Again I say the good is that which preserves or expands the meaningful life of a rational being. As to the character of a person, that person we would say is good whose true values are good. Is it possible to have evil values within a personality and, therefore, end up with an evil personality or soul? Oh, yes indeed! However, evil is the lack or contradiction of the good. Therefore, to identify evil, we must first identify the good in detail. This is crucial to morality because it gives positive guidance, as opposed to listing a series of things that are prohibited or to avoid. Guidance uses our own consciousness to address the indefinitely large array of choices in our lives. A list does not.
In consideration of what I have written before, let us expand our understanding of the good as found in a personality on the basis of rational meaning. To be a good person, that person must engage in a continuous process of defining/discovering, selecting, and additional actions to gain or keep meaningful values. That process or processes comprise what is virtue. This is a dynamic process that must proceed as long as we live. There is never a point where we have been being good enough so that we can suspend pursuing meaningful values or engage in the destruction of meaningful value.
So long as we have breath, we are good if we strive to pursue the meaningful values in our given context. This is true not only on our death-bed, but also whenever we find it necessary to repent from our past evil. We may act to be good, even if our resources are few and, furthermore, even a monster can mitigate his or her past evils by consciously choosing meaningful values. Repentance may not balance the moral scale, but it might still reduce evil and, in this capacity, we can say that the person is acting for the good.
Rand said that the precondition of a value is the existence of the actor, which is to say a living person. Therefore, the pursuit of meaningful values requires that the actor be able to act, even if it is quite temporary. We would conclude that any attempt to define morality without consideration of the actor is a metaphysical contradiction in terms. Thus any would-be moral code which defined its purpose as self-denial as the ultimate principle, is just so much gibberish. There is quite an array of such nonsense to be found all over the world and throughout history. Why this is so, I will address later.
The first part of virtue is the discovery and/or definition of a value or values. Some of our concrete values we share with other living things, such as food, water, and so forth. For the most part, this is a process of discovery or identification of values based in the biochemical reality. Now our abilities go beyond a simple perceptual awareness of concrete values, even in regard to those concrete values. Animals are pretty much limited to perception. However, human beings via concepts can, say, plant food, build dams for water, and perform other actions based on our conceptual power to envision the possible futures, such that we can choose to gain infinitely more of those material values than any animal can grasp.
While many values can be discovered as ones already present in nature in some form or potential, by far the overwhelming majority of our values, especially in modern times, are those which must be first DEFINED by us. Unlike natural values, these man-made values are primarily CONCEPTUAL rather than concrete as such. As man emerged from the mammalian perceptual consciousness, his concepts evolved into language and simple tools, furnishings, and clothing.
While animals might have certain fixed signs of communication, man gained the power to extensively describe with words various cognitive realities or impressions, including both physical situations and emotional ones. Furthermore, practices of culture were generated that vastly expanded language and knowledge generally. While an animal might use a stone or stick to get something or use as a weapon in a specific situation, man went on to the conceptual to pass tool-making from one person to another, and build new tools on the base of old ones.
The expansive nature of language and toolmaking are conceptually based and have no real parallel in other species. These items reflect the existence of a conceptual consciousness, or reason. By innumerable steps of conceptual creation over many thousands of years, we see the eventual development of philosophy, airplanes, music, particle accelerators, literature, medical regimens, Roberts’ Rules of Order, agriculture, and much more. None of this is possible to a perceptual consciousness, but is only possible to reason.
Given the myriad array of choices and values in our current conceptual culture, it seems obvious that not only is reason our primary tool of survival, as such it is our primary means to cognize values and be moral. This is why I emphasize the Rational part of Rational Meaning. Without a basic understanding of the crucial role of reason in morality, discussion of values becomes incoherent. Indeed, a failure to use reason correctly, generating logical errors, is the root-cause of most of mankind’s misery today. Let us find out how this is true.
