Personal – Dean Cook

White Student Stabbed by Black Student In Frisco, Texas

Since I’m sure the news media won’t publish much about this incident, I thought I’d make a quick blog post about it. Yesterday, a white student in Frisco, which is the next city over from where I live, was stabbed to death by a black.

Although they are about 13% of the population, they commit about 50% of the murders.

If I had children myself, I’d look at some alternative to sending my kids to schools with a population of people who are much more likely to commit murder. At this point, your only option may be homeschooling, since I doubt even private schools would be free to choose who attends their schools.

At some point, our country needs to get back to true freedom of association, where one can choose who one’s neighbors are, who their kids play with, and where they go to school. Right now, it’s apparently a “human right” to get to have access to white people so that you can stab them to death.

If you’re black, this may be hard to hear, but I don’t owe you anything above respecting your right to life, liberty and property. I don’t owe you my association, my money, or my life. Demonstrate to me that you are not a danger, and you can overcome my presumption not to want to associate with you. But, you’ll have to provide me with evidence you’re not likely to stab or shoot me.

The One About the Sex Session Marathon

A few weeks back, there was a lot of buzz on the Internet and YouTube about a woman in her early 20’s who had sex with 100 men in a the span of about 24 hours. This was apparently “training” to eventually have sex with 1,000 men in a 24-hour period, and break some sort of world record. The woman is a sex worker, who does penis in vagina penetration pornography on the Internet, so she’s hardly what you’d call an “average” person. I have no idea what motivates her, and I’m not going to speculate.

I’m also not sure how she is defining “sex” for the purposes of the world record. I don’t know how you could have penetration to ejaculation intercourse with 1,000 men in such a short time span. By my calculation, that’s less than a minute and a half per man. I think there was some talk about the men being “prepped” by other people ahead of time? (I’m not going to delve too deep into that, as I’d rather not know the details.) Would that even count as one-on-one sex, or some sort of orgy, if the guys are being “pre-stimulated” by other people?

For me, there is a certain “ewe” factor, on a completely emotional level. I cannot imagine engaging in the sex act in front of a bunch of other-nonparticipants, and on camera, like that, but that could be because I grew up in a culture that may over-emphasize chastity for religious or socially conventional reasons that don’t always make sense.

However, sometimes traditions and social conventions have a good basis in something real, either in the past or even in the present. I think we should still try to figure out what those reasons are, since it establishes a context for the convention and points to possible exceptions or limits for it. For instance, the incest taboo has a scientific basis, so it is more than simply an inexplicable social convention.

I suspect there are psychological reasons for some of our conventions on sex, such as limiting promiscuity, but I don’t have enough knowledge about human psychology to say. I want to look at this entirely from the standpoint of biological and medical evidence that I am fairly certain about. (This is not to say there isn’t a psychological component to this that might make promiscuity a bad idea. I just don’t know enough about that to say.)

What is the biological and medical evidence for avoiding promiscuity? I can think of two major reasons fairly quickly:

Avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Technologies like birth control and abortion have somewhat limited this concern. But, in the past, this would have been a major reason.

Avoiding sexually transmitted disease.

I think women should be particularly wary of promiscuity to avoid STD’s. The evidence I see says women are more likely to contract an STD from sex. Women are more likely to contract HIV from unprotected sex than men:

“The risk of HIV seroconversion per heterosexual act is estimated to be approximately twofold higher for the female compared to male partner…” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5882769/

“Overall, 19 (12%) male partners and 82 (20%) female partners were infected with HIV, suggesting that male to female transmission is 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.3) times more effective than female to male transmission.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5882769/

““A meta-analysis of 10 studies exploring the risk of transmission through vaginal sex was published in 2009.4 It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

A meta-analysis of three studies exploring the risk from insertive vaginal sex (inserting the penis into the vagina) was estimated to be 0.04% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 2,500 exposures).4” https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html

From what I’ve seen, women who have unprotected heterosexual intercourse with an infected partner are about twice as likely to contract HIV as men. The probability of contracting other STD’s seems to be higher for women also:

“Having sexual contact without using a barrier increases your risk of genital herpes. Barriers include condoms and condom-like protectors called dental dams used during oral sex. Women are at higher risk of getting genital herpes. The virus can spread more easily from men to women than from women to men.”

“Women, people with a history of sexually transmitted diseases, older people, Black people in in the United States and men who have sex with men diagnosed with genital herpes at a higher than average rate.”

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/genital-herpes/symptoms-causes/syc-20356161

“Females are at higher risk of acquiring genital herpes from a male partner than vice versa. Studies of heterosexual couples with one partner who had symptomatic recurrent genital HSV-2 (“source partner”) revealed annual transmission rates of 11–17% in couples with a male source partners and 3–4% in couples with a female source partners”

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/infectious-diseases/sexual-health-sexually-transmitted-infections/canadian-guidelines/herpes-simplex-virus/risk-factors-clinical-manifestation.html

A woman who eventually wants to have children is putting them at risk, too:

“A baby can be infected with HSV during delivery. Less often, the virus is passed during pregnancy or by close contact after delivery. Newborns with HSV often have infections of internal organs or the nervous system. Even with treatment, these newborns have a high risk of developmental or physical problems and a risk of death.”

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/genital-herpes/symptoms-causes/syc-20356161

Feminism has done a real disservice to women’s health by saying or implying women can have sex just like men. The danger for STD’s is greater, and even with access to abortion and birth control pills, unwanted pregnancy can happen. Abortion is a medical procedure, so there is danger there. Feminism ignores biological fact to tell women they are the same as men, when they are not. Women have the same fundamental rights as men to life, liberty, and property, but that doesn’t mean they are the same as men and it doesn’t mean that a rational woman shouldn’t behave, in many ways, differently than a man because of her physiology.

I’ve known women who pursued the feminist “I’m just like a man,” attitude and wound up regretting it later in life. I’ve seen women end up with STD’s because they weren’t sufficiently selective in who they had sex with, particularly unprotected sex. There are women reporting on social media and YouTube about getting HIV in their early 20’s after having unprotected sex with men they barely knew. I once heard a second-hand story about someone I’d met, but was no friend of mine, who had an unprotected sexual relationship with a woman even though he knew he had herpes. She wound up symptomatic, and when she told him, he lied and claimed he knew nothing about it.

