“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

Lord Acton (1834–1902)

Abuse of power or authority may be the prime source and true essence of moral EVIL – Evil is the ABUSE of power.  Moral EVIL begins to exist when someone refuses to accept responsibility for the welfare of others, especially those naturally under his or her direct care.  It can be said that someone has POWER, if that someone can decisively influence (the) reality (of others).

In this context, AUTHORITY is power that derives from a social accord or convention, such as the laws or customs of a social group such as a state or an organization.

So then, what is “abuse of power”?

ABUSE OF POWER is the illegitimate use of power.

ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose his or her will on those others) for example, by virtue of his or her superior mental dexterity, social position, physical strength, knowledge, technology, weapons, wealth, or the trust that others have in him or her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others, or through lack of action, ALLOWS exploitation or harm to occur to them.

It follows that someone who does not have (a particular form of) power cannot abuse it.

It also follows that the main (and perhaps the only) principle of human ethics and morality should be to avoid the abuse of power.

(It should be noted that the decision to adopt an ethical principle as one’s own is a purely personal one, and cannot be forced on someone. However, one cannot adopt a principle one does not know exists. Also, it is not very likely that someone will adopt a principle that is not congruent with his or her mental structure – and this mental structure is so powerfully influenced by early childhood experiences).

From this it follows that it is extremely unethical to put oneself (or to stay) in a position of conflict of interest, i.e., where one’s benefit or profit depends on harming or exploiting others.  And of course, it also follows that putting a subordinate in a position of conflict of interest demonstrates a complete ignorance of ethics.

Additionally, it follows that if those who want to stop or impede the abuse of power (or those who are charged with this duty) do not have sufficient power (even if it were only moral power), they and their efforts will only serve as a source of amusement to those who abuse it.

“Information is the negative of entropy.” - Claude Shannon, 1948.

Source: Boyle, William A., (1999). Sibling Rivalry, And Why Everyone Should Care About This Age-Old Problem.

Retrieved on 25 November 2009, from here.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that the crazy Mayan prediction is true and December 2012 marks the end of civilization. Suppose we knew it and saw it coming, doomsday was indeed upon us. When asked “how would you live your life?”, what would you do?”, and similar such questions, most people that I have seen answer these questions have stated an answer of the sort: “live it up”, “have fun”, and the like.

Others suggest that if the governments of the world knew that doomsday was coming, they wouldn’t tell the people of the world for fear of panic and chaos.

This has always puzzled me. What rationalization would anyone have to either be chaotic or be hedonistic if they found out their lives were about to end? Personally, I would find religion. There is a rationality to my choice, and a rationality to my criticisms of those who would choose differently.

If, hypothetically, ancient prophesies (and this doesnt pertain exclusively to the Mayan 2012 example) did pan out to be true, then Im forced to ask the very simple question: How did they know?

The simple fact of the matter is that explicit knowledge of the future has transcended space and time and arrived in the hands of ancient peoples, violating every physical law in the book in the process.  How do you account for this? How do you account for knowledge of such profound future events to travel into the past?  Personally, I cannot account for this from a purely atheistic perspective.

But I can if I posit a soul or a God.  Either the soul exists, thus spiritualism and precognition and other such space-time transcending variables of the human mind plausibly exist.  The notion of prophesy is no longer absurd.  Or God exists and had communicated knowledge directly.  Either way, both validate in their own way the notions of spirituality and thus morality.

If we at some point in the future watch ancient doomsday prophesy unfold, I am forced to confront the existence of the divine. For how else could an ancient people have received such explicit and precise knowledge of a particular profound event from their distant future?

If I am watching prophesy unfold before me, I have every ethical obligation to admit to myself that – at least the very real and genuine possibility (no, probability) – God exists, absolute morality exists, and likely then the soul exists.

I cannot conceive of a reason why anyone would panic, why society would become chaotic, or why individuals would become hedonistic sinners… why anyone would chose to sin… when faced with the best proof to date that God exists and that their actions have consequence.

How fanatic and bigoted must one be to, even in the most extreme case of Armageddon, to still refuse to accept religion? I mean, come on!

I would like to believe people are smart enough to correlate and reason that the obvious truth of ancient prophesy staring them in the face would mean something to them. “Hooray, no consequence” has got to be the most deluded and ignorant attitudes someone could have in such a situation of immanent doom.

I would hope that people would remain calm and introspective, stay with their families and remain at least as moral as they always have, if not become perfectly moral or seek religion.  I would hope that people realize that even though there may not be consequences in life, there could be consequences in death.

