Morality Across Cultures Part 2

While working on my paper about morality across cultures, I have found it extremely useful to engage in discussions about morality. I am pretty certain that certain friends of mine will be terribly pleased to see my paper finished and me shutting the hell up about it. But the most valuable discussions have been taking place online - useful in the main, because the people involved are actually interested in the discussion.

One of the more recent and more interesting discussions has been taking place on a science blog I first wandered to last week, The Primate Diaries. I never cease to be surprised by the fierce need so many people seem to have, of some kind of universal moral frame. I really wonder about this and what drives it. Is it a need to have one's own moral frame validated by some external agency? Or is it a fear that without a universal dogmatic structure, we will see some kind of breakdown of society? Or could it simply be the feeling that we must respond to theist claims that atheism equals a complete lack of morality, with a palpable dogmatic frame?

In the interest of a rather simple method for gathering responses, I have made a poll. Please feel free to explain more in comments.



I may or may not use the result to this poll in the paper I am working on for school, but it is unlikely. I will however write about the results if I get very many. If you happen to have an urge to link directly to the poll on your blog here is the URL.

Dissent: Debate v Dehumanizing

There are a lot of people who seem to have the mistaken impression that characterizing people they disagree with as something they are not equals debate. Or more to the point, characterizing people as less than they are. People who believe that dehumanizing their opponents is a legitimate tactic of debate. They turn them into "others" who lack characteristics that are fairly critical to being a functional, reasonable member of society.

Take the person I recently had to ban from commenting. Apparently he thinks that I cut him off because I am afraid to debate him. Someone who likes to make references to "you atheists." Who believes, or claims to believe that atheists lack compassion, love and morality. Someone who cannot comment on the topic of a post, without engaging in dehumanizing rhetoric that disparages atheists - as though all anyone who identifies as such is, is an atheist. The only label - the only defining characteristic that matters to him, is the label of non-believer, of atheist.

The irony of this person, is that he refuses to actually debate, instead engaging in all sorts of denigrations. He decries "those" atheists refusal to debate, claiming that this is somehow proof of the superiority of his position, while all he does is spew hateful bile - pretending that this hate somehow equals debate.

Don't get me wrong. I am no supporter of religion. I haven't even the slightest compunction about ripping into religion, liberal, moderate or extreme. I have absolutely no use for it and absolutely believe that the destruction wrought by religion is not even close to balanced by the good that religion does. Sometime soon I am going to write about an issue that my lovely Juniper and I were discussing, about the "virtue" of not being virtuous. Good works done with strings attached are not all that particularly "good." Sure, they benefit people - but what does that say about the person providing that benefit. They aren't doing it because it is the right thing to do, they are doing it to get something out of it. I realize that this is not limited to religious people - people providing charity for purely secular reasons usually have ulterior motives - but that is something for a later post.

Bottom line, I am pretty much against religion.

There is a difference between me and this person who was recently banned. I don't just label people by their religious inclinations. I recognize that their faith is just one label, one aspect of the person. I recognize that there are a great many wonderful people, who just happen to be religious. I also recognize that there are a lot of really shitty people who also happen to be atheists. I recognize that atheist is just one of many labels that make the person.

I recognize that there are things specific to atheism that some theists want to debate - I am more than happy to debate about it. If you really believe that morality, for example, is impossible without a god to shape it, I am all about having the discussion. I write about morality a lot and there is a whole hell of a lot of room to argue with me, as I have a fairly controversial stance on it. While I happen to think I am right and that my position is sound, I am not so arrogant as to assume that I assume there is no possible way I could be wrong.

The irony of the argument of he who was banned, is that he was generalizing my position on morality to all atheists. The problem with that, is that while there are certainly atheists who agree with me, there are a great many more who do not. Even more interesting, there are theists who agree with my position on morality and moral relativism.

And this phenom is true of a great many label versus label sort of issues. There are a lot of things that I tend to agree with many liberals about. There are also things that I tend to agree with a lot of conservatives about. I love, for example, going to Ed's blog, because I get to argue with people on different threads at the same time. Though I have had little time for it lately, I love to argue with someone about something over on that thread, while shredding someone else's argument with them on another. I am fairly certain there is not a single person I interact with on a regular basis, who I do not have a single, significant difference of opinion with.

And there are people I generally disagree with on things - including theists, who I love to spend time with. There are authors who support political positions I am pretty fundamentally opposed to, who I never the less love to read. That is not to say that there aren't people who support things that I find so very repugnant, that I cannot stand to be around them. Oh, there most certainly are. There are ideological positions that are so far beyond the pale, that I just can't muster anything but scorn and derision. But those are few and far between.

Seriously folks, I am all about lively dissent and discourse here. I have opened my front page to dissenting views and would love to do so again. I am all about having lively, even heated debates here. What I will not accept, is the dehumanization of people who choose to engage in discussions here. That kind of language will not be fucking tolerated - period. Argue - meaning if you disagree, tell me or someone else why you disagree and why you are right. Talking about "them" and "people like you" and "you ____" is not debate or argument - rather, it is fucking bullshit and I will delete that kind of shit out of hand. If all you have is hateful bile - I don't care how much you pretty it up, hate is hate - you are not welcome here.

Though if you drop those kinds of comments (or emails) I totally reserve to right to turn it into a post and rip your bigoted, hateful fucking bullshit to shreds.

It is your place to say it, Greg, but you're wrong.

I started writing this post as a comment and soon realized that it was far more appropriate as a post in itself. Greg is rather fucking angry about all this blog violence and infighting. Indeed, he is prepared to stick his angry boot up someones ass so far that they'll need a shoe-shine rag to brush their teeth, if they tell him that it's not his place to say what he said...

Of course it's your place to point this out - it's your fucking blog. For that matter, this is your place to comment on it too. However, I don't agree with you...Or more to the point I do, but not everyone who agrees with us on one or more of those issues, agrees with us on all of them. And therein lies the problem and the point I was trying to make to Volcanoman on that other post.

As an atheist, I am willing to accept that atheists who have what I see as reprehensible moral frames, also happen to have a common enemy with me. Honestly, common enemy or not, there are those in that group who I just flat refuse to ally myself with - which is rare for me. As an environmentalist, I accept that there are even some pretty hardcore fundamentalist theists who also happen to be ardent environmentalists - and again, there are those among them who I just can't in good conscience ally myself with.

I could go on and on - for every issue you raise, there are people who agree with us on that issue, while fervently disagreeing on others. Excepting extremists, I am happy to ally myself to those people on those specific issues, while accepting that on other issues, they are my enemies. But given that there are those in each of those groups who are my enemies, it stands to reason there will be some infighting - or outfighting within the group might be more accurate.

And then there are those with whom I have fundamental differences with, when it comes to tactics. Like Chris - you know, that dude who just came out with a book coauthored with a awesome marine biologist. He doesn't see a lot of utility in trying to convince theists to abandon theism, believing it far more important to convince them that there isn't an inherent between accepting science while being a theist. While I have no problem with making the latter point clear, I will not - absolutely will not allow that point to interfere with my fundamental belief that theism is poison - no matter what type or extreme that theism takes.

Nor am I going to play nice about it - something that many atheists believe is counterintuitive. I believe that it is a good thing for people who aren't comfortable with the sort of rhetoric I occasionally am prone to not to engage in it, but I also think it's a good thing for people who are to do so and I think it's a good idea for people who have some other way of going about it to do things their way.