Some will claim that herpes is “no big deal”, but as the quote above shows, herpes can lead to developmental and physical problems and greater risk of death for newborn children. I once heard another story about a woman who had herpes, and she had lost a child while giving birth to it. I don’t know for a fact that she had herpes when she gave birth, or that herpes had anything to do with it, but it certainly sounds like it may have been the case.

This is not to say that I think it’s okay for men to be promiscuous, from a medical and health standpoint. But, the risks are lower for them as a matter of biological fact. There are high “social risks” for men. In a certain sense, higher than for women. Sleeping with another man’s wife/girlfriend can lead to death by violence. A man could end up paying a lot of child support, and not getting to see their children much or at all. A woman might choose not to tell you that you are the father of her child. I’ve seen this happen before, too.

Men don’t have an ideology, taught in all schools, telling them to go out and have random sex, which I think feminism strongly implies or explicitly endorses for women. If anything, religion tells men not to have premarital sex, and so does feminism, the more extreme and Marxist elements of which, tend to make outlandish claims about how all heterosexual sex is rape.

My moral appraisal of the woman who had sex with 100 guys in 24 hours was pretty much “whatever”, at first. I don’t know her, and I don’t have any reason to particularly care. I also didn’t want to be morally “puritanical”, but then I wondered how much she is causing young women to think this is how they should live. I think it also encourages young men to seek out women that behave like porn stars. This, in turn, makes young women think they need to behave like porn stars to get a man. I wouldn’t be surprised if more pornography causes a spike in STD transmission. As a result, my more considered appraisal of her is fairly negative. I wouldn’t call what she is doing “evil”, I’d call it “mildly bad”, “not great”, or “ill advised”. I hope that teenagers and young adults out there recognize that she is not someone to desire or emulate, if only because of the health dangers.

None of this is to say I think pornography should be illegal. People need to learn to exercise the thinking faculties of their minds, and make good decisions on their own. The more government tries to protect people from their bad choices, the more people who do not think are protected from their lack of judgment and prudence, and the more it discourages the need to think.

Making porn illegal is analogous to giving people welfare, which discourages them from learning new skills to get into the work force. They become dependent on government and do not know how to work. Similarly, what I call “spiritual welfare”, like regulating porn, would cause people to become dependent on government in deciding what things on TV and the Internet are good for them, or not. It destroys the capacity in the population at large to think and reason these things out for themselves, and it makes them dependent on government.

Additionally, some stuff that might be considered “pornography” by the more puritanical conservatives might have beneficial uses. “Soft core porn” or “erotica” might have its place. For instance, a long-married couple might legitimately watch it to “spice up” their sex life -I don’t know for sure. Each individual can make up his or her own mind on where they want to draw the line on what they want to watch, and what they want to participate in, when it comes to sex. (They can also live with whatever consequences that come from that.) As an egoist, I am not primarily concerned with how others live their lives. If I don’t like it, I can just not associate with them. To me, being promiscuous is more like being a smoker. I think it’s probably unhealthy, but I don’t disassociate with someone just because they smoke. As long as they do that part of their life separate from our friendship or association, I’ll simply ignore it.

I Don’t Care About Your Kids

Maybe a decade and a half ago, a friend’s wife was having a baby. Another friend wanted to go to the hospital to see it. I couldn’t understand why they would want to do that. I thought it sounded like the most boring thing to do in the world.Having a child isn’t really much of an accomplishment. Lots of idiots do it every year.

Properly raising a child is an accomplishment, but why would I want to hear about that, either? In my mind, it’s just baseline, expected, behavior that you will be a responsible parent. You want a medal for doing something you undertook the obligation for when you decided to have kids? The child ultimately makes their own decisions, anyway. You can create a good environment, but if your child graduates high school and doesn’t end up in prison before they’re 18, that’s mostly because of their choices, not yours.

I’m not particularly interested in someone’s pet, car, or house, either. I’m sure those things are all great for them too, but how does that serve my self-interest? (Answer: It doesn’t)

If I had children, would I care about them? Of course, because they’d be mine. I’d have a personal, selfish interest in them. But, I would hope I’d have the decency not to bore others with talk about them.

If I had children, then talking about parenting tips, and, incidentally, about my children with others who have children might make sense, but I doubt it. I’d just get a book or watch YouTube videos from experts, then make up my own mind about how to raise them.

Since I don’t care about other people’s children, I usually am told their names and promptly forget them. Why would I want to talk to a kid? What could they possibly say that’s interesting? Come back in 20 years when they’ve at least got a baseline of education and brain development to maybe have something worth saying. Until then, I prefer the old saying that children are to be seen, but not heard. (And, I’d really prefer not to see them too much.)

I’m sure some will say I’m ‘awful’ for writing this, but deep down, you know you don’t care about other people’s kids either. I’m just willing to say it.

Conservatives On The Secular Basis of Sexual Propriety -A Trojan Horse For Dogmatism

I occasionally watch bits of a podcast called “whatever” on YouTube. It reminds me of “The Phil Donahue Show” from when I was a kid, although it’s more focused on sex and relationships. The host will have a panel of women on. Some of them will be involved in the pornography industry or doing sex work, sometimes including women that do legal sex-for-money work, such as in a brothel in Nevada. There will also be a person on the panel who represents the “conservative/religious viewpoint” on sex and romance.

Additionally, there will be some women on the panel who have more “average” lives, and are not sex workers and also are not conservative ideologues. The point of the podcast, from a “getting viewership” standpoint, is obviously to get the two “sides” into debates about what is and isn’t appropriate or acceptable when it comes to sex, romance, dating, and marriage. Often the debates will center around questions like: “How promiscuous is too promiscuous?” “Is sex before marriage okay or desirable?” “Is viewing or producing pornography okay?”

In the most recent episode I partially watched, there were two women who do or have done legal sex work at brothels in the state of Nevada, as well as a couple of women who do Only Fans pornography in varying degrees of undress.