Now, if the prophesies never existed and doomsday were upon us, then I could understand why chaos and hedonism would ensue.  If doomsday prophesies failed to reasonably coincide with actual doomsday, then again I would understand that there is no reasonable correlation. Neither would directly validate religion or spiritualism.  But if prophesy of doomsday does coincide with the actual doomsday, then why in gods name would society fall apart?  The religious implications in the latter case would be irrefutable.

Even if you still dont believe that doomsday means anything, remain devoutly atheistic as the world crumbles, surely you can see that your actions  and pleasures in life carry no meaning or value beyond.  You wont be remembering any of it, no one will remember it or you – according to your own beliefs – so why even partake? Its pointless.

Either from a theistic or atheistic perspective, I see no reason why immanent doom would cause chaos or unruly hedonism or sinfulness in the last days of our world. From a religious perspective, there are moral consequences in death. From an atheistic perspective, nothing you do is meaningful, neither to you nor anyone else once you’re dead and you have placed no mark on the world. Either way, compromising the values you had when the world was normal makes no practical sense and only proves your hypocrisy.

Origin

This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

Source: Gary Martin

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html

From Crooks and Liars:

In a breathtakingly tight argument, Chris Matthews corners Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., from receiving Holy Communion due to his views on abortion.

Because here’s the moral hypocrisy at the heart of the Church’s abortion position: If it’s really and truly murder, you’re talking about prosecuting mothers, sisters, lovers and friends for having them. Tweety is quite aggressive with the bishop, demanding to know exactly what legal penalties he thinks should be legislated.

I mean, we won’t even touch the concept of one religion imposing its moral position on everyone else. We don’t have to. Because if you’re saying abortion is murder, you may not create a separate class of penalties under the law. You can’t argue that women “didn’t know what they were doing.” You can’t say they were “confused” or “coerced” if there’s no evidence they were, anymore than you can say that about any other murder for hire. Either she paid someone to murder her child – or she didn’t.

So she has to be tried for murder. The churches can’t have it both ways. They can’t advise forgiveness and legal exemption for one specific class of murders.

And there’s no way the majority of Americans would ever support sending their relatives, neighbors and friends to prison for it.

See the video of the entire interview here.

Thanksgiving is just around the corner, and the vegetarians are out to make us feel guilty again.  Gary Steiner has just flayed the American conscience with a powerful op-ed piece in the New York Times advocating ethical veganism.

Is it wrong to kill?  Is it wrong to inflict suffering?  Philosophers advocating veganism typically start by asking one of these questions.  These are two very different questions, and will require two very different ways of saying “Definitely not.”

So is it wrong to kill?  The answer can’t be “Yes, always.”  Most of us would agree that a Mack truck should swerve and run over a fox if necessary to avoid plowing into a busload of little children.  Arguing by degrees, we might even conclude that the Mack truck should run over ten foxes, or the last fox in the world, to save one little child.

Implicit in any of these conclusions is the notion that life has value, and that killing should be avoided.  Why is this?  There are two radically different schools of thought to answer this question.  The first is the religious school: God says not to kill.  If we accept this idea, we may as well just go home; there’s no arguing with God.  The second school of thought says that life is an inherent good and should be preserved whenever possible.  Many proponents of this school – and we will follow them – would go so far as to say that human life is exceptionally valuable and worthy of preservation because of our capacity for abstract thought, or our ability to appreciate life, or a variety of other distinctions.  (There is a third school of thought, which suggests that the act of killing itself, as opposed to a “neutral” transition from life to death, is such a traumatic, jarring experience that it should always be avoided.  This school compounds the problems of killing and inflicting suffering, and for this reason is too complicated to deal with here.)

The “life has value” train of thought is the reason most people would have the Mack truck kill the fox instead of the busload of children.  “Life has value” is also the reason that killing animals for food, or even fun, could be morally justifiable.  What would happen if everyone in the world suddenly became a vegan?  The meat market would collapse and the brutal slaughter of animals would cease; farmers would feed their animals until they died natural, happy deaths; finally, the land would be used to plant hummus and tofu.  And there would be no more animals!  All of the animals that would have existed – that will exist, assuming we do not become vegan – would not be bred, would not experience life.  If life has value, if we wish to maximize life, we must argue forcefully for the continuation of animal slaughter.  The raison d’etre of the vast majority of domestic animals is industrial exploitation, and if this ceases, few, if any people will argue for the continued breeding of these animals simply for the sake of maximizing potential lives lived.  Continue exploitation, or accept that life is a secondary consideration to human convenience.

Another way of stating this argument is that because we give animals life, we should have the power to take that life away.  By logical extension, because a father or mother gives life to children, they should have the power to take that life away.  Indeed, in many ancient societies, infanticide was condoned, sometimes even encouraged.  As recently as the Roman Republic, the law permitted fathers the absolute power of life and death over their children – even their adult children.*

In modern society, we do not recognize this right of parents over the lives of their children.  The case for this could be made as follows: as soon as a person comes into existence, but not before,** he is endowed with a right to life.  In other words, because life has value, and because this person has life, we cannot – usually – take it away from him, thereby depriving him of this morally valuable thing that he has.