But most importantly and why I categorically reject your premise, is that this very discussion is a good, incredibly positive thing. This "infighting" you are objecting to - this is exactly what drove me to where I am now. I've been engaging in this argument for about six years now and my position on it, as well as my personal religious beliefs are almost in perfect polar opposition to what they were when I first engaged in it.

I am not alone, or in any way unique.

There are a lot more people reading this stuff, including these discussions, than there are people commenting on it. Hell, with my tiny traffic blog, I get emails from people who just aren't comfortable commenting. The other post garnered me four emails from people who just wanted to tell me they appreciated my comments to Volcanoman (one also mentioned the other person I was arguing with). You get a lot of traffic and I imagine that it's only a tiny fraction of that traffic that ever responds.

It is important for people to see and understand that atheists aren't some homogeneous group of people. It is important for people to understand that the thing that makes us atheists, is a lack of religious belief - and nothing else - absolutely nothing else. Sure, there are a lot of things that many, maybe even most atheists would agree on. But that has nothing to do with us being atheists - it just means that we happen to have other shared values.

And this discussion does more than show people what atheists are and aren't. It also exposes them to arguments about the nature of religion and magical thinking - arguments that they may never hear anywhere else. It shows them that a) not all atheists are angry and/or b) that some atheists are - both of which are valid and valuable points to theists or those who simply don't identify as atheists, though their actual beliefs may qualify.

Are All Men Capable of Rape?

There has been a lot of interesting discussion going on over at Greg Laden's. He has now gone to three posts (one, two, three) and the discussion is pretty heated. I really didn't have time to engage yesterday and don't have a whole lot today. But I think that there are a lot of very important points to be made about this. I'll start with my first comment on this thread and expand a bit...

My gut reaction to this is that it's total bullshit. I want it to be bullshit - almost need it to be. But I then consider the recent discussions about torture and my acceptance that while the circumstances are far-fetched (i.e. on a scale with getting struck by lightening three times, each time standing in the same spot) I can think of hypothetical situations in which I would not only condone torture, but wouldn't hesitate to engage in it myself.

Humans are quite complicated animals. Human minds are incredible and incredibly adept at rationalizing, compartmentalizing and in extreme stress, breaking. The closer humans get to the primitive mind, the more likely they are to engage in what we would consider reprehensible acts. When people are required to break their social conditioning, such as soldiers are required to do - is it any surprise that some of them will break with it more completely? And when people never receive certain types of social conditioning - acts that we find repugnant naturally happen.

There are people in the U.S. who commit egregious acts of violence every day without consideration for anyone or anything around them. They simply don't care who else might get hurt while they play their stupid little games, that carry such dire potential consequences. I believe absolutely and without reserve, that the actions of such people are immoral. But I also accept that such people do not operate with the same social conditioning that I do, nor do they exist in the same social context that I exist in. More importantly, they are not operating under the same moral frame that I operate from. While I don't believe that it excuses their behavior, I accept that just because they don't operate under the same moral framework that I do, doesn't mean or even imply that they are inherently amoral. They do have a moral frame and probably do fairly well at operating within that framework.

These are people who commit egregious and repugnant acts not because their conditioning was broken somewhere along the line, but because their conditioning allows for the behaviors that most of us find repugnant. And this is very much the case with people who commit egregious and repugnant acts such as rape, within the framework of cultures that accept rape as a matter of course. This is also the case with people who would condition children to fight as soldiers or commit acts of terrorism. All of these behaviors are repugnant and our macro-society has a responsibility to try to put an end to such behaviors. But it is important to recognize that we are not up against people who are behaving badly, according to their cultural norms. We are in fact, up against the cultural norms that accept these behaviors - it is an entirely different battle.

Now I think that the simple fact that there are cultures where these sorts of behaviors are well within social norms is adequate evidence in itself, that all men are capable of rape, that all people are as a baseline, capable of all sorts of repugnant behaviors. The bottom line is that morality is largely, if not entirely contextual. Change the context, change the development, change the cultural norms and humans are capable of all manners of atrocity. History and contemporary societies are proof of that. The fact that there are even sub-cultures in the western world that commit atrocities is proof of that.

But what about the other end of this discussion? Because the question is not; "Are all men capable of rape, if their social context is one wherein rape is a cultural norm?" The question is; "Are all men capable of rape?" which implies all men, as we exist within any social context. This is a much tougher question - not because it doesn't have a very simple answer, but because that simple answer rides atop a rather complex set of variables and because it is extremely difficult to approach this question objectively. The simple answer? Yes, all men are capable of rape, all men, regardless of the social context or cultural norms they were raised in.

But contrary to what some seemed to be saying over at Greg's blog, I think that it is important to recognize another simple concept and I believe this recognition is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. All humans, regardless of the social context or cultural norms in which they were raised, are capable of all sorts of atrocities - given the right set of variables. It is important to recognize this, because without that added context, we're presented with the implication that the potential to contradict our social and cultural conditioning and commit acts that are contrary to our own moral framework is somehow gender specific. This is not a masculine characteristic, it is a human characteristic. Indeed rape is not just an act committed by men, women can and do, engage in acts of rape too - and for the same spectrum of reasons that men do.

So really, the question should be stated; "Are all humans capable of rape?" And we have already gotten the simple answer - but what of the reasoning behind that answer?

Being a very creative and abstract thinker, I can in fact conceive of situations in which I would torture another human being. I can also conceive of situations in which I could be driven to commit murder, including premeditated, first degree murder. I can conceive of situations that would drive me to steal and even possibly harm a completely innocent human in the process. I can also conceive of situations in which I could be driven to commit acts of terrorism, though this belongs right up there with murder and possibly even torture, in terms of likelihood. I can conceive of these not because I don't believe all of these things to be immoral, or because I am somehow morally deficient. I can only conceive of these hypothetical situations because I have an incredibly active and creative imagination.

But no matter how abstract my thinking, no matter how creative I can be, no matter how actively I try to conceive of it, I simply cannot conceive of a situation in which I would rape anyone. I don't think that most people can and I think that's a good thing. I also suspect that this is why many people get very upset at the idea that someone would tell them that they are capable of rape - or for that matter, anything that I listed above. It is important to recognize three things.

One, the fact that the potential exists, does not make anyone a bad person. It doesn't reflect on who you are as an individual, nor does it reflect on your social conditioning. More importantly, it doesn't somehow imply that you are ever going to commit such acts - most of us never do. Indeed, it is unlikely in the extreme that anyone who has been firmly socially and culturally conditioned to believe that these are horrible things to do are ever going to do them, unless there is a pathological basis for such behavior. This potential reflects on no one as an individual - rather, this potential is simply a part of what it means to be human. Being human means that we are all susceptible to being driven to commit heinous acts.

Two, being unable to conceive of a hypothetical situation in which one would be capable of committing any of these atrocities is not the result of being incapable - it is merely a failure of imagination. And as I say, there is nothing wrong with that failure of imagination. I can conceive of hypothetical situations that make my stomach churn and has, on occasion, caused me to lose a lot of sleep - something I can ill afford as a baseline insomniac. In all honesty, I would much prefer a failure of imagination under the circumstances.