In social terms, we know that logical errors can bring about tragedy in such events as criminal trials. Our legal system attempts to minimize such errors. Logical errors can also be quite devastating in politics. However, most fundamentally, within our own minds logical errors have very negative value and emotional consequences. What is not understood is that most emotions are directly influenced by our judgments. Here is an example of how this is so, taken from one of the writings of Nataniel Brandon, one-time associate of Rand. This is my paraphrasing and modifications:
Imagine a room where a father and his very little child are sitting. Suppose three men enter quietly, dressed in black and carrying weapons. The little child may not be particularly moved, while the father becomes scared to death. Why is this so? Because the father’s judgment is that danger is perceived and it causes fear, while the child, having no such judgment, remains serene.
Now imagine the same father and child sitting with some balloons. Suppose one of the balloons burst close to the child and father. The child, perceiving an abrupt bang, is frightened. The father knowing the balloon to be harmless is not really upset.
We can see that in some cases judgment, good or bad, affects one’s emotions. But we now have a body of scientific evidence of this fact by the growing school of Cognitive Psychotherapy, which seems to verify that nearly all negative emotions not explained by actual realities (such as the loss of a loved one) are in fact due to logical errors in a patient’s mind. Cognitive Psychotherapy was launched with the publication of “Cognitive Therapy And The Emotional Disorders” by Aaron T. Beck, M.D. in September of 1975. Here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Therapy-Emotional-Disorders-Meridian/dp/0452009286/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379282746&sr=1-3&keywords=cognitive+therapy+beck
This started the entire school of psychotherapy which now boast at least hundreds of books and scientific studies that validate the data and includes the experiences of thousands of practitioners as effective therapy for many, many people.
It has been found that the great majority of emotions not consistent with clear causal value factors are in fact due to logical errors. This evidence leads to both psychological insights, but also philosophical insights. The implications are that there is no viable conflict of thought versus emotions, since emotions are actually reactions to earlier thoughts or judgments. The idea that we can follow emotions as such to address value issues is akin to a dog chasing his tail. This is circular, to say the least.
The only resolution to inner conflicts is, then, to investigate the facts as we see them at present, as well as the roots behind our emotions. Most of the time, we are likely to realize a conflicting emotion is due to past error. I should also note that sometimes what is behind a given emotion may be rooted in reality while our current perception is in error. Sometimes people will even call this situation some mystic “intuition” but that itself be an error. No, there is nothing mystical about this. The true resolution is to look at the facts logically, that is to say, rationally.
Thus, we conclude that reason must be our guide in ethics or morality, knowing that emotions are reactions, not a guide or proof. To be moral, we must be on guard against irrational errors.
Reason is certainly in play when discovering or defining values. It also plays a role in choosing or prioritizing values. It does so as a complex computation of the worth of each value and value-chain. Since all values are related to other values in a value system or morality, one change or one addition of a factor can cause a radical re-ordering of the structure. It is, in effect, mathematically CHAOTIC, where a small change can make for very large differences. Such changed factors or new information might very well come from the sheer act of reconsideration of a value structure, which is starkly different from animal value-systems.
A animal might have some pre-programmed values such as we see with mating behavior. We might also see mammalian stimulus-response patterns, and all such actions are fairly predictable or “deterministic.” This is why in history some regarded animals as a sort of “machine.” With reason, at any moment human being can radically revise their entire value system due to reconsideration or simply new information. Again, it is CHAOTIC mathematically and cannot be predicted or “determined.” This is the very essence of free will.
I would like to add that the old concern of free will versus determination would imply that we somehow could not be morally responsible for our choices due to predetermination or that we could not somehow express our true nature due to determination, when the fact is, that what we do is because of who we are and the meaning of our values. Again free will is supreme.
I will continue this discussion in my next post on “The Good And Meaning.”
My Essay: On “White Privilege”
On “White Privilege”
There seems to be a Progressive propaganda mill website called PolicyMic. They have a fatuous article there called “7 Actual Facts That Prove White Privilege Exists in America” written by one Zerlina Maxwell.
