other desires. A desire that tends to thwart other desires is bad.

All of this is premised on the proposition that desires are the only reasons for intentional action that exist. No other reasons for intentional action – intrinsic values, categorical imperatives, natural rights, divine commands – actually exist.

If this is true, then when it comes to defining ‘good,’ we have three main options.

(1) We can identify ‘good’ in such a way that it describes relationships to desires. If we do this, then we define ‘good’ in a way that talks about reasons for intentional action that actually exist.

(2) We can identify ‘good’ in such a way that it references reasons for intentional action that does not exist. If we do this, then ‘good’ does not refer to anything in the real world. There is no ‘reason for intentional action’ to bring about that where the ‘reasons for intentional action’ do not exist.

(3) We can identify ‘good’ with something other than reasons for intentional action. If we do this, then ‘good’ becomes merely descriptive. We may call something good, but it is a separate and independent question of whether reasons for intentional action exist to pursue or to avoid what this definition calls ‘good.’

No definition is ‘the correct’ definition. The decision to choose one option over the other two is as subjective as the IAU’s decision regarding the definition of ‘planet.’ Yet, no matter what decision we make, the objective facts of the matter do not change.

Desires are still the only reasons for intentional action that actually exist, and any claim that there exist reasons for intentional action for bringing about a particular state must either refer to desires, or it must be false.

Summary

Here is what ethicists need to learn from astronomers:

Nothing of substance depends on what definitions we choose. It it appears as if definitions have the power to determine matters of substance, then somebody has already made a wrong turn. They need to go back and get to a position where changes in definition imply changes in the language in which items of substance are reported, but which the items of substance themselves do not change.

The next time you hear somebody say, “Morality depends on your definition of ‘good’ and no definition is objectively better than any other definition,” it is time to stop and backtrack.

If an ethicist cannot handle different definitions of ‘good’ the same way astronomers handle different definitions of ‘planet’, then mistakes have already been made. It is now necessary to go back and unmake those mistakes.

Islamic Fascism

In speaking about the British success at breaking up a terrorism plot to destroy 10 planes en route to America from England, Bush used the term "Islamic fascists" to describe the enemy. This seems to have met with some hostility.

'Fascist' is a derogatory word. Once upon a time, it had a specific political meaning. However, except within a community of political scientists, that meaning does not exist. It is certainly not what most people heard the President say when they heard the phrase 'Islamic fascists.' They heard him say something that can best be translated as 'Muslims like Hitler and the Nazis.' More specifically, it was, "Muslims that are like that which is bad in what was Hitler and the Nazis."

Like Hitler; Like Churchill

It is not a stretch to suggest that the Bush Administration wanted people who heard the phrase to hear, "Muslims who are like Hitler and the Nazis." Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has been trying to convince us that we are in a modern equivalent of World War II -- the last great war. "Great" here refers not only to size, but in terms of a clear-cut battle between good and evil. That is not to say that the allies were morally perfect, but they were definitely better than the enemy.

For the Bush Administration, in order to paint the current conflict as "Like World War II," we need an enemy that is "Like Hitler and the Nazis." In this way, Bush can present himself as "Like Roosevelt” (or, perhaps, “Like Churchill”) and the great defenders of democracy.

I suspect that, 1000 years from now, if we have not driven ourselves extinct, a survey of school children will show that the only people from the 20th Century whose names they know are Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt.

And, perhaps, Stalin.

Here is a slight problem with the logic. Clearly, the fact that a person has stood up to an enemy “like Hitler and the Nazis” does not imply that one is “like Churchill.” It could very well imply that one is “like Stalin.” Or he could be like no leader that existed 60 years ago – good or bad. A person cannot make himself great simply by asserting that his enemy is “like Hitler and the Nazis.”

Total War

Another reason to assert that the enemy is “like Hitler and the Nazis” is that it would then justify actions like those that the Allies took against Hitler and the Nazis. Total war.