Third and I think ultimately the most important. This potentiality does not reflect on one's morality. That this potential exists does not signify a breakdown in one's moral framework. But just as important, the fact that this potential is so very unlikely, does not mean that one has a firm, reasonable or even coherent moral framework. Ultimately, it is outside the realm of moral frames and is actually dependent on social and cultural conditioning. This is not to say that one's moral frame is inherently separate from the potential to commit egregious acts. Rather, the potential for committing egregious acts is not inherently dependent on one's moral frame.

I do have one last point to address, because I think that Greg is way off track. In his post; Is there a rape switch?, He makes this comment, in reference to an old term paper by one of his students:

The switch being on does not mean that rape will happen. It simply means that the man (with the switch on) is now a rapist, whether he actually rapes or not (but he probably will), and when the switch is off, he is not (so he probably won't).

Now a reasonable reading of this discussion will show that this is not something that Greg is saying as an absolute. Indeed, it is clear that he is willing to be convinced otherwise, though he strongly suspects that this is the case. I am going to answer the question in the title and respond to the idea in this quote with an emphatic and resounding; No, this is complete and absolute bullshit.

A person does not move from having the potential, to being the thing, unless they actually commit the act. The fact that a lot of people who end up fitting a similar set of variables commit acts of rape, does not mean that everyone who fits those variables is a rapist. It simply means that those who don't rape, require a different set of variables to become a rapist.

Lets look at another egregious act and a set of variables that will often cause people to commit that egregious act. A man or women is in love with someone and they get married. They have, or believe they have a very strong relationship with their partner, built on mutual trust and respect. They also have a very close friend with whom they have a different sort of relationship, but one that is also built on mutual trust and respect. One day this person comes home unexpectedly and find their partner and their best friend in their bed, having sex. This particular set of variables quite often leads the betrayed party to have a psychotic break and murder one or both of the people who have betrayed them, in a fit of rage.

Does that mean that everyone who fits those variables is a murderer, even if they don't actually kill anyone?

Not at all. It merely means that people who don't commit murder under those circumstances, require a different set of variables to become a murderer.

I'm sorry Greg, but unless and until a person actually commits the act, they only have the potential to commit the act. Until the specific variables that will cause them to act are met, they are in fact, incapable of committing the act.

Personal Growth and Evolution

I absolutely adore Jessica Palmer's art and her blog, bioephemora.  She posts some of the very sexiest art and also manages to toss in some very interesting discussions that often revolve around shifting media paradigms.  But in a recent post about a very intriguing piece of artwork, she made a rather innocuous comment that really bothered me - because I didn't actually know why she objected.  The subject of the post is an electroformed copper sculpture entitled "Evolve."  It's a depiction of a chrysalid formed in metal, which I agree is rather interesting - it is certainly the sort of notion that makes me rather happy in and of itself.  But Jessica doesn't like the title.  I misunderstood her objection to mean that she didn't like it being used to describe individual development in the manner I was reading the actual art - i.e. personal development.  Instead her objection is specifically to evolve being used to describe the individual biological development. 

This sort of misunderstanding happens to me rather often, as I tend to be an extremely abstract thinker. 

I am going ahead and posting this post anyways, because outside the context of Jessica's post, what I wrote still stands - even in regards to the notion of evolution.  While Jessica doesn't actually object to using evolution to describe non-biological processes, I have run across the objection before.  More importantly, I also bring some other words into the discussion that have been known to raise some hackles and there are a great many more words for which this discussion is relevant.  Language purity and mechanical accuracy unquestionably have their place, but there are also contexts in which both simply get in the way.  Sometimes they interfere with making a point, sometimes they they make it hard to express oneself accurately and precisely.  Other times they interfere with the creation of sculptures, paintings of words, of panoramic wordscapes that ebb and flow across and through, under and over our consciousness, melding with it's own intricate pathways and webs until we forget where the wordscape ends and our mindscape begins - blurring definitions and lines and even the grey dwindles and condenses, coalescing into a greater whole that is something completely different, but no less beautiful than it's melting into other minds.

When the guidelines interfere, throw them out the window.

I do not believe that there is any good reason to restrict the use of any word that can be used to accurately describe many processes to a singular context.  This may just be part and parcel with my very favorite medium as an artist being words and sounds, but I am all about stretching language to it's very limits and beyond.  Words have power and I have argued rather voraciously that overusing particularly powerful words just lessens that power.  However, using words accurately, outside their normal context can have the opposite effect - or more to the point can both increase their own potency and give strength to the point they're being used to make.

Language is and always should be fluid.  There are certainly situations where one must stay within very strict parameters - I am having a hell of a time learning to write formally in an academic context, for example.  But outside the context of more formal writing, I believe that English mechanics and grammar are more of a loose set of guidelines, than strict laws.  For that matter, I am all about making up words, when there isn't a word available for a given situation.  A "few" of my readers have noticed that I rather overuse commas - or a few have noticed who actually decided to mentioned it to me...A few of those have noticed that I use commas the way that I do, because rather than putting them where mechanics would dictate, I put them where I would be utilizing them, if I was actually verbalizing what I am writing - mostly people who have spent much time talking with me notice...

And evolution is a word that I actually like to use in a variety of contexts, because I think that it is a very precise word for describing concepts that would otherwise take far more words to describe.  It implies things that needn't then be explicitly stated.  And I am sure that everyone who reads what I have to say, knows how very important brevity and saving on words is to me...Ok, so I am actually rather fond of the words, but those who know me well understand that I am very keen on my language being rather concise.  And for that, evolution is a very useful word to describe processes of change over time, influenced by complex variables both internal and external - kind of like the process of slowly changing one's world view, personal moral frame, religious beliefs and even one's personality.  Not one of us is the person we were ten years ago and I think that evolution is possibly the perfect word to describe the process that changed us from the person we were then, to the person we are now. 

The example I used in comments on that thread, was my religious beliefs.  I explained that I have evolved from a fundamentalist Christian when I was young, through a rather twisted mixture of Christianity and magic (or more accurately mysticism) and eventually became the atheist I am today.  By using the word "evolved," I can avoid being specific about my journey through magical thinking, while implying that it is a lot more complicated than the vague stages I described.  I am thus able to communicate in a sentence, what could easily take a couple paragraphs, which depending on the context in which I am describing that journey, may be entirely irrelevant.  Another example where using the concept of evolution is quite handy is when describing interpersonal relationships and for that matter, extrapersonal relationships.  Or when describing changes in complex social systems. 

Though it turns out that her objection is in the context of using evolve to describe a biological process that isn't actually evolution, but rather biological development,  I run into a lot of folks in the world of psychology who, for example, strenuously object to the use of misogyny, outside the context of a pathological hatred of women, or who object to the use of addiction to describe anything that isn't actively causing the addict significant harm and in some circles anything that isn't a substance addiction.  I understand these objections to a certain point.  I would certainly question someone using misogyny in a professional setting, to describe someone who is actually just an extreme chauvinist who makes very generalized statements about the inferiority of women - or someone who described someones fondness for a particular type of music as an addiction.  In a professional context these descriptions would be entirely inappropriate. 