The conservative/religious viewpoint was represented by Candace Owens, who is a conservative, Catholic podcaster. During the course of the podcast, she made arguments for why monogamy is preferable to promiscuity, and why things like paying money for sex, and polyamorous relationships are not desirable for the people engaged in such activities.

I saw Candace Owens making, basically, two types of arguments in the podcast, although she did not explicitly acknowledge the difference between these two categories of argument. They are the same two arguments that most religionists make about marriage, sex and romantic relationships:

(1) Non-monogamous relationships and sexual promiscuity are contrary to biology and fundamental aspects of human psychology. An example of this type of argument is the following, although I don’t know that it is explicitly made on the podcast: Too many sex partners before marriage make pair-bonding more difficult, and watching pornography will affect pair-bonding later. There is supposedly some scientific evidence for this, although that is disputed. (https://healthland.time.com/2011/02/09/do-men-really-bond-with-porn-spoiling-them-for-real-life-sex/)

(2) Non-monogamous relationships/sexual promiscuity are contrary to the Bible/Christian doctrine, at least as they interpret it.

The conservative/religious ideologues I see online make the first, secular, argument when they say things like: Women who are promiscuous when young will find it difficult to be in a committed relationship later. That may or may not be true -I don’t know. But, when pressed, the conservatives like Ms. Owens fall back on: Promiscuity is contrary to the Bible. In other words, argument number two. At the end of the day, conservatives believe such behavior is undesirable because it is contrary to their interpretation of the Bible. That is what really matters to the conservatives/religionists, not any sort of scientific or psychological argument.

There may or may not be evidence to prove the first argument, regarding biology/human nature. Even as an atheist, I still regard monogamy as ideal, and I try to avoid being too promiscuous. But, I am open to the possibility that I hold this attitude because of the somewhat Christian culture I grew up in, which might still be buried in my subconscious. For that reason, I tend not to pass judgment on people who choose unconventional sexual lifestyles, such as promiscuity, polyamory, or to be sex workers. (I think it’s easier to justify certain types of nude photos, sexual dancing, or erotic art as consistent with a healthy psychology, but again, I’m not 100% certain.) All I am willing to say is that open relationships would not work for me. (I would get too jealous to share a wife or girlfriend.)

I would like to see someone pose the following question to conservative/religious pundits making these two types of arguments regarding sex work and promiscuity: “If the scientific evidence will later show that promiscuous behavior before marriage does not affect pair-bonding, and it is possible to be in a long-term polyamorous relationship, or to be a sex worker without psychological damage, will you then change your opinion on this topic? Do you actually follow the science, or is this really about what you think the Bible says, evidence and logic be damned?”

This method of argument used by conservative/religious people extends beyond the realm of sexual propriety. For instance, they will use the same sorts of arguments when it comes to abortion. They will present psychological or medical arguments, which they allege are science-based, for why women who get abortions will be medically harmed by abortion, or that it will affect their psychology adversely. The science here may or may not be true, but, at the end of the day, they are really opposed to abortion because they believe it is contrary to their interpretation of the Bible. Even if there were scientific evidence that abortion causes no harm to a woman, or less harm than an unwanted pregnancy, the religionists aren’t going to suddenly change their mind. That’s because science has nothing to do with their viewpoint. It’s about religion, which is based in their faith.

Do the Conservatives/Religionists really believe that love and romance are important when they promote things like sex only after marriage? Religious institutions instruct their followers not to marry atheists because they would be “unequally yoked”, and they regard sex as a sin for purposes other than reproduction. So really, their desire for pair-bonding isn’t about love or romance, but about making yourself what they believe is a better servant of god.

More generally, conservatives will wrap up their religious arguments with secular-sounding justifications in other areas too. They will say things like: “We need religion to keep people moral.” But, why do we need morality at all? When asked this, they are probably going to say something like: “Morality is needed to keep people from committing murder and stealing.” If that is their reason for why they think morality is necessary, and if I can present a secular moral code and a secular basis for the criminal law, will they abandon religion? Of course not, because these arguments are just rationalizations. They want to advance their religion, and are pragmatic enough to use a secularist argument as a fig-leaf, if it suits their agenda.

Truly religious institutions recognize this, too. They will say things like: “Works do not get you into heaven.” In other words, not stealing and committing murder is not what they believe gets you into heaven, so they don’t really care if people are moral or not. The truly consistent ones realize that logic, reason, and science are irrelevant. Even “conventional morality”, such as “stealing is wrong” and “murder is bad”, is irrelevant to them. Many of these western religious institutions might not commit murder for god (yet), but they are certainly committing manslaughter.

Am I being hyperbolic? The Catholic Church forbids the use of contraception, even in the context of marriage. There is good evidence that the lack of contraception world-wide leads to unnecessary deaths for women. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2012/ahmed-contraception) The Catholic Church even opposes the use of contraception by married women with certain medical conditions that would make pregnancy unusually dangerous. They are expected to either abstain from sex or risk death if they become pregnant. I submit that this is advocacy of manslaughter by the Catholic Church. They are promoting the use of force by government to prevent women from using a device that will save their lives.

The Catholic Church will tell those women not to have sex. But, without sex, how do they maintain a romantic relationship with their husbands? The Catholic Church will respond that sex is an unnecessary aspect of marriage. I do not believe that assertion is at all reality oriented. More fundamentally, it also shows what the Catholic Church thinks of love. It is a belief in platonic love as an ideal. Sex is dirty and base for the Catholic Church. They view it as a necessary evil for reproduction, and nothing more.

Tying this back in to the ‘whatever’ podcast with Candace Owens, at points the sex workers claimed that sex and love are not connected. They said sex has nothing to do with love, so loveless sex without psychological consequence is possible. Interestingly, the Catholic Church also believes in love separated from sex. ‘True love’ between a man and woman is platonic, with sex as a necessary evil, for purposes of reproduction. This is what the truly dedicated religionists actually believe.

I don’t know if non-monogamous and polyamorous people can find lasting happiness with that sort of lifestyle. (I’m very skeptical.) All I can say for sure is it doesn’t work for me. But, swingers and sex workers are not the people who need to fear the declarations of religious institutions like the Catholic Church about how people should govern their sex lives. The people who need to be wary are the monogamous couples who want to sleep with their husband or wife without the psychological consequences of perpetual guilt and shame.

