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?

Buddhism and Tasteless Jokes

Restraint with the eye is good, good is restraint with the ear. Restraint with the nose is good, good is restraint with the tongue. Restraint with the body is good, good is restraint with speech. Restraint with the heart is good, good is restraint everywhere. A monk everywhere restrained is released from all suffering stress.

-Dhammapada, 25, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.


A couple of years ago, I made a joke that really offended my family. My mother (apparently) spent a week crying over how she could have ever possibly raised such a horrible, awful son. I didn't even find out that so many people were offended until the next year. Wow.

I made a huge deal out of it; I was offended at the response--that people would talk about it behind my back for months--that no one would say anything to me--that they were even bothered by the joke to begin with.

Before I go much further, you probably want to know what I said. This was after Thanksgiving dinner at home in North Carolina. As usual, the "adults" were still sitting and chatting about local folklore at the dinner table, and the "kids" had migrated to the far side of the room. My sister (the only of the four kids that still subscribes to Christianity) had brought her boyfriend from New York, and we were meeting him for the first time. They both worked at a Christian camp whose sole purpose is to convert heathen high school kids to Christianity. We had always joked that as the brothers, it was our job to run off the boyfriends. Somewhere along the line, I joked that "he's only in it for the sex." Get it? Funny? Well, not in the context that you know that absolutely everyone in the room was offended, and everyone wound up apologizing to the new boyfriend for my horrific behavior... all without me knowing (that part isn't particularly surprising).


This week, my mother sent me the quote at the top of the blog, asking what I thought about it. My response? "That's kind of the point of Buddhism." She asked me to elaborate. Before I got a chance to write down my thoughts, she effectively admitted that she was trying to bait me into contradicting myself--trying to get me to blame my actions on my ex, which I could get away with now that I'm single.

Well, this got me a little bit irate all over again, but I did stop and think about it. I realized yesterday why I never subscribed to Buddhism, despite liking much of what it has to say. Buddhism is based around the idea that desire leads to suffering. In order to end suffering, you must end desire. This is a valiant but impossible goal. You cannot end desire. The desire to end suffering counts as a desire. The desire to be a good Buddhist counts as a desire.

To me, this just seems like a religious case of learned helplessness. It's a coping method for dealing with oppression, for dealing with impossible situations. If you are apathetic about the situation, it no longer causes you to suffer (you aren't lost if you don't care where you are). Of course, this is also a fabulous method of pissing off your captors, but that's a different twist on the whole thing.

While desire may be the source of suffering, it is also the source of pleasure, of happiness, of everything that makes life worth living.


What do I think of restraint? I whole-heartedly believe in the freedom of speech. I believe in the right to express ideas, emotions, thoughts, opinions... You don't have to like what I say. If I offend you, you don't have to keep reading; you don't have to invite me to your next party. You don't have to stand here and listen to the end of my thought. I have a right to say it, even if no one wants to hear it. If I want to keep friends, it's my own responsibility to not tell someone in the middle of a large group of people that an outfit makes them look fat.

I believe that the moment any kind of censorship is applied, you begin to stifle the freedom of expression. I no longer feel safe with my family, as I'm worried what *else* I might be able to say that could offend people as much as that simple joke. I can't talk about atheism, as I'm afraid I might offend by admitting I am an atheist, as that pretty clearly states that I think they believe a lie. Who might I offend if I *did* actually get into this discussion? I can never again speak freely around my family without fear of repercussions, and that hurts. Restraint may help keep friends, but it shouldn't be required to keep family.


"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to death your right to say it." Voltaire

You've been married twice? What's wrong with you??

Short Answer: I fall in love too easily, and I'm virtually incapable of making a logical decision about someone I love (e.g. the decision to break up, call off the wedding, and go our separate ways).

Long Answer: I have a tendency to want to rescue women, and I wind up falling in love in the process. Unfortunately, this has so far only happened with people with whom I happen to be incompatible.

The first time, one of my best friends dumped a girl (with whom I had developed a friendship) when he found out that she was not a virgin. I was rather irritated with his pretentious attempt at religious holier-than-thou-ness, so I sacrificed the relationship with one of my best friends in order to protect another friendship. I felt that Eddie was wrong to do that, so I took Kendra's side, and it really meant a lot to her.