But in a social context I believe not only is it appropriate, there can even be a certain utility to it.  In the case of evolution, I think it is a net positive to use the concept of evolution as a pop-culture reference because it gets people used to the word - even people who in the context of science, believe evolution is an attack on their faith.  In the case of addiction, I think it's a net positive because it can only reduce destructive stigmas relating to addiction, if addiction is used more often outside the negative context of self-destructive tendencies.  Misogyny, on the other hand, is a mixed bag.  I've discussed the overuse of misogyny and misandry and the notion that using them outside of very specific contexts reduces their effectiveness.  It is a lot like accusing people of being Hitler - using them too often makes them virtually useless when it is appropriate to do so.  Ultimately the same is true of the other words I'm discussing here and many that I'm not.  But these are two that are invectives and therefore require a great deal more discretion.  But I digress...

Language is power.  Language is what we use to define, express and in a great many ways perceive reality.  So much of what we see with our eyes, smell with our noses, feel with our bodies, taste with our tongues and hear with our ears is rendered nearly meaningless without the context that language provides.  Consider for a moment what it would be like to see the elegant beauty of honeysuckle, to smell it's fragrance, to feel the soft, velvet texture of it's flowers, to hear the breeze rustle through it and to taste the sweet, slightly bitter flavor of the heart of its buds.  Now imagine all that, without language to consider it in the privacy of your own mind, much less express it outwardly.  Language is so profoundly important, beautiful - human.  Language is really what makes us human.  Limiting language, is nothing less than limiting the scope of human experience - like somehow we're human enough, we're fine the way we are and don't need to grow and expand ourselves.

When we stop growing, we start dying.

Happy Stephanie Z Day!!! (or Why Creationism and Faith are often Arational)

Greg has declared yesterday Stephanie Zyvan day and since I don't have something of hers to repost (Lucky Greg), I will have to write a smart blogpost. I haven't been terribly motivated lately, choosing instead to get some posts I am going to write outlined, while also trying to frantically get some paying jobs done before classes start Monday.

Actually, that for some reason reminded me of something Scicurious (it was also Sciday!!!) inspired me to mention...Not that I'm trying to hint or anything, but man do I love getting books in the mail. I mean I really love getting books - and if they happen to come from the author of the book - maybe with the authors signature, why I would have to write up the book and tell everyone how much it rocks...

And apparently today is Jason Thibeault day...I think that that calls for some cake - some inappropriate, even naughty cakes...(as in, don't click that link at work, or in front of your grandma (unless you have a really cool grandma))

And because I can, I love her and she did actually contribute to this post, by discussing the topic with me for quite a while, I will declare this Juniper month. She really deserves more than a day. I mean hell, she puts up with me, loves me and as an atheist, I can't put her up for sainthood.


So onward to the heart of it...

John Wilkins is possibly the very smartest ape the world has ever seen. Either that, or he's just better at expressing himself than most members of his species. In any case, he recently had a very interesting paper published about creationism and rationality. I think that it is quite reasonable to extend the logic of his position to Faith in general, rather than limiting it to a single facet of that faith.

But for my purposes, creationism is actually a very good example, because arational creationism has a counterpart amongst those who accept evolution...Yes, yes it does and I am actually going to start with that counterpart...

There are a lot of people who have very interesting ideas about evolution and they're not all creationists. There are, for example, a lot of folks who pretty much assume that On the Origin of the Species is basically the best explanation of how evolution occurs. Survival of the fittest is basically how many, if not most people would characterize the theory of evolution. While we can give such people kudos for not buying into the idea that some god zapped everything into being, they are in fact wrong and difference in their ignorance of origins is only a matter of degrees of difference from the ignorance of creationists.

Does this ignorance make such people irrational? I would argue that it does not, it merely makes them ignorant. And I would also argue that the same is true of many creationists. The fact is that most people really don't spend much, if any time thinking about human origins or science in general. I would daresay that more people think about politics than science and in the U.S. at least, most people don't seem to think much about politics either. Most people struggle to focus enough on work and their interpersonal relationships - politics is barely on their radar if it is at all and science is nothing more than a peripheral concern I.e. "how does current science affect me?"

Even today, in the twenty first century, science education is abysmal in the U.S., especially when it comes to talking about evolution. There are many locations where the teaching about evolution is minimal or ignored altogether - whether because the teacher is afraid of dealing with pissed off parents or school boards, or because the teacher doesn't believe evolution explains where we come from. And your average fundamentalist is having their Faith and dogma constantly reinforced, while any discussion about evolution is dismissed as liberal, atheistic propaganda, or even the work of Satan.

So it works out as really easy for people to grow up believing what their Faith and the dogma of their faith has to say about origins and dismissing the little they may have heard about evolution as evil lies. About the only creationists who are really likely to change, are those who have a casual interest in understanding how the world works and who aren't ready to believe that Satan makes it appear that evolution happened.

But is it really reasonable to expect them too? Like I said, most non-creationists have little, if any understanding of how evolution happens because it simply doesn't really matter to them. Why would creationists be a whole lot different. They know how the world came into being - they learned it when they were young, had it reinforced throughout their lives and had people they trust explaining why evolution is really evilution. About their only hope is to have a science class with a teacher who actually understands evolution, isn't afraid to teach it, has a smart-ass in their class who wants to throw creationism out there and a teacher who isn't afraid to address the smart-ass's comments - oh, and said student would also need to be paying attention...

Most people are simply not going to go looking into this on their own. They aren't going to really look into anything that might contradict what they have believed their whole life. They aren't doing it maliciously either - nor are they attempting to wallow in ignorance. They are mostly just living their lives like anyone else - not really giving a shit about anything outside their cosy little world.

They are no more irrational than people who believe that evolution is survival of the fittest, that evolution means we descended from apes or monkeys that are just like the ones we can see at the zoo. It is not particularly rational, rather it is neither rational nor irrational - ignorant is a considerably more accurate label. And there are even cases where not believing in creationism would be highly irrational - especially when we are talking about children, who truly know nothing else. When you know nothing else, is it remotely rational to decide what you know to be true isn't? There was a time in my own life when it would have been pretty irrational for me to deny the Genesis story of creation.

Given the prevalence of religion in the U.S., unless you are young or non-American, odds are that there was such a time for you as well...

Misogyny, Misandry and What Lies Beneath

DuWayne has been very, very bad. We're talking horribly evile and possibly even stoopid. Recently, I had the gall to use the term misogyny, while totally failing to counterpoint it with accusations of misandry after being attacked with an apparent attempt at misandrist rhetoric. Worse, it was then noted that in all my posts about gender, I have only mentioned misogyny once and never mention misandry. Apparently it didn't matter that the time I posted about misogyny, it was to chastise someone who made a flagrantly bullshit accusation of misogyny. No, what matters is that I have completely ignored misandry.

Evile I tell you, I am totally evile...

Or am I?

There is a reason that I haven't really discussed misogyny and misandry. While I definitely do not approve of either, I am far more interested in writing about the roots of misogyny and misandry. Rather than focusing on specific incidents of M&M, I want to focus on why I think these are persistent problems in society and the evidence that suggests that I'm correct in my perception of the underlying problems. And while there are plenty of folks discussing specific incidents of M or M, there aren't so many discussing how to deal with the root causes.

While I am not one to shy from illustrative anecdotes, I tend to be a rather abstract thinker. I am more interested in the why than I am in the specific whats. The why is important, because until we understand the why, we can't deal with the whats and ultimately we'll just be stuck in a reactionary mode that will never accomplish anything.