This argument does not supersede the argument that life has value and therefore we should be able to kill a fox to save children; rather, it is an extension of it.  Human life has such great moral importance, and therefore killing a human is such a great wrong, that we choose not to kill.  In essence, we give everyone a “free pass” from having their life judged insufficiently morally valuable to continue.  There are exceptions: suppose our speeding Mack truck had to choose between a busload of children and not a fox, but Hitler.  Almost everyone would choose to kill Hitler.  The reason we give all humans a free pass, a right to life, is that choices are almost never as clear-cut as choosing a busload of children’s lives over Hitler’s.  Even if we are in a situation where killing another person appears to offer substantial moral benefit to the universe, we usually consider the possibility that we are wrong, and by killing the person could merely be committing an enormous moral trespass, to be great enough that we choose not to kill.  Life has value, and therefore we choose never to reduce life by killing a person, despite merely potential future opportunities to increase life (or other moral goods) by doing so.

Phrased this way, two major differences emerge between killing a human and the ongoing industrial slaughter of animals.  First, the animals are not humans.  We ascribe moral value to their lives, perhaps even very great moral value, but we reserve the moral “free pass” for humans alone.  Second, since animals do not have a free pass, we have the ability to judge the moral value of their existence, and the conclusion, as described above, is unambiguously that these animals must die so that future animals can live.

What about suffering?  Is it okay to inflict suffering on animals so that we can eat them?  The arguments pertaining to killing apply analogously to suffering.  In broad strokes, there are situations where the infliction of suffering is justified.  One of these situations is when a little bit of suffering can be inflicted on one entity to avoid a lot of suffering for another.  In many cases, we exempt humans from such considerations because we believe human suffering to be an exceptionally great moral evil.  Animals do not get this free pass, and so when we judge whether their suffering is outweighed by the joy we generate through their exploitation, a case can be made that more joy is generated than suffering inflicted.

It is at this point in the argument that I think room for legitimate disagreement arises.  Most people assume the conclusion I just made, that the total human joy in eating is morally more valuable than whatever suffering animals experience during the course of their farming.  However, as the rising interest in free range meat shows, many people are beginning to question this assumption, or realize that animals are suffering considerably more for their enjoyment than previously thought.  I think the free range meat movement is proof that people are not “meat-crazed” egocentric hedonists, but rather utilitarians who place a high enough moral value on animal suffering that they are willing to pay to diminish it.

Free range meat has not taken over the market; clearly there is either disagreement about the precise moral value of animal suffering or about exactly how much the animals do suffer.  Whatever conclusion you have come to, happy Thanksgiving, and enjoy your turkey, whether it be free range or otherwise.  If you’re not eating a turkey, just think about all the animals that didn’t get born because of you.

[I can already hear the vegans screaming, "Yes, born to a life of suffering!"  That, alas, is where the argument gets extremely complicated.  But consider this: if you are a vegan, would you eat meat that had previously lived a brief but extremely happy life, and that resulted in more brief but happy lives following it?  If the answer is "No," then our disagreement does not lie in the complicated argument.]

*This page provides more information.

**Pro-life and pro-choice advocates, I think, are in substantial agreement here; their disagreement could probably be reduced to a debate about the precise moment when life begins, or the precise moment when the endowment with rights occurs, or in the worst case, the exact moment when the life becomes sufficiently human that the endowment with the right to life achieves moral importance surpassing the woman’s prerogative to do whatever she wants.

Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required] each have detailed reports on the tie vote in the University of Nebraska Board of Regents that defeated an attempt to reject the expansion of research on human embryonic stem cells allowed by the Obama administration. If passed, the resolution would have returned the system to the more restrictive regulations issued by the Bush administration. 

joan:

“it took me almost a century to discover how little i’d done with my life. my middle name held me back, for sure, but i couldn’t blame my misfortune on that alone. i would have to find another culprit. i thought of that rabid dog i met on my eighth birthday and how, on the verge of tears, i’d begged it to bite my leg and it refused. but i know, in my recycled heart, that the alsatian was only the beginning of my problems. i blame, also, the elderly gentleman who refused to rob me in newport pagnell. and the harm he did was nothing compared to the adolescent funeral director who insisted on taking my pulse. yes – i am quite sure that if i were lucky enough to suffer some grave injustice, i may have spent my time on this earth doing more than stitching epigrams on kitchen towels.”