“The Thin Blue Line” on Netflix

“The Thin Blue Line” on Netflix is an old documentary about an even older murder case in Dallas County, Texas. In the late 1970’s Randall Dale Adams was convicted of murdering Dallas police officer Robert Wood. It was asserted by the prosecution that Adams had shot Officer Wood after being pulled over by the later.

In reality, there was compelling evidence that another person, David Ray Harris had shot Officer Wood. This included the fact that Harris had been bragging to other people that he had shot Officer Wood. Harris later claimed at trial that he hadn’t shot Officer Wood, and had only been bragging to his friends to seem like a bigshot cop-killer. Additionally, although the state does not have to show motive for murder, Harris had the only logical motive to kill Officer Wood. Harris was driving in a stolen car when it was pulled over by Officer Wood. Randal Dale Adams would have had no reason to kill the police officer, and likely wouldn’t have even known that the car was stolen. Randal Dale Adams claimed that he was not even in the car at the time of the shooting, because he had been dropped off by David Ray Harris earlier that night.

So why was the State so intent on prosecuting Randal Dale Adams, rather than the more obvious suspect, David Ray Harris? Randal Dale Adams was in his mid-twenties at the time of the murder, while David Ray Harris was only 16, and not eligible for the death penalty. It’s likely that the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas County District Attorney, and the State of Texas wanted to put someone to death for the murder of a cop, even if it was the wrong person.

Randal Dale Adams was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was unsuccessful in overturning his conviction or getting him a new trial. His execution was scheduled for May 8, 1979. Three days before that, the US Supreme Court reversed the conviction on a procedural matter unrelated to the factual finding of guilt. This would require a new trial on guilt/innocence before Mr. Adams could be executed. In order to avoid a new trial, which would likely have brought to light new evidence of innocence, the Dallas County District Attorney was able to secure the commutation of his death sentence to life in prison. This obviated the need for a new trial on the procedural irregularity, since the US Supreme Court opinion only applied to death penalty cases. As a result, Randal Dale Adams then spent more than a decade in prison until “The Thin Blue Line” came out.

While conducting interviews of David Ray Harris, who was on death row himself at that point, for the murder of another person, the producers of the documentary recorded David Ray Harris giving what almost amounted to a confession, stating that Randal Dale Adams did not kill Officer Wood.

Additionally, the producers of the documentary conducted interviews of the witnesses who had claimed to see Randal Dale Adams behind the wheel of the car before Officer Wood was shot. They had been driving by on the road when Officer Wood had first pulled over the car the night of the murder. It turned out that the witnesses were not very credible, had reasons to lie, or just flat-out stated to the documentary producers they didn’t actually see Randal Dale Adams. One female witness, Emily Miller, seemed like total scum. She was either lying because she wanted to collect reward money, or she simply convinced herself that Adams was the man she had seen, even though she had not been able to pick him out of a lineup earlier. (I would think this would have been brought up by the Defendant’s attorney on cross examination?) It also turned out that Emily Miller had her own legal problems. Her daughter was being investigated for a robbery, so she might have been trying to curry favor with the DA and Police for the sake of her daughter. (She had also recently been fired from her job for stealing from the cash register.) Additionally, on a motion for a new trial, after the first trial, the Dallas County District Attorney engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and withheld evidence that could have exonerated Randal Dale Adams, ensuring that he went to death row.

As a result of the newly unearthed evidence and the negative publicity on the DA and Dallas Police, Randal Dale Adams got a new trial in 1989. The Dallas County DA then dismissed the case, and Mr. Adams was a free man after 12 years of incarceration and nearly being executed by the State of Texas. Try to imagine what it would be like to be an innocent person, convicted of a crime you didn’t commit, waiting on death row to be killed by the State. The police didn’t believe you, the DA didn’t believe, you, the judge didn’t believe you, and the jury didn’t believe you. For all intents and purposes, the human race is against you, and wants to see you dead. In reality, you didn’t do anything to deserve any of it, and you will die soon. The situation is too horrible to contemplate.

All around, it was a total miscarriage of justice. Why would the Dallas County District Attorney and the Dallas Police Department want to convict the wrong man? Most likely because they couldn’t give David Ray Harris the death penalty because he was only 16. (Although I wondered if someone in a position of power was protecting him for some reason?) In their minds, the public needed to see someone being executed for the murder of a police officer, either because it would satisfy the public’s sense of justice, or because it would deter others from shooting a cop. Whether the Defendant actually did it was a secondary consideration for them. As a result, Randal Dale Adams was three days from his death sentence being carried out, and only avoided that because of a procedural irregularity the US Supreme Court found.

The Police, the jury, the DA, the judge, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the public all seemed to be okay with executing Randal Dale Adams, who, in my mind was likely innocent. Unlike 99% of all other exonerations I’ve read about, I think Randal Dale Adams probably didn’t do it. Usually, I think when people who spent time in prison are let go because of newly discovered evidence, it’s not because they’re actually innocent. It’s simply a case of new evidence coming to light that creates some reasonable doubt as to their guilt, and it’s better to let them go than take a chance keeping them in prison for a crime they possibly did not commit. I agree that it is better to let probably guilty, but possibly innocent, people go since I don’t want to see innocent people in jail or executed. Guilt always needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and if anything creates reasonable doubt, you’ve got to let them go.

But, the fact that everyone failed, or willfully chose to hide the truth, in the case of Randal Dale Adams has been the last straw for me. If there were a hell, the prosecutor in his case belongs there. I’ve changed my mind about the death penalty. When I was younger, I was willing to take a chance with the possibility of executing an innocent person. Life has taught me that about 50% of the police, judges, and prosecutors are either incompetent or maliciously negligent in their duties. Additionally, juries in many counties in Texas have the attitude of: “Don’t bother with presenting the evidence, just tell me where to write ‘guilty’ on the jury charge.” As an advocate of capitalism and the free market, I recognize that government is highly inefficient and often corrupt. I think death can be a just punishment, as it stops criminals from committing more crimes permanently, but many government officials are not sufficiently competent or virtuous to ensure that the innocent are not executed. There are people who definitely deserve death, but not at the cost of innocent lives.