If we are in a war like World War II, fighting an enemy like Hitler and the Nazis, then we are morally permitted to engage in actions like those that the allies took in World War II. We can round up whole segments of the population (Japanese Americans; Arab Americans) round them up and confine them “for the duration of hostilities” without a trial and without charges. We can engage in battles that obliterate whole cities even if most of the civilian population is killed or wounded in the crossfire without the slightest guilt. We can even drop a nuclear bomb or two on targets such as Tehran or Pyongyang.

We can say that anybody who shirks their responsibility – anybody who does not give 100% to the cause – is like those who are supporting Hitler and the Nazis.

This, of course, assumes that these actions were justified during World War II.

Islamic Fascists?

As it turns out, we have a better term for describing who the enemy is in this case. It is not “Islamic fascist.” It is “militant Islamic theocrats.” There purpose or end is to establish an Islamic theocracy. They hold that their god gives them permission to use life-threatening violence against “infidels” as a means.

Huge segments of the population, with President Bush and his administration at its heart, are politically and personally incapable of seeing who the real enemy is. This is because, if they did, they would discover that there was, in fact, too little separating the “good guys” from the “bad guys.” What we have, in fact, is a war between “militant Islamic theocrats” and “somewhat less militant Christian theocrats.”

The underlying philosophy – the idea that “God gives us moral permission to do whatever is necessary to obtain our objectives,” is something that they have in common. Both groups seem to have found it ‘necessary’ to blow apart thousands of innocent people in order to obtain their goals, grab and confine individuals without trial or even charges, torture and abuse them, and in some cases even kill them, and after doing all of this they go to their Church and Mosque and explain how their actions are all for the greater glory of God.

The fundamental problem with theocracy is that you cannot reason with a person who claims that his primary justification for causing you harm is ‘faith.’ Sam Harris, in his book “The End of Faith,” gets this part correct. Though I have criticized certain parts of his thesis, I do not criticize the part that says that we must come to reject the idea that faith can be permitted as a form of justification for doing harm to others. Because, if we accept faith as a legitimate reason to do harm to others, we have no way to argue or debate with each other which actions are or are not justified.

Harris will go beyond this and say that we must be intolerant of all claims based on faith, while I say we have reason to be intolerant of attempts to justify harm to others based on faith, but that we have no particular reason to be intolerant of harmless or helpful faith-based beliefs.

Setting that dispute aside, the Bush Administration cannot effectively fight the war on terror because it cannot accurately and honestly say who the enemy is. The enemy is faith-based belief that harm to others is justified. President Bush and the bulk of his supporters are too emotionally bound to accepting and endorsing this principle to understand how it can be the enemy, let alone come up with an effective strategy for fighting it.

For political and personal reasons President Bush needs to believe that the enemy is “fascism” or something like it. Those same political and personal reasons do not permit President Bush from seeing the truth, that the enemy is not fascism but militant theocracy – the idea that faith can justify doing harm to others.

Outrages on Personal Dignity Made Legal

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other members of the Bush Administration are seeking to shield civilians employees involved in interrogating prisoners from prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act. This Act made it a federal crime to violate the Geneva Convention standards regarding the treatment of prisoners.

Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has argued that the Geneva Convention did not apply to prisoners captured in this war on terror. Indeed, since the start of the war, the Bush Administration has argued for an entirely new status of prisoner -- called the "enemy combatant". These are neither 'prisoners of war' (as defined by the Geneva Convention), nor are they civil prisoners -- the type who have a right to a trial by jury in a civilian court. With no guidelines established governing the treatment of these individuals, the Bush Administration is free to adopt its own guidelines.

However, the Supreme Court in Hamden vs Rumsfeld held that no new 'special category' exists unless the Congress creates one. Congress had not created one. Therefore, no special category exists.

This meant that these prisoners were 'prisoners of war' and the Geneva Convention rules applied to the treatment of prisoners. This, in turn, meant that if any civilian employee treated these prisoners in ways that were in violation of the Geneva Convention, then those civilians broke the law. (Note: The military has its own procedures for dealing with soldiers who violate the law.)

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that certain civilian officials have broken this law. For over four years the Bush Administration has been telling its civilian employees that, if they performed these types of actions they would not be breaking the law. Now, the Supreme Court has informed them that if they listened to the Bush Administration, they broke the law. As a result, they would face arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and a criminal record for doing what the Bush Administration (wrongly) told them that they may permissibly do.

