Moral Certitude

We the People of the Me, in Order to form a more perfect world, do hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that there is no universal morality, that there is no definitive right and wrong, that only reason can guide us on our path.

How can right and wrong be defined if there is no supreme example of what is right or wrong? Simple: it can't. This should be abundantly obvious, as there are clearly moral gray areas. Is it immoral to steal if you are starving? The more appropriate question is whether it's moral not to give food to a starving person. The answer to this question is rather straight forward, but the reasoning isn't immediately obvious.

If we rely on the above givens, logic can give us a list of moral priorities. These are not moral certitudes (with one exception), but priorities.

1) Survival of Life
2) Survival of the Habitat
3) Survival of the Species
4) Survival of the Individual's Genes
5) Survival of the Individual
6) Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
7) Property


The only moral certitude is that life must survive. This is the highest priority on all scales. We must not allow any event so destructive that it will wipe out all life, be it by our own causing or of otherwise natural causes.

The notion of Darwinian Natural Selection could be taken to imply that the survival of one's own genes is the highest priority. This is true, but it has many levels. As we share genes and DNA with all life, we are also responsible for the survival of our genes at that level. We are responsible for protecting the survival of our genes, but this directly includes our own immediate family. We are therefore also responsible for protecting the genes of our ancestors, but not at the expense of our own species. We are responsible for protecting our species, but not at the expense of our own habitat.

Does this mean that we can't exploit our own habitat? No, but only as long as we aren't destroying its usability for the propagation of life--as long as we aren't wantonly destroying life. Is it our responsibility to prevent the natural extinction of species? Not necessarily. It's our responsibility if we are the cause. It's our responsibility if we are affected. It's our responsibility if it affects the entire planet.


This much should be abundantly obvious. What about less obvious questions? Is it moral not to give food to a starving person? This starving person shares our genes. It is to the benefit of the species for each individual to be willing to come to the aid of another. This has the benefit of making the species more cohesive. This is what makes society work. This general concern for the well-being of the species causes the (communist) voluntary redistribution of wealth that is otherwise known as charity. There are a select few that take advantage of this generosity. This behavior has not been selected out because it does work--but only when there are a relatively small number following this behavior. The reason this obviously bothers us is because it involves blatantly putting the survival of an individual’s genes above the survival of the species. It puts us directly in competition with each other, as opposed to having us help each other.


What about marriage? Birth control? Celibacy prior to marriage? Choosing not to have children? Feminism has done wonders in that it allows women (and men) the freedom to be themselves--the freedom to choose for themselves.

This is wonderful, but there are downsides that have come with the feminist movement(s). If everyone were to choose a career over family, then there would be no children to propagate any of our genes--our species would fail. If intelligent people were less likely to have children because they are too busy supporting their own desires, then intelligence would be selected out of the gene pool. Obviously, even a small number of intelligent people will benefit the whole species, but even small selective pressures can remove genes in their entirety over the vast spans of time that are considered by evolution.

The capitalistic society of the United States has reached a point where the people best able to thrive within the society are the least likely to reproduce. You don’t see the scientists and engineers that make technology and medicine producing a dozen offspring. No. This only occurs in cultural groups that are not educated enough to understand the biology behind sexual reproduction and cultural groups that can’t afford the birth control to stop having children. The problem isn’t that these groups are reproducing in large numbers. Absolutely not. These are large groups and within them are many people with various incredibly useful genes. Unfortunately, these people are more likely to succeed in leaving these cultural groups, and as a result, they are less likely to have as many children. (I wish I had research to back this up… but these claims just make sense to me.)

Am I claiming that birth control is bad? No. I am claiming that choosing to not having children is bad. In choosing to not have children, you are accepting that there is nothing in your genetic structure that is worth passing on to future generations of the human species. Am I claiming that we should have rampant sex and create as many children as possible? Well, if that’s what the competition is doing… (just kidding.) No, we should have as many children as we can support. It’s important that our offspring also be capable of using whatever beneficial genes they have. If they are raised to be incapable of taking advantage of their inherent gifts, then they will have difficulty properly offering these genes to the benefit of the entire species.

Marriage is not morally critical. This falls into the pursuit of happiness. It is important that each and every child has enough support to be able to grow to his or her full potential. This does not necessitate that the parents be married. This does not even necessitate that both parents even be around. It’s entirely possible to raise children in a single-parent household. It is, however, easier to provide for the children if there are more adults providing. It is important for the parents to do what they must to promote the survival of their own genes within their offspring. What logically follows is hard-wired into most species: that the parent will protect their offspring with their own life. Unfortunately, this could involve protecting the offspring from the other parent.



Lastly, what about religion? Any religion which conflicts heavily with the above will have dire effects on one of the following: a) the followers b) the rest of the species/world c) the religion itself. Christians once went on crusades to destroy all non-Christians. This form of Christianity no longer exists. The Christianity of the bible no longer exists. The various Christian sects each have their own interpretation of what should be followed and what should be ignored. Radical Islam is currently attempting to destroy all non-Muslims. They have really pissed off a large group of people, and now the dumb want to wipe them out. Eventually, one of the above three possibilities will occur, and as a result, the world will be very different.