A lot of times I talk about the immorality of Christianity. Most of the time, Christians and even a few atheists jump to defend Christianity by talking about various good deeds particular Christians have done and continue to do. But I wasn’t talking about Christians being immoral; I was talking about Christianity being immoral. What can be more immoral then the vicarious redemption of sin?

The whole idea that I can go and murder someone or work on Saturday and have my sins forgiven vicariously by someone else is a license for crime. Christians often use the analogy of some small offense like a drunk driving charge (which for the record isn’t really a small offense) and they talk about how Judge God lets the offender off the hook because Jesus paid his or her fine. But that isn’t how the world works.

If someone went and murdered someone else and was found guilty, no one would be able to pay the fine of prison time except that person who was found guilty. There is an old expression, “If you do the crime, you will do the time.”

But that isn’t the worst part of the Christian redemption system. The way Jesus allegedly pays for your sins is through blood sacrifice. It is funny that when most Americans hear about some cult sacrificing an animal to the Gods they laugh and think such a ritual is absurd and yet 80% or more believe the same thing.

The whole Christian belief system centers around the idea of blood sacrifice. Back before Jesus allegedly came, the Abrahamic God wanted people to sacrifice goats to him so that he could forgive them for their sins. This is where the term scapegoat comes from. Everyone in the village puts all their sins on to the goat and kills the goat as a sacrifice to God. But God wanted more than just a goat.

Lambs were more desirable to God apparently, because he wanted the people to sacrifice an innocent lamb to show how much they care instead. Let me repeat that last part. God wanted people to sacrifice an Innocent Lamb.

Now of course there is no need to sacrifice an Innocent Lamb or any other lamb for that matter because Jesus is the “Lamb of God.” In other words, he is the innocent blood sacrifice that God needs for the redemption of sin.

Some people will say that not all Christians believe this and that I am generalizing. But the fact is that this whole blood sacrifice thing is a pretty central point the Christian belief system. I really don’t think one could seriously be considered a Christian if they don’t buy into the idea that the death of Jesus was a necessary sacrifice to God for their sins. That is pretty much the whole grounding of the religion. God forgives those who have accepted the sacrifice of Jesus for payment of their sins.

In reality, there is no vicarious redemption for sin. God can’t forgive you for your wrongs. Only those who you have wronged can forgive you. Next time you lie to a friend or family member about something, instead of asking Jesus for forgiveness, try slaughtering an innocent lamb instead. Let me know if that works out for ya.

Check out my Daily Blog @ DangerousTalk.net and my atheist news blog @ Examiner.com

After reading a very moving story from Palin’s book, then the vitrolic comments on the same, I came across Jeremy Clarkson’s column.

When it comes to sweeping generalisations, I am the daddy. All Germans have no sense of humour, all instruction manuals are pointless, all cruise ships are ghastly, every single American is fat, all golfers are boring and all Peugeots are driven by people you wouldn’t have round for dinner.

Of course, I’m well aware that most generalisations are nonsense. I know several very funny Germans, and Obama Barrack is actually quite skinny. But without generalisations, anecdotes would take two years, points would never get made, comedy would suffer and everyone would sound like James May: “Actually, 42.7% of instruction manuals are quite useful; but first let me quantify ‘useful’ . . .”

Life would be a terribly dreary assault course if every fact had to be precise, but, that said, generalisations have no place in serious scientific research, which is why I was a bit startled to read last week that a government adviser from the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners said lesbians made better parents than what we can no longer call “normal couples”.

…I have done some checking on this, and the only evidence I can find comes from research endorsed by the national academy itself. The study examined children raised by just 27 single mothers, 20 lesbian couples and 36, er, differently genital-ed parents and concluded that those raised by women grew up with a better psychological wellbeing.

You can’t possibly draw any conclusions after testing 20 lesbians. Test 20 Italians and you could well end up concluding the whole nation was full of calm, incorruptible dullards with no interest in sex. Test temperatures over just 20 years and you’d end up concluding the world’s climate was changing.

Not too many people would write stuff like that these days, but Clarkson just might get away with it.

Many are aware that today will be celebrated as the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin’s landmark work, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life. Whether you find yourself praising the book or demonizing it, it must be agreed that it is one of the most important books published in the last 200 years. Because of the importance of the book the name of its author has become one of the most commonly used words in scientific, religious and cultural discourse.

It was Richard Dawkins who said that Darwin made it intellectually satisfying to be an atheist. I’m not sure if that means it was intellectually frustrating to be an atheist prior to 1859. Back to evolution–even though evolution has “evolved” past the Darwinian scheme in many ways, he is still synonymous with the system in most people’s minds. Then, of course, part of the discussion must move into the question as to whether the biological theory is culpable of some cultural evils (“the final solution,” eugenics, etc.) that have allegedly sprung from it–commonly known as Social Darwinism.