Knowing When To Pronounce Moral Judgment

“I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment….

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of ‘saving everyone’s soul’ -nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere ‘I don’t agree with you’ is sufficient to negate any implications of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.” (The Virtue of Selfishness “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,” https://courses.aynrand.org/works/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/)

I read this article when I was about 15 or 16 years old. It’s been over thirty years now, and I’ve re-read it many times.

I’ve tried to live by it, but I’ll admit there have been times when I’ve failed to pronounce moral judgment where I should have. Usually, this was when I was lapsing into some form of altruism, and “felt sorry” for someone, or when I was just afraid for no good reason.

But, even when I try to live by it, I never quite know when it is necessary to make my moral evaluations known to others. Sometimes, it’s clear that I do not need to pronounce any sort of moral judgment. For instance, my online Spanish tutor is quite religious, and during our conversations in Spanish, she will sometimes talk about going to church every Sunday. In that circumstance, I don’t think it’s necessary, or appropriate, to tell her I think Christianity is an institution that has caused 2,000 years of irrationality and human misery. I also don’t consider this a moral breach on her part. She is from a poor country, with people who are generally less educated, and everyone is quite religious. I consider her religiosity to be a genuine error of knowledge, and our relationship is so delimited, that it would make no sense to try to change her mind. When she talks about church, I just engage in the conversation, and ask her questions about it. For instance, she once said she goes to a Church online, and I asked her, genuinely curious: “How do they handle communion?” (She told me that they pull out their own bread and wine, and the preacher blesses it from a distance -makes as much sense as in person, I guess.)

At other times, I don’t always know where that line is -of when I need to speak out, and say something. I recently had something happen, which I cannot discuss, where I did speak out, but I still don’t know if it was right, or if I should have remained silent. Unfortunately, the older I get, I realize that it is sometimes very hard to apply the virtues, especially when I’m acting on less than perfect knowledge, and I am under an extreme “time crunch”, where I have to make a decision quickly. It also takes me time to “process” certain facts, and it can be months later before I realize the implications of something.

I will say that, even today, it can still cause me a lot of anxiety to pronounce moral judgment. It is sometimes an extreme act of will to proceed with the right course. It seems so contrary to everything that many people in society implicitly and explicitly pressure us to do, whether those people are authors, journalists, teachers, intellectuals, religious figures, or, quite frequently, lawyers.

What I Want Right Now

If I could do anything right now, without issues of cost or practicality, this is what I would want:

(1) I would move to another state, probably California.

Reasons: I am tired of living in Texas, and the isolation that I sometimes feel here. Specifically, I’m tired of being in this state as an atheist. (I’ve blogged about some of my problems being an atheist here before, and I don’t want to mull over bad memories.)

(2) I would open up my own law practice.

Reasons: I want to give practicing law on my own another go. I am happiest when I can entirely control choice of client and choice of cases. Over the past year, I’ve had a client threaten me. I’ve had opposing counsel file a motion for sanctions against me, personally, that was completely unjustified (the judge rightly denied their motion). Now, this might have all still happened if I was out on my own, since some clients and attorneys are just nutty, but I’d like to think I could at least filter out some of the crazy clients, and charge more for dealing with difficult counsel.

The above is what I want, without taking into account any factors that would be obstacles. Now I will talk about the impediments:

(1) Moving to another state would likely lead to my having no sources of income for an indefinite period of time.

Reasons: As an attorney, you tend to be somewhat “tied” to the particular state you have practiced law in for a while. Some attorneys at major national or international firms can go anywhere. But “rank and file” lawyers like me tend to practice in state courts, and get to know the rules of procedure in those particular courts. It would be a learning curve going to another state and learning its courts, assuming, I could even get admitted to that state’s bar without taking another bar exam. (Some states offer reciprocity, and others do not.)

(2) Being a solo practitioner is a daunting task.

Reasons: Filing motions to withdraw for non-payment by clients will be the most common motion you file when solo. That’s another little “fun fact” of practicing law: you cannot just quit when a client doesn’t pay you. You have to ask permission from the court. The court may say it will prejudice the client’s case if you withdraw, so you have to keep working -for free.

You have to become a debt collector, constantly calling up clients, saying: “Where’s that money you owe me?” Not only do you have to practice law as a solo practitioner, you also have to run a business. Make no mistake about it, the practice of law is a business, and must be approached as such. You have to market, advertise, and manage the back-end accounting, personnel, and other software systems. You need to have a business plan. You need to have sufficient start-up capital to pay for the business, with the assumption that you will not have any income for some time. That means you have to have some way to support yourself while you build up a sufficient “pipeline” of paying clients. Jay G. Foonbert, author of “How to Start and Build a Law Practice”, said:

“Regardless of inflation, recession, boom, or depression, the answer to this question remains the same: You need enough cash (or guaranteed income) to support yourself and your family for one year. In other words, assume that even though your practice grows, you will not be able to take any cash out for one year…I cannot emphasize strongly enough the necessity of starting with adequate capitalization for your living expenses….If I had to choose between opening my doors immediately with only six months’ living expenses, or working as a laborer for two years to have enough living expenses for a year, I would choose the latter course of conduct.” (How To Start and Build A Law Practice, “How Much Cash Do You Need to Start Your Practice?”, Jay G. Foonberg)

In my case, I haven’t even been able to retire all of my student loan debt, yet. The past seven years, I worked steadily at a single law firm. I lived frugally and had low spending habits. I was able to retire a sizeable chunk of my student loan debt, but an even more sizeable chunk remains. I took a job recently with the thought that the additional income could be used to retire my student loan debt in about a year and a half, but that job has not worked out.