But I think there are some very important points to be made about M&M. Accusations of M or M tend to fly way too freely. Like many other sorts of accusations, the overuse of M&M has gotten to the point that both words, especially misogyny, have been rendered virtually meaningless. Like the post I wrote about misogyny - accusing someone who is criticizing someone else of misogyny, simply because the person being criticized happens to be a women is absolutely absurd on it's face. Likewise, taking the lying gameplaying insult at Greg's blog and assuming that it exemplifies misandry is absurd. It was a personal insult leveled at me and men who share some similarities with me - it was far from a generalized statement of man hating.

These should be very powerful words, yet like many powerful words they are rapidly becoming useless. When I was a child, bigot was a word of similar power and while it is still a relatively nasty word, one can't assume that a person being accused of bigotry has said or done really horrible things. It has gotten to the point where we just use too many damned power words in inappropriate places. We just destroy the potency that such words should have and render them useless when it is appropriate. And I say we because unfortunately, I am occasionally guilty of it as well.

What's really rather ironic, is that I didn't really think that the original post that fostered this discussion (warning: there are rather nasty trolls on this thread, do not read scroll down that thread if you have bloodpressure problems) was showing something that is inherently misogynistic. Rather, the very old childrens book pictured perpetuates gender roles that lend themselves to misogyny and destructive gender role conflicts. That book and the bullshit it perpetuated is definitely worthy of discussion and I plan on writing about it at some point. But even that is not worthy of accusations of misogyny. Rather, it is worthy of fostering a discussion of what lies beneath misogynistic attitudes and ultimately misandrist attitudes that were fostered in the backlash of the social gender constructs that book fosters.

But even beyond the discussion of M&M, it would really behoove us to quit acting like complete and utter fucking morons and use power words sparingly, so that they can retain their power.

Ya Think (bloody damned morons)

I needed a little break from my final paper, so I thought I would take the moment to share this little nugget of wisdom I found in The Cognitive Therapy of Substance Abuse. Keeping in mind that this is in the context of the first session with a new client:

For example, the cognitive therapist would be ill-advised to speak in the following manner:

"We're going to be examining your thinking processes, to understand the kinds of cognitive distortions that lead you to engage in maladaptive behaviors such as drug abuse and antisocial behaviors."

I'm sorry, but if you are honestly stupid enough that it would ever cross your mind that saying anything at all like this to any patient would be reasonable, you really need to find a career that doesn't involve cognitive therapy of any kind. And if you are stupid enough that you would consider saying that to an addict you would actually like to see get help, you really need to consider a career that doesn't put you in a position to be a risk to others - like pressing buttons that go bing.

What irritates me about this example, is not simply that it's so completely absurd, it's that there are a host of more subtle mistakes that a therapist could make that aren't shown. For example, I could see a therapist saying the following, especially if said therapist was new to this and rather nervous:

"So John, what I'd like to do is explain a little bit about how cognitive therapy. I'd like you to feel free to ask me any questions you might have about this type of treatment, so don't be shy. We're going to try to understand how you see things, how you feel about your life, who you are - about using drugs. This is important, because it can give me a good idea of where your coming from and where things went wrong. This will also start to help you understand yourself a little better and help you turn your life around in a direction you would be more satisfied with."

Do you see the problem ? It's subtle and could actually turn out to be language use that the client will be comfortable with. But there is no way that the therapist can know that in the very first conversation with a client - especially a client who is a substance abuser. Even when they were the one to initiate contact, drug abusers are notoriously reticent about help seeking. Quite often the first session is going to be the only session - even if the therapist does everything right. So this first session is walking in eggshells - you will not get a second chance to fix any mistakes you make.

"...where things went wrong." is the problem statement. Yes, they are there because something is very wrong and presumably things went wrong somewhere. Odds are pretty damned good that if they're in your office, they even know that things went wrong somewhere and assume that you know this too. The problem is that verbalizing this smacks of judgment. The client may well decide you believe that they are wrong as a person. Even if they don't go to that extreme, it is likely to both anger them and flare up their shame response. One simple word like that can easily cut the chances that the client will return in half.

I don't want to give the impression that this book is horrible. Actually I think it does a fairly admirable job, though I disagree rather strongly with some of the base assumptions of the authors. It is a book intended to be supplemental material for the practicing cognitive therapist who is getting involved in treating substance abusers and addicts. Ultimately, this is really my problem with the aforementioned scenario - while the example they give should be absolutely obvious to anyone who was able to become an accredited cognitive therapist, the example I provide might not be as obvious. And while making a "wrong" statement to any patient should be avoided in initial sessions (with most clients, at all), it is especially critical when dealing with addicts. If an example of what not to say under the circumstances were necessary, it would make far more sense to use one that is more subtle - a reminder to reinforce what the cognitive therapist has already learned, probably repeatedly, over the years they've spent in school.

As a complete aside, I will note that under pressure and feeling rather crappy, I have managed to smoke only three cigarettes thus far today. Although my Joni Mitchell station on Pandora is helping an awful lot. That and my e-cig...

Harm Reduction Part 2: How do we Define Success?

The dominant addiction paradigm makes some very strong assumptions about the nature of addiction. It assumes a one size fits all approach, stating categorically that the only measure of successful treatment is complete abstinence from psychoactive drugs. And it assumes that the best method for achieving abstinence is a confrontational model that forces the addict to accept that they are powerless to deal with their addiction. That only through dependence on a higher power, can their addiction be brought under control. This is the basis for the twelve step program for treatment of addictions.

What is truly remarkable about this paradigm, is that it encompasses over ninety percent of addiction treatment in the United States today. It is a multi-billion dollar industry and firmly entrenched in our educational system. Go to med school and you're quite likely to be taught that this is pretty much the end all of addiction treatment. Public policy is based firmly on these ideas. This is remarkable to me, because not only is there no evidence to support this confront/depend on higher power paradigm, there is a lot of evidence that it simply doesn't work for the vast majority of people. Because of the lack of reporting on the part of most twelve step programs, it's hard to come up with very definitive figures, but the estimates range anywheres from a five to thirty percent success rate. Most science based research tends to assume the low end of the spectrum.

This is absolutely insane. At the high end estimates, this means we are failing seventy percent of the addicts who seek treatment. And yet this is the treatment paradigm that we allow to dominate our society and public policy. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there's some vast conspiracy out there, propping up a failed system for profit. There's very little profit to be had in all this. At it's heart, I think it has to do with the Us/Them dichotomy that makes non-addicts, and especially addicts who haven't accepted what they are, feel better at night. This dichotomy is also very conducive to reinforcing addicts who are sober, because they've beat tremendous odds and manage to stay clean. This makes it really easy to just say; "Screw the other seventy to ninety-five percent."

"They're weak." "They just don't really want it." "They just haven't hit bottom yet." And underlying it all; "I'm better than them." Which isn't to say there isn't a lot of "we failed them," intermixed in all that. But which is more likely to keep this failed system propped up, "I'm better than them," or "we're failing them?"