This is by no means a definitive guide to how you should live. This is simply a proof-of-concept that a god is not necessary to define right and wrong. Much of what I have claimed is speculation on my own part. I do not expect all of this to hold up to rigorous scientific research. This is simply meant as a strategy guide for approaching your own decisions. I suspect the top five items in my list of priorities are not likely to change. The remaining two could easily be expanded, but this expansion has been left out of this first write-up.

Photos from the Queen Mary

Well, I went and enjoyed an evening at the Queen Mary last night. I went to see Veto! again, and after two visits, I think I'm unofficially part of the show.

Anyway, waiting for everything to start, I walked around a bit and took a few photos. Here are the better ones:

I pissed off my ex today (again)

FUCK, THIS WEARS ME OUT!

oh, you want the details?

Well, I have a habit of not trusting people... of assuming they will get details wrong, count change incorrectly, send me in the wrong direction, tell me something when they don't have a clue, say a word when they meant something else, or just flat out be dumb. Part of this is why I am an atheist, as I rarely take things at face value. There are very few people that I trust to be right. In fact, the more time I spend with a person, the more I figure out what types of things they don't screw up and what types of things they might need a little help with. I try my hardest to never just assume that I know best, but I just can't ignore an error that I see. I may be able to restrain from saying or doing anything, but that doesn't stop my brain from focusing on the error and figuring out exactly what is wrong with it.

I think a perfect example of how my method *does* work is when I'm talking with the other programmer about how something should be designed. One of the two of us will present an initial idea. My brain, in attempting to comprehend the idea, winds up punching as many holes in the idea as possible, specifically finding the most obvious flaws. Then, one of the two of us will determine whether the flaw is really there (or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill), and if so, we'll figure out an approach to work around the flaw, or even replace the original idea altogether. All of this occurs in a matter of minutes, possibly at a marker board, and neither of us is offended if the other points out that we are wrong.

Having worked with Hisham for a year and a half, I've also figured out that in many situations, when I don't understand what he's saying, he doesn't either--it's often a vague idea that needs clarification for the both of us. I know where to rely on him, and where not to.

Having lived with Bonnie for about five years, I know her much better than I know Hisham. Unfortunately, I know not to trust her to catch her own mistakes. I'm not entirely certain of the process that goes on inside her brain, but I know that she knows me well enough to know when I've caught a mistake, and it pisses her off, as she knows by the fact that I'm distracted, or perhaps my expression changes. My brain is so distracted by the fact that Las Vegas isn't south of Los Angeles, that I'm suspicious of whether it's six hours out of the way on a trip to the Grand Canyon. As a result, while I'm trying to see the map in my head, I miss the part of the story where she says she would rather just got to Vegas for a weekend than for a day. In the end, it doesn't matter how far out of the way Vegas is, but I've already pissed her off by the fact that I even noticed that she was wrong.

I think in her mind, it's a double-whammy. The first is the fact that something caught my attention above the *story* that she was telling. The second is the fact that I don't trust her to be right or to necessarily know what she's talking about. But how could I ever trust someone to actually think about anything if they believe in something as unsubstantiated as astrology or homeopathic medicine? I have a hard enough time trusting a grocery store that even caries homeopathic products.


For the record, one of many reasons she left me was because of my logical opinions of astrology. When she decided that she believed in it after I told her what I thought of it, she decided to keep it from me. In fact, she kept many of her newfound beliefs from me throughout our entire relationship, as I would undoubtedly ask questions to understand. She always took this as me trying to prove her wrong, so as she moved away from atheism and towards, um, blatant stupidity, our relationship dwindled.

Seriously! There is absolutely no basis for thinking that the position of the moon in the sky relative to the planets and constellations has absolutely any bearing whatsoever on absolutely anything! When we first got together, she believed in homeopathic medicine. When I explained the physics behind why it's impossible, she *claimed* to understand and not believe, but she's always fervently claimed that there is something to be said about the placebo effect (agreed, but there's nothing good to be said about selling a complete sham to people who believe it can cure their cancer).



If you (the reader) hate me now, I completely understand. Just keep in mind I was a wee bit ticked while writing this.

A few new photos

I spent Christmas week with my family in North Carolina, and with my brand spanking new camera, I got around to taking a few photos. This is just a few of them. The included photocast can be viewed with any photo compatible RSS reader.

Minority Status

According to my mother, we no longer have to check the "Caucasian" box when asked our race. I am now "Appalachian," and we are considered a minority. :) We are among the last cultural groups which are still acceptable to make fun of (e.g. Beverly Hillbillies). While I may not strike you as the redneck type, remember that cultural groups do not distinguish based on IQ, income, or education. The fact that I actual speak English correctly does not make me any less of an Appalachian than the next native (Think of how big of an uproar there would be if an African-American were denied protection simply because they come from an affluent household).

So, this affluent German/Scots-Irish white boy is now a minority thanks to my ancestors that settled in the Appalachian Mountains many, many generations ago, and thanks to the fact that none of them chose to leave. Ironic, eh?