I tried practicing law on my own from about 2004 to 2012 before realizing it was not going to work, given my negative wealth from law school. (The choices I made at 23, on going to law school, and my particular choice of law school, were poor, but that is water under the bridge at this point. My situation is what it is, and agonizing about choices made 25 years ago will not change present facts.) From 2012 to 2016, I spent my time mostly in a sort of under-employed “purgatory” for lawyers, known as document review, which is essentially contract work, paid on an hourly basis. The work is not steady, I learned to hate the other lawyers working there, and I walked off several projects because of poor treatment by managers. I was not earning enough money to even pay the interest on student loans, which meant they actually went up instead of down during this time period. After being insulted one too many times by a manager on a document review job, I walked off for the last time, not knowing exactly what I would do. I only knew I wouldn’t do document review anymore. I started applying to advertisements on craigslist by law firms looking for attorneys. That was how I got my seven-year law job in 2016, which I enjoyed quite a bit. I primarily switched jobs because I needed to make more money to compensate for the inherent risks of being a lawyer. (Those risks being clients potentially filing groundless bar grievances against you, and opposing counsel filing frivolous motions for sanctions against you, personally.)

A possible compromise that would give me more of what I want:

(1) Move to Austin, Texas

Reasons: Austin is the closest to California that you can get in Texas. I lived there from 1993 to 1998, and I am generally familiar with the culture. With the university and the tech industry there, Austin tends to be more open to atheists. I know it won’t be utopia, and Austin has its own set of problems, but at least I can become annoyed with a different set of problems for a while. I would still be in Texas, and practicing in Texas courts in Austin. There is still some local variety from county to county, but it wouldn’t take me long to get familiar with those courts and judges. The laws and rules of procedure would be the same.

(2) Open my own practice in Austin

Problems: The problem is that this doesn’t really solve the impediments to having my own law practice. Austin has a smaller economy, and therefore has fewer people capable of paying for legal services. I’d still need enough money to (a) support myself for at least a year, and (b) to pay the start up costs of a law practice. I haven’t really figured out how this would be doable.

This is still a roadblock that I do not know how to solve. I refuse to go into more debt, so the only way I see to solve this is to continue working for others for at least another three to five years, in order to get my debts paid off and also build up sufficient savings.

My Experience With A Sedation-Free Colonoscopy

At some point I’ve meant to blog about my first colonoscopy in April of 2022, but I haven’t gotten around to it. My general practice doctor told me that they now recommend colonoscopies for anyone over 45 every 10 years, so I decided to bite the bullet and do it.

(If you don’t like discussions of body anatomy, I’d skip reading the rest of this.)

I opted to have it done without anesthesia. In the rest of the world, most people do it without anesthesia, but they mostly do it with sedation in the US. I chose no anesthesia because I think there are long term side effects from it. My understanding is that anesthesia can cause dementia in older people. The connection between anesthesia and dementia is still debated by scientists, but if I can safely have a medical procedure without it, I’d rather err on the side of caution.

Finding a doctor in Dallas that would do it without anesthesia was difficult, but I finally found one. Looking back at my medical records, I believe his name was Dr. Ramakrishna V. Behara in Frisco, Texas. (Funny side note: I once went in to see a doctor, and they asked me who I was there to see. I said: “I don’t remember his name, but it’s the Indian one.” The girl at the front desk looked at me and said: “You’re going to have to be more specific than that.”) Anyway, I’m pretty sure this is the profile of the doctor who did my colonoscopy: https://www.bswhealth.com/physician/ramakrishna-behara He seemed knowledgeable and competent. I asked to meet with him at his office ahead of the procedure, and he agreed to do so. (I just needed to talk to the person who was going to be performing such a delicate procedure ahead of time, and look him in the eye.) I would recommend him if you are in the Dallas area, and are looking to do a sedation-free colonoscopy.

The night before, I had to fast and take a diarrhetic that kept me up all night on the toilet.

I had an early morning schedule at the hospital. I drove there, and they hooked up an IV, although I technically didn’t need one since I wasn’t using anesthetic. (They convinced me to ‘just in case’.)

After that I was wheeled into the room with the doctor and two nurses. I was facing a TV monitor with the camera view on it. I thought I’d watch and enjoy the show.

That changed once they started. I had to close my eyes and focus on my breathing once they stuck the device in. It felt similar to what I think having a vacuum cleaner tube up my rectum would feel like. It wasn’t painful, but it felt like I had to urgently defecate, but could not. The only pain I felt was when the muscles around my anal sphincter started to have cramps. I started saying “Oh god, oh god,” over and over, hoping it would be over soon. (I wasn’t sure how long colonoscopies lasted.) The nurse started patting me on the back, trying to soothe me, saying it was okay. Despite all that, the pain wasn’t bad. Like a session of bad cramps. (I think the nurses were more traumatized by my vocalizing discomfort than I was, lol.)

Afterward, I felt a great sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. I had overcome my fears. I do not like medical procedures, but as someone committed to the virtue of rationality as described by Ayn Rand, I recognize they are important to my long-term health and life, which is why I just did it, even though I had to somewhat ‘psych myself up’ to it. (I delayed several months getting up the nerve.) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

I drove myself to work after the procedure, but I stopped off for some pancakes at IHop. I was starving from my 12-hour fast. They were the best damn pancakes I’ve ever had.

The good news is, I don’t have to do it again for 10 years. I also was glad I opted for no anesthesia, and I plan on opting for no anesthesia next time.

I thought I’d write on this because I saw an article about high profile people dying of colon cancer in 2022. If you’re over 45, seriously consider getting this done, regardless of whether you decide to opt for anesthesia or not. The procedure can drastically reduce your chances of dying from colon cancer.

On The Nature of A Shoehorn

Sometimes when reading Ayn Rand, I will read something that seems true, but fairly trivial or unimportant to my particular life. This was generally true when it came to her description of the law of identity. I first read the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon on the law of identity sometime in the 1990’s:

“To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. …A is A. A thing is itself.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, as found in “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/identity.html)

I didn’t see why saying “A is A” had any importance whatsoever. Of course a thing is itself. So what? How is it useful to go around stating the obvious?

About thirty years later, I have at least some inkling of why this formulation is important. The following true story from my life will hopefully give some concrete evidence for the practical benefits of keeping the law of identity in mind in one’s daily life.

I have three shoehorns. One of which I keep in my car, mainly so that I can change into a pair of wingtips I like to wear when I go dancing. (I also typically keep the wingtips in my car.) The shoes are narrow, and difficult to put on without a shoehorn. (I have narrow heels.)