The article is a typical specimen of Progressive propaganda and I must say it is pretty light-weight. This sort of line of “reasoning” is filled with half-truths, uses ill-defined terms, is highly illogical, and is underhanded in its intent, which, if accepted, is really an ad hominem attack on anything they brand as a “white” perspective in any logical argument. Used in a discussion of moral dimension, it is a moral attack on anyone who has white skin and who has the gall to disagree with Progressivism, which is the very essence of what I term “white shaming,” which is to say, anyone who is white and concludes anything other than the Progressive line on racism is himself or herself a racist and should be ashamed with unearned guilt. Before, this shaming was accomplished by simply calling others racist but, of late, many times the race card is seen to be overdrawn, so an alternative mode of attack was seen as needed.
Furthermore this sort of argument is, in fact, an attack on the free will and gumption of any individual living a bad neighborhood, an implicit attack on the moral nature of anyone, minority or otherwise. Yes, it is an implicit attack on black people as well. Let us examine this propaganda in detail. Facts are stubborn things as we will see, and the Progressives in this article are now stuck with inconvenient facts.
Here are the alleged “facts” to support the legitimacy of the notion of “White Privilege” as presented in this laughable article, It says if you are white:
1. You are less likely to be arrested.
2. You are more likely to get into college.
3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.
4. You are less likely to be perceived as a “thug.”
5. You are less likely to be labeled “angry.”
6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.
7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.
Superficially, some might say that these statements are incontrovertible. Let us see if that is true.
“1. You are less likely to be arrested”:
Let us translate this from a negative proposition to a positive one, being specific about the race aspect as well. Most will agree that the race in question is really the black race as supported by the accompanying photograph of a black man being taken away in handcuffs. We can then take the proposition and translate it to “Blacks get arrested more often on average than whites.” Crime statistics show this is a fact. Here is another fact. I believe it is well-established that crime and especially serious violent crime is higher per capita in black neighborhoods than elsewhere.
Now the question is, is this crime rate because of white or majority racism? Does the KKK mount late-night commando raids into black neighborhoods? Do white merchants with stores and services there provoke black crime? Should any ordinary white feel responsible when a black person commits a crime? Such inferences are obviously ridiculous. When it comes to morality, including wrongs called crimes, the individual who does it is morally supreme, for good or ill, if they are human.
If something done is wrong, some context can mitigate its gravity, but any decision to deliberately harm another human being remains wrong and subject to condemnation. To say that blacks are not responsible for their actions as individuals, is to condemn the black race as irresponsible and immoral, a conclusion in line with old slaveholders. Yet this disgusting conclusion is what the supporters of “White Privilege” have implied and really support. I maintain we all have individual choice, but the question remains, why is crime higher in black neighborhoods than elsewhere. I think I have some reasons.
First of all, black neighborhoods are typically dominated by Progressive politicians. The best example remains to be the city of Detroit. Progressives, at least for the last 50 years have typically taxed businesses out of a city, abused property rights, made corrupt deals in all manner of goods and services, cut down of police services, politicized court proceeding of all sorts but especially on violent crime, and enforced the dominance of the worst educational institutions in the nation. This last item is by far the worst crime of Progressive politicians. It is a fact that students from those inner-city (black) schools, as measured by anyone, often do not graduate, and generally learn much less than students elsewhere. With such a barren background and Progressive corruption, it is harder to achieve any real success. Furthermore, along with little success perceived and politicized, ineffective law enforcement, the proliferation of crime and gangs is almost inevitable. Considering how widespread gang culture becomes, it is not surprising it has a certain “trendy” appeal for some people, including dress styles, hair styles, and ways of speaking. If someone does not belong to a gang, but want to not stand out as a target, or in order to seem trendy, that individual might choose to adopt gang styles anyway. These styles are then typically taken as flags meaning “I am a gangsta, so you don’t mess with me!”