What about the religious element?–there should be, at this point, a loud and in unison scream of protest coming from all atheist/agnostic readers. However, any serious study of the history of evolution will point out that the anti-religious philosophical foundation in the mid 19th century paved the way for the introduction of Darwin. There are few that would [honestly and] dogmatically assert that the strength of the theory lies solely in its scientific impeccability. I believe it was Julian Huxley who is quoted as saying, “The reason we jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” So here we are in 2009–Happy Birthday Origin–I think.

Pastor Jeff

Continuing on from my previous post I thought I’d offer my thoughts on the nature of morality.

Often discussions of morality focus on whether or not morality is objective or subjective but I am starting to realise this discussion is poorly framed.  We need to approach morality with a robust understanding of exactly what we are talking about and not just with vague nebulous concepts. 

It is easy to invent concepts and discuss them without any basis in reality and a lot of moral discussion fits into that category.  To base morality in reality we must treat it like any other model of the world and therefore it must be a descriptive or predictive model.

I see morality as a description of the patterns of behaviour and thought among people.  We start with the observation that most people think that murder (or whatever) is bad and go from there.  Absolute or subjective morality are models that attempt to predict these patterns of behaviour and thought by offering some sort of formula that describes the pattern.   

To help explain what I mean I will use the example of gravity.   We can observe that objects are attracted to each other and we can observe they tend to do this at a rate proportional to their size (i.e. big/dense things attract more than little/sparse things).  Gravity is the description of this pattern in observations.  There isn’t actually anything called gravity, it is just a pattern of observations.  If we ask why apples fall off trees the sensible answer is not gravity.  The apple falling is simply consistent with the observed pattern that things fall called gravity (and therefore predicted by it) but we have no idea why they fall.

I see morality as much the same except that it is more complex and there isn’t a  consistent set of patterns to work with.  People tend to not like killing each other but there are exceptions.  People tend to respect societal rules such as property rights but there are exceptions.  Etc. 

We know a hell of a lot less about morality as a pattern than we do about gravity and our discussions should reflect that.  We can talk until we are blue in the face about what we ought to do, what we should do, and the rest of it, but we don’t have any empirical reasoning behind those statements – they are just speculation.  At some point we have to base this discussion in the world we know about, not the world we think about.

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy.  I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine.  He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People.  Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization.  The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses .  Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseaou talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will.  Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him.  The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies.  Bottom-up. 

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings.  She called him a communist.  But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist.  And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection.  It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first. 

 As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought.  It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works.  It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned. 

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is.  It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address.  But those are the topics for further posts…

• That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

This clip was an interesting exchange which took place on the Chris Matthews program yesterday between Matthews and a Catholic bishop. The interview’s original intent was to talk about Rep. Patrick Kennedy being denied communion because of his support of abortion rights, but the discussion actually ended up being more about Church and State–moral law and civil law, and what the church’s position should be.

The last few minutes, starting around 7:00 into the clip, is worth watching…

(Chris Matthews) “you’ve gone into the area of law-making and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy. Going back to what John Kennedy said concerning the separation of church and state, the difference between rendering unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, which is the law, and rendering to the flock (*the church) what is right and wrong. And I would contest, that your problem is you haven’t gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and so now you’ve resorted to using the law to do your enforcement for you..”

The last part of the above quote is true, “your problem is you haven’t gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and so now you’ve resorted to using the law to do your enforcement for you” —

Matthews may have stated this concerning the Catholic church, but its true concerning Evangelicals in America as well.

You may not see this as I did–but it was as though a light went on when hearing Matthews make that statement; for it explains the reason for the countless number of  so-called  “Christian” activist groups today, groups signing public “declarations”, calling for civil disobedience, etc.

Its because that part of the Church in America has no other recourse but to seek to change people (and morality issues) by changing civil laws. They no longer possess a message by which real change would come about. They lost the ability to reach people and bring about lasting change, because they left off teaching Christ and him crucified–the gospel.  So now, as was stated, their only recourse is to use government (civil laws) to enforce morality.

And in the end, it will never work.

A transcript of my YouTube video with the same title. Video included for the non-readers.

Introduction

What is the purpose of punishment? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves when considering the idea of Hell. Eternal punishment, and the possibility that there is anything one could do that would be deserving of never-ending torture.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to ignore the fact that it is questionable, at best, as to whether the Bible actually speaks of a real place of eternal torment. What I’m going to be talking about is the modern-day, evangelical Christian version of Hell. The place where people go to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

The Purpose Of Punishment

So what is the purpose of punishment?