I try to keep the shoehorn in a specific place in my car, so that I always know where it is, and don’t misplace it. Unfortunately, earlier this summer, my car had to go into the auto repair shop for quite an extended time. I have another, older vehicle, a Chevy Trailblazer, which I have been driving in the meantime. When my car went in the shop, I put my wingtips in the Trailblazer, along with the shoehorn.

The layout of the Trailblazer is different from my regular car, causing everything to be out of place, including my shoehorn. Back around early to mid-June, I could not find the shoehorn one day. I searched everywhere I could think to look in that old Trailblazer for the shoehorn, but I could not find it.

I finally gave up on my search and was starting to think I’d have to buy another shoehorn. I usually keep two in my regular vehicle, but the other one was still with that car, which was in the shop. I keep my third shoehorn in my home so that I can put my work shoes on. Since I was busy with other things, I never got around to buying another shoehorn. (I just made do with almost completely unlacing my shoes to be able to fit my feet into them, which is rather time consuming and inconvenient.) A couple of weeks later, I looked down in the front passenger side floorboard of the Trailblazer, and there was my shoehorn. I had searched that area, as well as under the passenger seat, even getting out a flashlight to illuminate dark areas. I had not seen the shoehorn, and yet there it was, lying in plain sight.

I joked to myself that this shoehorn was like the “ring of power” from “The Lord of the Rings”.

This reference may take some explanation for those who are not familiar with those books. In the Tolkien series, an evil magical ring that gives people invisibility and various other powers, is described as having a sort of “will of its own”:

“Gandalf explains that a Ring of Power is self-serving and can ‘look after itself’: the One Ring in particular, can ‘slip off treacherously’ to return to its master Sauron, betraying its bearer when an opportunity arrives.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Power#Powers

In other words, the ring of power has its own agenda, and you will lose it, and someone else will find it when it so chooses. In the novels, Bilbo Baggins finds the ring after another character, Gollum, loses it. Basically, the ring decided it was time for Gollum to lose it, and for Bilbo to find it.

A few weeks later, I went on a vacation, and packed the same shoehorn in my suitcase. Guess what happened when I got back from my trip? I could not find the shoehorn again. I had only taken one suitcase, so if I had brought it back with me, the shoehorn had to be there. I gave the suitcase what I thought was a pretty thorough search, but I could not find it. Thinking again of the ring of power, I started to give up on my search for the shoehorn. Then I explicitly thought:

“Of course, I’m just joking with myself. The shoehorn has a specific nature. It’s not magical, because everything is what it is, and nothing more.”

Explicitly thinking this way led me to the following additional thoughts: “What is the identity of the shoehorn?” I started naming its characteristics or attributes in my mind. I thought: “It’s small, and it’s dark. Both of which make it easily misplaced and easy not to see, given the nature of the human eye.”

I also thought: “What is the identity of my suitcase?” I then started thinking about its attributes. It has one main compartment, and it has two smaller, pouch-like compartments with zippers on the outside. I had checked all three of those locations, and the shoehorn wasn’t there. Then I remembered one other thing about the nature of my suitcase: It has a detachable, somewhat clear, zipper pouch about 10 inches by 5 inches in size. This pouch attaches on the inside main compartment of the suitcase, at the top, by a pair of snaps. I use it to hold toiletries, like my toothbrush. I also keep items in there that I always need, even when I’m not on a trip, like a toothbrush and toothpaste. In other words, there is always some stuff in this small plastic pouch that could obscure something like a shoehorn from my vision on a cursory inspection. I didn’t think I would have put the shoehorn in there because it isn’t a toiletry item. But, I decided I should check it out, and guess what I found?

I believe that this rather mundane example illustrates an important point. Sometimes you have to mentally summon the law of identity, expressly, in order to banish incorrect thinking. In my simple example here, I had “half-jokingly” thought the shoehorn had some magical or mystical properties that made it incapable of being located by me. As a result, I think I started to give up on my search for the shoehorn. It’s like that mystical thinking demotivated me to look for the shoehorn, because I was falling into a pattern of thinking that the shoehorn was somehow intrinsically incapable of being found.

It wasn’t until I willfully re-asserted a “mental framework” that was more rational, with the law of identity, that I was able to think clearly about where the shoehorn could be.

Just like everything else, the human mind has a specific identity, or nature. Part of that identity is that it can develop incorrect thinking patterns or habits, that are detached from reality. In this case, I was falling into the thinking habit of believing my shoehorn was somehow inherently without identity, and therefore unlocatable by me. By mentally summoning the law of identity in my mind, and rededicating my mental attitude to that principle, I was able to develop a specific methodology or plan for locating a lost item. Adhering to the law of identity led to my eventual success in finding the shoehorn.

I would add that adhering to the law of identity doesn’t guarantee success. Sometimes you can do everything right, and factors beyond your control make victory impossible. It might have been the case that I had somehow lost the shoehorn in my hotel room, and left it there. In that case, it would have been unrecoverable. But, by thinking of its specific nature, I was able to better exhaust the possible scenarios under which it was still in my possession in the sense of being lost in some other item of property of mine, like my suitcase. Adhering to the law of identity allowed me to banish any “mystical based” thinking, which thereby maximized my chance of success, even if that chance of success wasn’t 100%.

The law of identity is more than a mere tautology. It can be the difference between victory and defeat. (Or, between putting on my shoes and going barefoot.)

Objectivism Conference: Day 7

September 1, 2021

The first lecture I attended was about the writing of Dostoevsky. I’ve never read any Dostoevsky, and the lecture seemed to depend on having a working knowledge of the author. As a result, my notes were not very good.

I gather from it that Ayn Rand liked Dostoevsky, which is somewhat incongruous, given her own philosophy and viewpoint on fiction writing. Rand is regarded in most Objectivist circles as focusing on heroes, rather than villains. The hero doesn’t necessarily always win in Ayn Rand’s writing. Kira Argounova in We The Living can’t be said to “win”. She is the sort of hero who is “destroyed but not defeated”. But, the focus for Rand is on the hero.