“2. You are more likely to get into college”:
This means “Fewer blacks enter college than whites.” Does it not seem logical that if black schools do worse in preparing students for anything, that fewer would go to college. Furthermore, it is a fact that a great number of higher education schools have that reverse discrimination called “affirmative action” or “diversity programs” going on which gives blacks easier requirements than any other group to enter. Yet because of inferior preparation from elementary and high schools for blacks, there is lower admission, attendance, and performance by blacks on average. Should the ordinary white student feel responsible for this? Ridiculous!
“3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.”:
Now really, outside of the entertainment industry with all other things being equal, does a candidate of lesser education, displaying gangsta hair styles, dress, and speaking really recommend one’s selection such an candidate over anyone who is educated, neatly-dressed, and well-spoken, of any color on any rational ground? I think not. The same applies to the gang style of skinhead. I ask if an ignorant white displaying the style flags of skinheads have an advantage over those who do not? I think not. All gang-affected individuals of any color are also less likely to communicate in a diplomatic way with both co-workers and customers. Is it surprising this would be grounds for an employer to reject such candidates? And we must note that without addition evidence, gang style might just indicate a real gangster. I think rejection is thoroughly justified.
“4. You are less likely to be perceived as a ‘thug.'”
This translates to “Blacks are more often seen as thugs than others.” To the extent that blacks display gangsta styles, is that surprising? I am sure that a well-dressed and mannerly individual is less likely to be seen as a gang member or thug. How could that be otherwise, since the advertising about personal affiliation is so easily perceived? I have a tip: If you want to not be perceived as a gang-member, drop the gang styles. That would also help with getting a job and creating new personal relationships with anyone, including members of your own race.
“5. You are less likely to be labeled ‘angry.'”
Translation: “Blacks appear more angry than other races.” I think that actually being angry is possible for those who experience frustration from less success than others because of lesser education. Furthermore, such an appearance is also enhanced by gangsta styles, because expression of anger and aggression is a common mode of gang-style communication. Again it is not the fault of ordinary white individuals.
“6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.”:
Translation: “Blacks make fewer headlines when missing than whites.” True. Here is the only place where any guilt is to be had. Blame goes to those overwhelmingly Progressive reporters, commentators, and editors who have dominated the mass media. This is just another sign of the contempt Progressives have for blacks. Certainly few ordinary citizens have any blame here at all.
“7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.”
Translation: “Blacks have worse housing than whites.” Given bureaucratic Progressive Public housing, rent control, lesser success, and higher crime in these neighborhoods, there is nothing surprising here at all. Again no ordinary white has any hand in this at all.
Now let us address this whole skin color thing. Given the flawed premises of the “White Privilege” supporters as above, how about another non-white color? What about Asian Americans? How much of the above apply to Asians. Virtually ZERO. All those premises are knocked into cocked hats. This is now even a source of friction in California between Asian politicians and other Progressive politicians. Progressive generally want to keep Asians out of higher education by applying higher standards to them than other minorities. Asians are generally mindful of education, typically have a family work-ethic, usually dress neatly, and speak politely. These are the key reasons they have been successful. Their “privilege” had nothing to do with it and often their parents or grandparents were dirt-poor and discriminated against.
I conclude that if one cares at all about our fellow human beings who happen to be black, one wants to communicate to them their personal power of choice and morality, not enslave them with degrading and self-serving excuses like “White Privilege.”
Let me add that the real enemy of blacks is Progressivism and it is not surprising that Democrats are not only the greatest source of government corruption, they have nearly always been the backers of black repression. Democrats opposed the Republican movement to abolish slavery. Democrats backed the KKK, even up to modern times. Democrats backed racial segregation and opposed Republican efforts, such as those of Republican President Eisenhower to integrate. Even the latest civil rights bills would never have passed without Republican support with a strong Democrat opposition. Progressivism pretends to be everyone’s friend, but is actually a power-hungry clique that intends to exploit everyone else. Fundamentally, they are not friends of blacks, nor of anyone else, and it is our duty, as Americans and decent human beings, to oppose their cruel and evil tyranny.