Punishment is a corrective mechanism. It’s meant to regulate behavior, whether that punishment is rendered by a society upon an individual, or a parent disciplining their child, or a God upon an individual. The idea is that, following the punishment, the offending party will learn a lesson from the punishment and will modify their behavior in order to avoid further chastisement.

When considering punishment, we must also consider the method of that punishment as it relates to the degree of the offense. Does the punishment fit the crime? In order for punishment to be effective, the punishment must not be too harsh, as this will only breed anger and resentment in the individual being punished – leading only to a repeat of the behavior in question, and possibly more severe disobedience done spitefully in the face of the inappropriate corrective action taken against the individual. If the punishment is too weak, the punishment will have no effect. Simply put, the punishment must be reasonable with respect to the offense.

Punishment With Respect To God

Taking these arguments into consideration, let’s look at the idea of punishment within the framework of the Biblical God and whether or not Hell would be compatible with successful modification of behavior through punishment.

The Bible says that nothing man does is good enough for God – man is in a fallen state and there is nothing we can do of our own volition that could allow us to avoid Hell. In Romans 7:18, Paul says,

“For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.”

In Genesis 8:21, God says,

“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

And, of course, there’s Romans 3:23.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Because there is nothing man can do which can be considered “good” in God’s eyes, we are left to consider degrees of evil. Certainly all actions are not equally evil. You wouldn’t consider being a coward or not believing in God just as evil as murder, would you? These things certainly are not deserving of the same punishment.

Would you give a child the same punishment whether he stole from the local convenience store or simply ate a cookie before dinner? Certainly not. But, the message we get from the doctrine of Hell is that every wrong action, no matter how minor, is equal in God’s eyes, and is deserving of eternal punishment.

Punishment Or Revenge?

The famous verses in I Corinthians, chapter 13 are universally thought of as the Bible’s definition of love. And this is important. In I John 4:8, John says,

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”

Now I want to direct you back to I Corinthians, chapter 13, specifically to verse 5. The verse says about love, it

“doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.”

Love is not easily provoked.

Now, with this in mind, let us consider eternal punishment in terms of what we have previously discussed. We’ve said punishment is a corrective mechanism. That this punishment must fit the crime, as punishments which don’t fit the crime will not be effective in changing behavior.

But, most importantly, punishment is done for the good of the person who has committed the offense. It is to help them to modify their behavior in order to be a better person, or to better fit in with society – to behave in a more acceptable manner.

When actions taken against an individual are no longer fitting for the crime, and the severity of those actions far outweigh the offense, this is no longer punishment, but revenge. And revenge is not founded on seeking the highest good of the offending individual. Revenge is about being provoked and taking action based upon anger, the expression of hatred and a lust for seeing another person suffer because of how their actions make the revenge-seeker feel.

Back to I Corinthians 13, again. This time to verse 7. It says that love

“Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

This tells me that a God who is all about love could endure these sins of cowardice, fear, or even murder. But, clearly, if God feels every action that man takes is deserving of eternal punishment, this is certainly not punishment, especially when taking into account that man was created imperfect.

(Free will is not an excuse here because God, being all-knowing, understood beforehand that Adam and Eve were destined to fall.)

So God is taking revenge upon those whom He created, not punishing them in order that they may have an opportunity to improve and become better people, but simply to pacify his anger and lust for suffering. This is not love, and it does not seek the highest good of His creation.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, we have seen quite clearly that the idea of eternal punishment is not only immoral, but is totally out of character for a God who is claimed to be the very embodiment of love. It is not moral to conclude that every “wrong” action is equally evil and deserving of the same punishment.

Punishment should be done with the hope of seeing the highest good arise from the one being punished. It should not be done with the goal of making the one administering the punishment feel better. That is called revenge, and is done out of hatred, not out of love.

Eternal torment, by definition, never ends, and therefore cannot fit into a reasonable definition of punishment. The individual has no opportunity to correct their actions following the punishment. Hell is God’s place of eternal revenge.

A while back I promised to write some posts about Christianity and video games and I never did. Given the recent media controversy about the airport terrorist scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,  this week I started feeling guilty about not having done what I promised, so here is one such attempt at such a post.  I don’t own Modern Warfare, so I cannot comment on that too much, but I do want to talk about video games and the ethical decisions that we are sometimes asked to make in them.

Video games have changed drastically over the years.  They have gone from being relatively simple (i.e. Pong–hitting a ball back and forth, which surprisingly can still provide some entertainment), to being quite complex–not just in how difficult they are to play but also in the complexity world they create.  Though there are still many mind numbingly simple games out there (most of which can be bought for Nintendo Wii), there a number of new and innovative games being released every year.