It would be no different than if an employer told his employee that if he were to set fire to a competing business it would be legal. If the employee set fire to the competing business he would be guilty of arson; liable for trial and conviction. The plea, “I thought my acts were legal,” is not a recognized defense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse – not even when those ignorant of the law are the President and his Attorney General.

Now, the Bush Administration is trying to convince Congress to legalize this new category of prisoner. In the mean time, it is also seeking to add amendments to the 1996 War Crimes Act that will ban prosecution of those who violate some of its provisions.

In specific, the Bush Administration wants to shield civilians from prosecution for violating the prohibition on "outrages upon personal dignity."

In defending the Bush Administration's position, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that this phrase, "outrages upon personal dignity" is too vague. Interrogators would not actually be able to know when their actions crossed the line – the line itself was too subjective. To make these prohibitions meaningful, Gonzales argued, we must provide a more precise set of definitions.

This is an absurd argument. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the military, is filled with vague phrases.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

These are crimes for which a person in military service can be prosecuted. Yet, these laws have not generated a level of uncertainty detrimental to the military’s efforts to carry out its duties.

We find the same feature in the Constitution of the United States.

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)

5th Amendment: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis added)

These types of phrases are used in writing laws for a reason. Specifically listing the acts prohibited is an impossible task. For example, let us prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity” in the form of forcing prisoners to defecate and urinate on their own clothes. If this becomes an explicit prohibition, perpetrators are invited to view the option of two prisoners urinating and defecating on each other's clothes as permissible because the law does not explicitly prohibit it. If this also gets explicitly prohibited, guards are invited to interpret the act of having prisoners urinate into a cup and pouring the urine onto the clothes as not being a violation. If the use of a vessel or container is prohibited, guards can still think that urinating on the clothes of a prisoner is still not prohibited. No matter how long and how complex the list gets, somebody can think of something that is not explicitly covered.

To block these types of loopholes, legislators (and Constitution writers) resort to phrases such as, "cruel and unusual punishment" and "degrading and dehumanizing treatment." In these cases, it does not matter how imaginative a person is in finding interpretations that do not conform to the letter of the law, they can still be condemned for violating its spirit.

The Attorney General of the United States is supposed to be the top lawyer in the land. None of these arguments about the problems with specific legislation or the use of general legislation should surprise him.

If he is unaware of the reasons why impossibly long and complex lists are not a reasonable form of legislation, we need to seriously question his competence to do the job assigned to him, as well as the competence of those who assigned such a person to that position. If he is aware of the issues, then we are invited to ask why he is trying to get Congress to create laws that he knows are flawed -- specifically, flawed in such a way that it is easy to create loopholes.

It is also curious to note that Gonzales does not seem to be arguing that, "this provision is vague; therefore, it needs to be clarified." His position is that, "this provision is vague; therefore, we should be permitted to ignore it."

If this is a legitimate implication, we may ask whether Gonzales would have us apply it as well to the U.S. Constitution. The prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" is vague. It would follow from the line of reasoning Gonzales recommends using that we should pass legislation that "clarifies" the 8th Amendment by saying that it should be ignored. Or if he would be willing to argue that the military prohibition against ‘conduct unbecoming an officer’ is vague that no punishment should be given to anybody found guilty of violating this statute.

These are absurd conclusion. They point to the absurdity of Gonzales’ arguments.

The ultimate consequence of these actions is that Gonzales and the rest of the Bush Administration are seeking through their actions to change the public attitude and affection towards “outrages upon personal dignity” to more closely match their own. This is to move these acts from the bin marked “morally repugnant” to the bin marked “morally neutral” or even, in some cases, “morally obligatory.” Of course, that which you move out of the category “morally repugnant” you make more common. If rape and slavery were moved out of this bin into the category of “morally permissible”, then they would become more common.

Bush, Gonzales, and the rest of their team are working to create a world with more “outrages upon personal dignity” than it would have if we struggled instead to keep it in the bin marked “morally repugnant.” This falls a bit short, I would argue, from the goal of making this a better, safer, world in which to live.