In the long run, of course, things didn't work out. We wound up competing with each other, and she couldn't accept that I was better at higher level math than she was. No matter how hard I tried to explain to her that she was doing her homework wrong, she insisted she was right and that I was in fact wrong. Keep in mind that I was much more of an arrogant SOB back then than I am now, so this didn't go over particularly well. This competitive nature is why I wound up no longer writing poetry (because she insisted her poetry was better than mine), why I stopped drawing (because she insisted I wasn't any good), why I stopped writing music or playing the piano (because she insisted I was too loud), why I stopped hanging out with my friends (because she insisted they were a bad influence on me), and why I stopped interacting with my family (because she hated them all and got mad whenever I would talk with my mother). In addition, I never fit in with her friends. They would always put me down because they didn't think I was particularly funny.

Eventually, I got fed up and left. I left everything, not even knowing where I would sleep that night. I wound up staying for the next few months in a spare bedroom that one of my coworkers' ex-boyfriends had. I think the best way I can put this is that I was a computer science major, and I went nearly three months without a computer.

As with everything, there is more to the story than I'm letting on. It was worse. I can leave out the details here of *why* everyone believed she was a lesbian, and *why* I believe them in hindsight.

This relationship was a disaster before we even got married. I was too young and stupid to see the signs AND stick to my position about breaking up. I tried once, but she wouldn't let me. Weird, eh?



I learned the hard way that I need to be extra picky about the girls I date. By this time, I had done a lot of research into Jungian personality types--the MBTI in specific. Everything I had read made a lot of sense, and it all seemed to be backed up by a lot of evidence. This has helped me learn a lot about myself. It's helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses as well as where I'm flexible and where I'm not. I understand what I need out of a relationship as well as what I have to give--and what I am incapable of giving.


The second time around, I met a totally amazing girl that seemed to be almost everything that my first wife was not. Unfortunately, she had much bigger family issues than Kendra. We both did our best to help the other work through our own life issues. I also enabled her to believe that she was no less of a human being just because she was female--completely against what she had learned from her father. In time, this gradually freed her to be herself. As it turns out, she and Kendra aren't really all that different after all. The key difference is that she wasn't controlling like Kendra, but they wound up with nearly the same interests and many very similar personality traits. Many of the traits that made my first marriage a disaster wound up also applying to second marriage. I knew the issues were there, and I knew there was no fix, but I accepted things the way they were, as I was okay with it, and I could accept the differences.

Unfortunately, she wound up talking with an old ex of hers online, and he was having serious issues with his girlfriend. She realized that this guy could give her everything that I could not. After several months of talking with this guy, she decides that it's over between the two of us (April of this year). I was rather dumbfounded, as this seemed to be the very first time she had ever hinted that the stuff about me that annoyed her could even possibly be a deal-breaker. I tried to change her mind, but failed miserably. In June of this year, she moved out.


As a result, I've grown very cynical of the whole idea of love. I've painfully come to accept that I'm probably going to be single for a very long time to come, as I'm just so bitter at this point that I wind up assuming that any given girl is not my type before I even give her a chance. I find myself nitpicking the tiniest details in order to scratch girls off my list as easily as possible. It's easier to make a snap judgment than it is to invest time in a relationship only to figure out a few months down the road that something really is a deal-breaker, but by then you're way too emotionally invested to get out easily (which causes you to attempt to convince yourself that something really isn't a deal-breaker).


Now, we get to my current situation. I've met a woman (at a quarter of a century, we aren't boys and girls any more). As explained by the previous paragraph, I've already determined she's not my type. Since there is the slim possibility that she might at some point stumble across this, I'm going to refrain from saying why. .. So far, she seems really interesting, so I'm trying to be a friend, as I rarely get any kind of deep, intelligent conversation anymore; I'm trying my freaking hardest to make new friends that won't just nod in agreement every time I mention something "hard," like relativity, QED, or Fourier Series (a discussion of Mensa may come in a later blog entry).

Unfortunately, she has her own issues. She pretty clearly suffers from serious depression and very low self-esteem. There are also several seemingly large parts of her life that appear to me to be a coping method--a way of putting on a mask in an attempt to devalue how she really feels. My heart is just screaming out in agony watching this: "my god, woman, I want to help you!" I fear the worst--that she has been crying out for help, and the fact that she's not receiving help is pushing her in a downward spiral. She's a very difficult woman to reach on any kind of personal level, and I wonder if there is even any remote possibility that there's anything that I can do to help.


So here I am, thinking about the damsel in distress. Apparently, this is my type. Don't do it again Hank... she's not your type... you can be friends, but nothing more. Don't get your hopes up, because one way or another, you are bound to be let down, forever and always.