Some games are worth playing simply for aesthetic reasons, these are rare, but games like ICO and Shadow of the Colossus are worth picking up just to experience the beauty of the world found therein.  However, there is another trend in video games (not that new, it can be traced back to the first role playing games) to make games in which players are presented with moral choices.  They can choose to make righteous decisions or they can choose to make selfish, evil decisions and face the consequences of either.  Probably the most popular recent game where this is the case is Fallout 3, though the Fable series is well known for incorporating this dynamic (I think Infamous follows this trend).  I don’t have Fallout 3 or Fable II (though I do still have Fable for the original Xbox), so I won’t discuss either of those games, but instead I will address how this plays out in my favorite spy game, Splinter Cell.
I recently bought Splinter Cell Double Agent for Playstation 3 (Its been out for a while now, so now you can get it cheap!).  The game posses a great number of difficult moral choices.  In the game you go undercover to bring down a terrorist organization that is trying to overthrow the U.S. government in some malicious ways.  You have to accomplish missions for the terrorist cell while reporting information to the NSA and in the process, the game gives you freedom to determine how much you will sabotage the terrorist’s evil ends. Every decision you make affects how much the NSA and the terrorist organization trust you.  If either of them lose too much faith in you–game over.
I found this incredibly compelling as I first began to play the game.  In the first several missions you are able to please both the NSA and the terrorists without too much trouble.  But recently I had to put the game down because I was presented with a terribly difficult moral decision to make and I just decided to put the game down cause I couldn’t decide the right thing to do.  Let me explain.

In the mission I am currently on, I had to go and plant a bomb on a cruise ship.  Fortunately you are able to fake a fire on the ship so that most of the passengers evacuate.  However, the Mexican Coast Guard is privy to a terrorist threat, so many of them remain on board.  As you plant the bomb, you also record the disarming code so that you can disarm the bomb before it goes off.

At the end of this mission you are given 3 options–(1) disarm the bomb and take a HUGE hit in how much the terrorist organization trusts you or (2) disarm the bomb and blame it on another member of the terrorist organization who will then be killed or (3) let the bomb go off as it would not kill any Americans, only members of the Mexican Coast Guard.  Very interesting question.

1.  You disarm the bomb and face the consequences–this will make the next mission incredibly difficult as you will be on very shaky ground with the terrorist organization–it is not “game over” but its close.

2.  You disarm the bomb and blame it on someone else.  Interestingly enough though, the person you can blame it on is the only terrorist with redeeming qualities–she is the one person who was opposed to planting the bomb and one that perhaps could be turned away from terrorism and perhaps even help you take the organization down!  On the other hand she is a member of a terrorist organization and blaming it on her would save you from losing an incredible amount of trust and blowing your cover.

3.  You do not disarm the bomb, let it go off and kill several Coast Guard soldiers.  This is after all just a game and not real life, why not do the thing that will make the game easier for you?  (not advocating this, just asking the question).

This moral conundrum surprised me, I didn’t expect to be so conflicted about a choice in a video game, so I just quit playing–it is a game, it is not real, so I have that option.  In life, however, though we will probably never face a moral dilemma on this level, we will face difficult moral decisions and we cannot quit, we will have to make a decision of some sort and face the consequences whatever they may be.

I have decided to pick the game back up, I now know what I am going to do.  I have settled in  my mind what the right course of action is.  What would you do?  I want to see if this generates any discussion first, but later, I will post in the comment meta what I am going to do.  This whole situation, I think was actually an interesting exercise for me in moral decision making.  So feel free to share your thoughts about ethics, video games, etc. in the comment meta.

In short there are some games out there (few though they may be) that make us think about difficult issues.  As a family pastor, I would would be careful about letting your children play games like Splinter Cell: Double Agent, but nonetheless it presents us with some interesting questions that are worth asking and worth thinking through.

An article in the Globe and Mail yesterday (23 November) by Lisan Jutras articulated some of my recent thoughts on privacy on the internet. I’m not talking about name, birthdate, address and credit card info, but simply about evidence of having a life of one’s own outside of work, and many people’s assumption that we must obliterate all traces of it on the internet. I had one former Facebook friend who would berate me for every cheeky, ironic joke or reference to R-rated activities, claiming that “people” would think bad things and that “someone” might find the comments and… I don’t know, publish it on the front page of the Globe? Not give me a job? It’s an insidious thought: that we should live our lives and censor our personal communications on the presumption of a tyrannical “They”-construct and reify the myth of a domineering public morality.

I don’t advocate going to the other extreme and being tactless with what one posts online, but I’m not going to worry about what They might think of what I do.

Read the article at Go on, let it all hang out online (retrieved 24 November 2009):

[T]he uncomfortable truth is that we have made technology so pervasive that we can’t get away with hiding parts of ourselves from it – and its millions of users – any more. And as we become more and more exposed, we have a choice: We can try to button up and sell the world on squeaky-clean online versions of ourselves, or we can start to let it all hang out.