At the core of this are some important questions to be asked. The same sort of stark, realistic assessments, very much like the self assessments that are an integral part of any addicts quest for control over their own lives. For this post, I am going to focus on one of them; How should we define success in one's battle with addiction? To try to answer this, I am going to ask you to try for a moment to ignore that nagging voice in the back of your mind that insists that success can only be defined as abstinence. Please, just try to pretend you've never heard of AA and other twelve step programs. Open your mind to the understanding that black and white is a flawed, simplistic dichotomy - that life exists in the shades of gray.

Meet Steve. Steve is an alcoholic who drinks from the time he gets out of bed, until he passes out, later in the day. Catch Steve in a rare moment of lucidity and you'll discover that the man is absolutely brilliant, rife with penetrating insight into human nature and it's interplay with the people around him. Steve first got high when he was eight years old. His drinking was out of control by the time he was thirteen years old. Not surprisingly, he never graduated high school, though he did manage a GED. He managed to stay sober in the Marines, at least when he was on duty. Steve spent several years in LA as a gangster, existing in a very ugly frame of reference. When I met him, he had left LA to get away from it all - but the memories of what he had seen, the things that he's done, drove him into the absolute depths of alcohol abuse.

Now meet Allen. Allen is an alcoholic who drinks in the evenings. Allen has, over the years, built a great business. He's also raised one of the very least dysfunctional families I've ever met. He has four fantastic kids, who absolutely adore their parents and who all have the foundation for great success in life. Allen has wonderful friends and is a very well respected, highly regarded member of his community. Not that he or his business are perfect, but his failings are the human failings that everyone can fall victim to, rather than being the result of his drinking. And make no mistake, Allen can drink. He proves that nearly every day of his life. As often as not, he proves it by getting fairly drunk. And it is quite likely that ultimately, Allen's drinking is going to foreshorten his life, though probably by very little.

So lets explore these two people, both men addicted to alcohol, but with very different lives, very different relationships to their drug of choice. According to the dominant paradigm, the only measure by which either of them can be successful, is for them both to abstain from the use of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs. But I would argue that success is in the eye of the beholder, that rather than searching for absolutes, success is very much a relative concept.

If Allen stopped drinking altogether, stayed absolutely clean and sober, what benefit would he gain? Certainly, his health would be positively impacted, though I should be clear that his health is very reasonable for a man his age. As such, this can really be counted as a minor benefit. It won't improve his family life, which is already quite rich and fulfilling. It isn't going to do anything for business, which while less than perfect, is that way because of the economy, not because of Allen's substance abuse. It certainly wouldn't improve his social life, which is largely focused around his brewing of great beers and appreciation for the. To be sure, he does have more to his social life than these, but a lot of his social activities are centered on his appreciation of fine drink.

Ultimately, we need to take into account Allen's relationship with alcoholic beverages. Why he drinks, what he drinks and the circumstances in which he drinks. Allen is a beer hobbyist. He belongs to beer a couple of beer clubs and has even taken classes for judging beer. He and his wife both take part in these activities together. He's taught his son to brew beer, along with a number of friends. He doesn't drink alcoholic beverages that aren't pretty much top of the line. And he never seems to drink alone. For Allen to quit drinking altogether, would require a major shift in how he lives and how he interacts with his friends and family. Since his drinking causes minimal harm to himself and no harm to others, I would argue that there is simply no reason for him to change.

Now lets look more closely at Steve. At first glance, Steve seems to be the typical, at the bottom alcoholic. It would be easy to make the assumption that Steve simply must either quit drinking altogether, or die an alcoholic. Honestly, that may well be the reality of things. The question becomes; Is abstinence from any psychoactive drugs the only measure of success we can use on Steve? What if Steve quit the destructive drinking, but took up smoking pot in the evenings and on weekends? How about if Steve was able to get help from a therapist and get a handle on the problems that have pushed him to drink to such destructive excess and started drinking only in the evenings? Could it not be said that some level of success has been achieved, if Steve is able to functionally work and take care of his family - even if he isn't completely abstinent from alcohol?

While I think it is safe to assume that in Steve's case, abstinence is the underlying ideal, helping him reduce his drinking and become more functional can be considered a success. This is not to say that when he's reduced his drinking and become more functional, that the work is done. Steve has goals that will ultimately require he quit drinking altogether at some point. Taking the step of reducing the drinking would be huge for him and more importantly, his family. Being able to hold down a job and support his family would also make a major difference. But ultimately, Steve wants to be in a position to ensure that he never gets this bad again.

Steve runs into a few problems with our dominant paradigm. One, it requires that he get sober now, instead of letting him take steps to get there. With the exception of his stint in the Marines, Steve hasn't managed to get to sleep without alcohol in almost twenty seven years, since he was thirteen years old. And even in the Marines, it was tough for him to sleep without it. After busting ass all day in training and maneuvers, he was still having trouble with sleeping. And the haunting memories of being a gang banger are still there, even if he gets the drinking to settle into a more functional pattern. But if he can manage to reduce his drinking and work with his therapist to deal with the underlying issues that push the hard drinking, it is likely that he will get there in the end. The other problem that Steve faces in the current paradigm, is that he simply cannot contend with the notion of a higher power. He believes that either god doesn't exist, of if he does, hes "one evil motherfucker," as he put it to me.

It is really easy to stick with the status quo. It doesn't take any work to assume that people who use drugs are out of control and simply cannot get through it on there own. To paint addicts as powerless to deal with their addictions. It's also very easy to create an us/them dichotomy. To assume that "us" are somehow better people, even as we recognize that addiction is a disease and not necessarily the fault of the addict. We all have a mix of feelings about addiction and addicts that just make it really easy to denigrate substance abusers. From equating the worse of substance abuse behaviors, such as driving while intoxicated, or destroying one's family, with everyone who has substance use issues.

Harm reduction, on the other hand, is a good way to get past the black and white and embrace the gray areas. Because most addicts and people with substance use issues live in the gray. Simplistic dichotomies rarely apply. But even harm reduction isn't the end all that some would assume, or at least hope it would be. There is balance that must be struck and there needs to be a tacit understanding that while it fails most people, the current paradigm has it's place as well. In the next post, I will be exploring this, as well as the shortcomings that I see in the harm reduction approach to substance use and abuse. I will be trying to get back into this and posting links to various sources of information, but I am mostly using these posts to try to lay down the information I want to put into my paper. That way I will have all the information in front of me and ready to organize.

I am also thinking on discussing some of my other friends with substance abuse issues, from time to time. Having been a very voracious abuser of substances, I spent a lot of time around abusers of substances and there are several I want to write about. In every case, I am renaming the people involved and trying to change as many details as possible to protect their identities. I am more than happy to post stories with the actual name of the person and more pertinent details about their situations, but will only be doing so with their permission. The thing about harm reduction, as I mentioned in my last post on this topic, is that it is very natural for some people to engage in it. The problem is that the current paradigm assumes that if they don't abstain, they are just deluding themselves. More to go in; Harm Reduction Part 3: Where I Digress or Harm Reduction Falls Short

An Open Letter to Graham Lawton

Mr. Lawton is a print journalist for the magazine The New Scientist. He has rather pissed off several science bloggers with his sensationalist cover story; Darwin Was Wrong. While he has found some support from folks in the "intelligent design" movement, actual scientists and science bloggers have gotten a little bit pissed off with him.

You seem to have a very bad attitude about blogs and an overinflated notion of your impact as a print journalist. Let me talk a little about the impact of blogs and science blogs in particular, on my own life.