I’m in favour of keeping it real… Frankly, I am saddened by the en-masse blandification that many so-called experts encourage. The fishbowl effect of Twitter or Facebook, where everything we do is potentially seen by hundreds of other people, is similar to that of the Panopticon – a craftily designed jail where prisoners never know if they are being watched or not, so they start acting as if they are being watched, even when they are not.

Jump on board for this movement…’If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ (Psalm 11:3)

“Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

The following was prompted by my reading this.

There are many laws that scientists have discovered over the past few centuries: Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, the four laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, and so on.  These laws describe forces that exist completely independently of humans; they are true whether or not we humans understand them, or whether we even think about them at all.  This kind of law is referred to as natural law.

In contrast to this natural type of law, Alan Dershowitz says in Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights:

It is we who create morality, for better or worse, because there is no morality “out there” waiting to be discovered or handed down from some mountaintop.  It is because I am a skeptic that I am a moralist.  It is because there is no morality beyond human invention that we must devote so much energy to the task of building morality, law, and rights.  We cannot endure without morality, law, and rights, yet they do not exist unless we bring them into existence. 

I am not so sure about that.  Scientists have had to devote a lot of energy to making their discoveries, and that certainly isn’t any indication that without humans, gravity or electromagnetic forces would cease to exist.

As I mentioned in “Is Religion Good or Bad?“, there are many people at the other end of the spectrum from Dershowitz.  These are people who believe that all morality comes from God and our only means for knowing what is moral is divine revelation.  It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I fall in the middle. 

I think it’s clear to most people that science can be used either morally (think polio vaccine) or immorally (think chemical weapons).  But, religion can likewise be used either morally (think housing the homeless) or immorally (think Inquisition, World Trade Center attacks). 

Now, in order for us to even be able to speak of a religion (or a government, or any other system that humans use to impose morality) being used immorally, there must be some objective standard, outside of these things, to compare them to.  In other words, I think there must be a natural law of morality – a standard by which we can judge whether a religion, a legal system, or any other human construct is moral.  There are people in all religions, or no religion at all - and people who believe in God, or who believe there is no God - who are moral, and others in each one of those categories who are immoral.  It is not their religion or belief which determines whether they are moral; it is this universal, natural law of morality, to which anything else must be compared to determine whether it is moral or immoral. 

The problem is, discovery of these natural moral laws cannot be reliably obtained from divine revelation.  It happens too sporadically and to too few people.  Even after receiving divine revelations, people have been killing each other for thousands of years over what any given revelation actually means, so this method has not resulted in a sufficient understanding of the natural laws of morality.   

This is what we ought to be pursuing: rational discovery of what the natural laws of morality are, using observations the way science does. Here is where I agree with Dershowitz. His method for establishing what rights ought to be protected by law – in other words, determining morality - seems very promising.  As Dershowitz shows in his book, a methodical observation of the different societies throughout history makes clear the consequences of failing to define and enforce various rights.  Knowing in which cases the lack of a given right has led to harm, tells us which rights must be included in a moral, just society. 

Another avenue to discovery may be comparative religion.  Any one religion by itself does not lead to complete discovery of the natural laws of morality, because we must be able to distinguish moral religion from immoral religion, and no religion is going to declare any part of itself immoral.  As I alluded to in Bonding, Bridging and Religious Appreciation, and as The Charter for Compassion is based on, however, real morality can be found in what all the religions have in common.  The things religions differ on, in general, do not concern how we treat other people.  Where other people are concerned, religions all agree: do not murder, do not steal, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc.  Studying all the religions and compiling that which they all have in common would produce at least a bare minimum set of natural moral requirements.  It would also be based in actual human experience, which I think gives it an advantage over ethical philosophy.  Of course, if people actually followed even just as much of what we already know to be universally moral, the world would be incredibly more peaceful, but that’s a post for a different day.  The point here is, the discovery of natural laws of morality needs to be observation-based, just as discoveries of natural laws of science are. 

Just to be clear: throughout this post I have argued only for the existence of a natural law of morality, and a practical means for furthering our understanding of what it is.  I have not been speaking about it in terms of its having some ultimate source, such as God, at all.  The source of moral laws is no more or no less divine (however you want to look at it) than the source of scientific laws, but what that source is (or even whether there is a source at all) is really of far less importance, in my opinion, than figuring out what the laws are, and then living by them.  This is what will bring about real peace. 

Jacob Bronowski said, “Man masters nature not by force but by understanding.”  Our understanding of science has allowed us to do amazing things like master gravity by building airplanes.  Understanding the natural laws of morality will allow us to do amazing things like achieve world peace, by mastering human nature through understanding rather than force.