I'm a thirty two year old high school dropout. Not because I'm stupid, but because I have a whole host of problems that brought me to this point in my life. I'm actually a rather bright fellow, with a wide range of interests that I tend to be rather well informed about. One of the biggest challenges I've faced, while trying to get back to school; I didn't know what I wanted to do.

A few years ago I discovered the blogosphere. Not terribly long after that, I discovered science bloggers. Joy of joys, I discovered that I could not only learn something, I could get involved in the conversation. And nobody cared about my educational background. As long as I was basing my own assertions on evidence, I was accepted as a valuable contributor to the conversation. Even better, I suddenly had some access to people with relevant background in fields that really interest me (even Bora here, was kind enough to answer some of my questions way back).

I had questions about genetics, a Phd geneticist was happy to take the time to answer. I had questions about drug interactions, a professor of pharmacology could help. I had questions about the workings of the human brain, there's a neurologist positively thrilled I was interested. I wanted to discuss addiction, there's an NIH funded addiction researcher glad I provided the insights of someone with substance abuse issues.

And now I'm in school and I have a direction. I'm in a position to incorporate several fields of interest, into a degree that will place me into a position to have a positive impact on my community and society. And I have the support and validation of a host of academics, some of whom are as excited as I am that I've begun this journey. People who have emailed me, to make sure that I know that they are a resource I have at my disposal. The same people who fostered discussions that helped me find my direction, also feel some compulsion to help me succeed.

What I have gotten out of a few years in the blogosphere and have every reason to expect I will continue to get, is something that just doesn't exist with print journalism. Not to say that it doesn't have it's place, but ours is a brave new world that values discussion over dictation, interaction over awe for the author's grasp of a concept. And above all, truth over sensationalism. Which is not to say that sensationalism doesn't have it's place, we're all human after all. But when the sensational takes precedence over honesty, folks will crawl out of the woodwork with the truth of things.

And it is more than truth, it's perception of truth. Your cover story chose the sensational over a reasonable perception of the truth. In a time when science has been under heavy fire from the forces of ignorance and darkness (and while the UK is doing better than my own nation, the difference is one of degree, not the problem itself), you just provided them with more fodder to attack reason.

And lest you find yourself pretending the internet forgets, just google society of homeopathy, or truth homeopathic. The latter won't get you as many critical hits as the former, but there I am at number two, for a post I wrote fifteen months ago. Google the former and you will discover why the UK's Society of Homeopathy probably regrets using a bullshit lawsuit threat, to silence criticism of homeopathy. Here's a hint; if you try to google them to find their site, you have to get through a couple pages of pieces on them, most of which post the article that offended them to the point of lawsuit.

STOP!! Vote for Shelley Batts

The amazing, remarkable Shelley Batts (ok, a little thick, but Ed's threatening painful death, so it could be worse) who wrote the great piece on the neuroscience of ADHD, that I loved so much, is in the running for a scholarship to help with her PHD. So click here, even if you don't actually take the time to go to her blog, click the dot next to the name Shelley Batts and click on vote. Seriously, she's a poor grad student with a hungry parrot to feed. If you're even questioning whether or not to even care, please, click over to her blog. Look at that sweet, hungry parrot (probably not actually hungry, I imagine if given the choice between her and the bird, the bird would eat, but still, Shelley rocks)

Sorry for the creative tags. The more searches the better. If you got here through a search, Vote For Shelley, it's worth it. Then come back and read some of the pieces, they're worth it too, some of them anyways.

Framing Morality: In Support of Moral Relativism

There is a very interesting conversation about morality and faith, happening at my brothers blog, Dispatches From the Culture Wars. It is attached to a post about Brian Tamanaha's response to Emory University legal scholar, Micheal Perry. I am still working on what's becoming a very long piece on morality, faith, evolution and cognition. It was my original intent that this article be focused on the neurology of violence, especially torture, but I am finding it very hard to stay within those parameters, anyone familiar with ADHD, will understand why. I will address the topic of torture in the near future, but in a slightly different context. When I got into the discussion at Ed's blog, I wandered rather off and on the beaten track, so I felt it would be a good idea to bring it over here.

Micheal Perry, makes the assertion that the foundation for morality and indeed, human rights, is found in religion. He questions whether those without faith can have any real basis for morality or support of human rights. Brian does a decent job of responding to this notion, but I think, still misses the mark. When I get finished with and start posting (in multiple sections) a long article on morality that I am working on, it will become rapidly apparent that many folks subscribe to the notion of universal moral axioms. Such folks are almost universal in their support of socially constructed moral frames. In a distinct minority, not only do I think this is a bad idea, I think it's a dangerous idea. In large part, I think this is a semantic discussion.

It should be noted now, that this should not marginalize the discussion. While pedantry annoys the hell out of me sometimes, it's important to remember that language largely defines the reality we live. It is easy to decide that people are parsing things rather fine, indeed I am about to do just that, but often times, that is when language becomes most important. There are times when absolute precision is very important, in my mind, this is one of those times. I am going to take this opportunity to define the terms that I will be using in this post and future posts about moral philosophy. I should note that these will be my definitions, not necessarily that which other's who post here might be using.

What this discussion boils down to, is the difference between external and internal moral frames. While much of society puts a lot of focus on externally constructed moral frames, I am a believer in focusing on internally constructed moral frames. I should add, that I will, in future post go into much greater detail in these definitions.

External moral frames, are socially or religiously constructed moral frames. In religion, the obvious example is the dogma of the church, or other body of worship, as well as the dogma of holy texts. These are what outwardly defines or codifies right and wrong. In secular society it is more complicated. The short hand, would be defining the external moral frame, in terms of secular law. To an extent this can be accurate, but it is less than complete and sometimes counterintuitive. So added to this, are too often presumed universal axioms, such as “don't harm others,” or “don't infringe on the rights of others to be.” Finally, we have simple social pressure. This would be a secular amalgam to church dogma, in that it is more relative than any other aspect of moral framing. What it really boils down to is conformity. We want to fit in, so this aspect of morality often becomes assumed.

Internal moral frames, on the other hand, are that which are inherent to the individual. There is ample evidence that some aspects of morality, may well be genetic, or evolutionary in nature. This does not mean that that they are universal. Indeed, I accept that they may well be genetic, but would tend to reject the idea that they are evolutionary, simply because evolution implies that they are species wide. Being a Christian, I must also point out the biblical support for this aspect of internal moral framing. Rather than accepting dogma as the end all of moral framework, many Christians believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is the progenitor of our conscience, I take this a step further and claim it as the progenitor of our internal moral framework. Some, though certainly not all Christians would probably agree with me.

The thing is, that our inherent moral frame is also influenced by environmental conditioning. This makes for a messy, complicated situation. Indeed, this alone is a good argument against attempts to instill universal mores and external frames. Individuals are just that, individuals. We all react differently to the same stimuli, because we are different. While the internal moral frame certainly takes social pressures and religious dogma (for those who are religious), it is in no way dependent on them. In effect, the difference is that one should reject the idea that social pressures or religious dogma define morality. Instead, we should define morality as what we know inherently, to be right and wrong. This is not parsing it as fine as it seems and I did mention that to me, this is largely a semantic discussion.

To use the example of sexuality. Even in today's largely secular society, there is a strong tendency to equate "loose" sex, with immorality and not just in religious circles. This would be an example of what I consider an amoral ideal. Very few people in todays society, actually manage to live up to that ideal, even if they believe that not doing so is immoral. So you have people committing an act that they believe is immoral. What this in turn does, is weaken their adherence to the rest of their moral frame. In effect, it become easier to commit immoral actions, thus making morality essentially meaningless.

Ideally, morality should be the ultimate governor of our actions. Above the law, above social pressures, above dogmatic framing, morality should be the overwhelming control on our actions and behavior. For it to be effective in this regard, it by needs, must come from within. Anything that weakens it, makes it easier to commit acts that we consider immoral, essentially weakening our discernment of what is truly right and wrong. Morality must come from within. Whether through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, through genetic inputs, through environmental conditioning, or, as I believe, through all of the above, the moral framework, constructed from within, is a far more powerful governing force than any external construct can ever be. Yes, this is indeed moral relativism, but to date, no one has really come up with a coherent argument for why moral relativism is actually a bad thing. For that matter, no one has really come up with a coherent argument that morality is anything but relative or in any way universal.

Sanitizing Language to "Eliminate" Social Ills

Syncronicity. I was recently involved in a altercation in a comment thread at Respectful Insolence. This was the same day that I narrowly managed to keep a roof over my family's heads. To say that I over-reacted, would be putting it mildly. A commenter there, made a rather innocuous reference to persons of the lower-socioeconomic-class, which is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine. I got rather angrier than was remotely warranted and lashed out with assumptions about the commenter, based only on that reference and similar language.

I am also currently watching the series Babylon 5, on DVD, in the middle of season three. At this point in the series, the earth alliance president has been assassinated by his vice president. In an effort to consolidate power, the new president has been making end runs around the constitution. One of those end runs, is the appointment of political officers to military and military run outposts, including the space station Babylon 5. In episode eight, the commander of Babylon 5, is asking the political officer about the claims she is making about the supposed utopia that earth has become. He asks about various social ills and she claims they no longer exist, by giving them new names. The homeless and impoverished, are merely the voluntarily dispossessed, who have chosen to live as they do – for of course there are plenty of jobs for all.

This is a pervasive mentality, even outside of moderately bad science fiction television. It is not a right/left dichotomy, rather, it is a social phenomena. It is a method by which we can make ourselves feel better about negative aspects of our society, that we have given up hope of solving or dealing with. It allows us feel better about very bad decisions we make. Make it sound pretty, make it sound romantic, make it go away. Allow us to sit in our comfortable little lives, blissfully unaware of the nasty bits of reality all around us, able to ignore our crimes – for a little longer. All we ever seem to look for, is a little more time for a little more ignorant bliss.

The poor, living in soul sucking poverty, become the lower-socioeconomic-class. Criminals are simply the maladjusted, misunderstood. Xenophobic prison compounds, became internment camps. Mass sterilization programs, well, we just try to avoid talking about that. Illegal spying on American citizens, becomes the terrorist surveillance program. The dismantling of our constitution and stripping away of our civil liberties, becomes a “temporary necessity” for our security. Pretty words to make the poison palatable. Unfortunately, the problems are still there when the whitewash is stripped away, festering like a septic wound.

I will continue with some of the direct results that this whitewashing can have, after I get some sleep. I will focus on the “lower-socioeconomic-class” and the “terrorist surveillance program.” The world has always been a frightening place, but today, we live in interesting times.

What's happening. . .

I would like to apologize for the dearth of posts lately, especially those pertaining to human rights. Things have just been very chaotic for me lately. Actually, they usually are, it's just been worse than usual lately, what with almost ending up homeless. On top of that, the youth minister at my church recently fell off a ladder and broke his back. It wasn't a bad break and it will heal with minimal permanent damage, but it does mean that he is unable to finish getting his house ready for painting and the paint on. I have been helping him build his house over the last year and a half. As such, I know better than anyone, exactly what needs to be done, so I am coordinating the final steps to make sure it's painted before winter. As I am unable to climb ladders, this is a rather complicated, inefficient process.

I would also like to thank those who emailed and commented on my situation. I would especially like to thank those who offered to help us keep a roof over our heads. It was really appreciated. I meant to move the post about it below the denialism posts, but accidentally backdated it by several months instead of several days.

I am almost finished with my own posts on ADHD and neurological disorder denialism. I am still hoping to get more posts up by others and will undoubtedly have more of my own thoughts on the subject, but after I get the last two parts of my story up, I will definitely be taking a break from writing on this topic.

I am also almost done with my reading list for the post on morality, torture and the neurology of violence. It will probably take a bit for me to finish writing that post though, I may even split it up into multiple posts. There is a lot of information that I want to get out there. I would like to take this opportunity, to direct you to a short post at Nuerophilosophy, about torture. Actually, Mo's got several really cool posts up that are worth checking out.

Having gotten through a lot of the reading, my opinion about morality has not really changed. I am realizing though, that this is very much a semantic discussion, more than anything else. This is not to imply that framing it thus makes it any less important, language in many ways defines social interaction. However, I think it's important to realize most people have very different ideas about what defines morality. Indeed, many people use more than one definition of morality, depending on the context or axioms being discussed.

At first, I was trepidatious about getting into the discussion of morality. I didn't really think it was particularly relevant to the discussion of human rights. But after receiving a couple emails admonishing me to consider it's relevance more, I realized that not only is it topical to the discussion of human rights, it's fundamental. A large part of my desire to start this blog (aside from whim) was to explore the foundations of human rights, to get to the fundamentals. So not only do I feel more comfortable with bringing morality onto the table, it is my intention to focus on morality quite a bit in the near future.

This brought me to consider the relevance of my recent foray into neurological disorder denialism, and neurological disorders in general. On several different levels, this is also relevant to the discussion of human rights.

First, I think it's important to recognize that neurodiversity is a very good thing. For every negative aspect of most neurological disorders, there are positives that need protection and fostering. The main reason I am so excited about all the advances we are achieving in neuroscience, is that I believe this will lead to a greater understanding of how to preserve the richness of neurodiversity, while compensating for the negatives that accompany it. The status quo is focused on elimination of the symptoms, rather than compensating for them. The problem with that is that we lose something on the process, something of immeasurable value. The goal should be finding ways for us to fit into the structure of society. The goal should most assuredly not be to turn us all into neurotypicals.

Second, this touches on a discussion that was discussed very briefly here. That is, the rights of children, versus the rights of their parents. There are very few contexts for this discussion more important and more ambiguous than the context of mental health. Having suffered as a direct result of my parent's denial of my neurological disorders, this is a topic that hits close to home, obviously.

Finally, this touches on the very real problem of persons with neurological disorders that seriously compromise their ability to reasonably function in the framework of society. Where is the line drawn, where should it be drawn? What restrictions are appropriate and where are they appropriate?

As always, I welcome cross-posts and guest posts. If you have something to add to the discussion, I would be happy to check it out and probably put it up. Even, maybe especially, if you disagree with me on something. I would appreciate dissenting points of view. I would also welcome some relief from the pressure of trying to keep posts flowing. In any case, thank you very much for stopping by. I hope to hear from you, as I really appreciate feedback.