Ayn Rand explicitly said that she didn’t care to write fiction focused on the “bad guys”. Whether she thought all fiction that focused on the bad guys was “inherently bad”, I’m less sure on. The way I’ve interpreted her writing on this subject, she simply didn’t personally care to focus on villains.

I have written a couple of novelettes and short stories focused on a “bad guy”, by which I mean someone I would not care to emulate, and that I consider to have made wrong choices. ( http://comeandreadit.com/index.php/2018/05/21/resentment/ http://dwcookfiction.com/index.php/2018/11/13/impunity/ ) For me, writing these characters is an attempt to understand the nature of evil. I am, in that process, “focusing on evil”, but it’s with an eye towards understanding.

The lecturer said that Rand liked the writing of Dostoevsky that focused on demons, devils, or the possessed. The lecturer said that the actual demons of Dostoevsky are the ideas the lurk in the shadows of their spirt. Other writers portray a Garden of Eden, while Dostoevsky portrays a “Garden of Evil”.

The lecturer warned that while reading Dostoevsky, you should keep several things in mind: (1) He’s an artist, and the characters do not necessarily represent him, unlike Ayn Rand, whose primary characters are people she considers to be like herself in important respects. Dostoevsky is “creating, not confessing”. (2) Some of his ideas are, in fact, dangerous and wrong. The lecturer said Ayn Rand said it was like entering a chamber of horrors with a powerful guide. (3) Dostoevsky aspired to be the poet of the good, but the good for him wasn’t efficacious. (The lecturer had additional things to say on this last point, but I missed it.)

The lecturer then went over the Brothers Karamazov, with one brother described as wanting justice in this world, now, and the other brother wanting religious justice. (I assume that means justice for bad people when they die.) I haven’t read the novel, so I didn’t get that much from her description. She also spoke of a short story called “Dream of a Ridiculous Man”, and discussed something about the character of Gail Wynand from “The Fountainhead”, but I haven’t read the former short story either, so I didn’t get much from it.

###

The next lecture I attended that day concerned the environmentalist movement. I try to be very careful about what I say regarding this issue. I do not understand the science involved, and don’t have enough time to study it in great detail. I am skeptical that the news media presents what the scientific establishment is saying in its full context. I think that the news media is more likely to report on a scientific study that shows average global temperatures going up than they are a study that does not.

I also think that there is so much government funding of science at this point, that it has become captured by ideology. What I mean by “ideology” here is this: There is an “issue of fact” as to whether, for instance, average global temperatures are going up, and that it is an inadvertent result of human activity. This is purely a matter of developing measurements and scientific experiments that are accurate enough to make this determination. This is the science side of things. However, assuming this fact was established, it would say nothing about the value judgment we should draw from it. Maybe it’s not bad enough to do anything about? Maybe some people benefit, and other people don’t? How do we weigh these benefits and losses? Why do we assume that some given average global temperature is better, just because it is “natural” (not a result of human activity)? These questions are a question of values, and therefore ideology comes into play. I think that government-funded scientists who promote the notion that the “ideal state” is zero effect on the ecology by human beings tend to get the funding, while those who do not, tend not to get jobs.

The lecturer was attempting to show how philosophy shapes he we look at policy on energy. His analysis consisted of showing how the “dominant narrative” on energy policy sort of “filters down” to the masses in our society.

He moved fairly quickly, so my notes get pretty sketchy at points, but I think he presented a system in which energy policy starts out with the Researchers, who do the original work on energy policy. Next come the “Synthesizers” who put together the best works of the Researchers. Next are the “Disseminators”, who communicate the ideas to the media. From there the ideas go to the “Evaluators”, who are the people who say “What do we do about what’s true?” For instance, this would be the editors at the New York Times.

The lecturer said that the dominant narrative is that we should eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I wonder if it isn’t the case that the media is simply “cherry picking” the research that supports this narrative, and that there is an enormous amount of research that would oppose it or present other alternative approaches to the problem. (This is mere suspicion/supposition on my part. I do not know for sure.)

The lecturer also said there are “designated experts” who are basically “hybrid disseminators/evaluators”. They are people regarded as speaking for the best experts on what is true, and to do about it. This includes: spokespersons for the UN, Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Amory Lovins, and Bill McKibben. I was only familiar with some of these names.

With this context in mind, of how the dominant ideas on energy policy are filtering down to the masses, which is our society’s “knowledge system”, the lecturer made some observations. First, our “knowledge system” supports the elimination of fossil fuels and other forms of cost-effective energy, while ignoring the costs. The relevant facts are these: (1) Fossil fuels can provide cost effective energy. (2) We need cost-effective energy to flourish as individuals and as a race. (3) Billions of people around the world lack cost-effective energy, and suffer because of it. He noted a woman in Gambia who had no access to an incubator for her newborn, which died as a result.

Second, our knowledge system supports the elimination of nuclear energy. Most of the anti-fossil fuel movement is also anti-nuclear. Nuclear power is typically excluded from renewable mandates from governments.

Third, our knowledge system opposes “big hydro-power”. The Sierra Club fights hydro-power and pays no price for this in terms of support or contributions:

“Sierra Club Opposes Large Scale Hydro”

https://www.sierraclub.org/maine/hydropower

Fourth, our knowledge system is unconcerned about mass opposition to solar and wind power. I think what he means here is that there is a lot of opposition to the need to mine the resources to build large scale solar and wind power generation. There is opposition to the construction of the transmission facilities it would take to move the power from the wind farms and solar farms to the cities. There is opposition to building large-scale wind farms and solar farms because it will damage animal habitat:

“These large projects are increasingly drawing opposition from environmental activists and local residents who say they are ardent supporters of clean energy. Their objections range from a desire to keep the land unspoiled to protection for endangered species to concerns that their views would no longer be as beautiful.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-powers-land-grab-hits-a-snag-environmentalists-11622816381

Despite this opposition, there is no outcry by our experts over the irrationality of saying that we cannot have any fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, or even large-scale solar/wind farms, which basically means we cannot have electrical power.

There were other issues touched on in the lecture, but it felt a little like I was trying to drink from a firehose. The amount of information the lecturer was attempting to convey in an hour and a half was too much for me to take good notes. I think the lecture would have been better if it were broken down into about three one-hour lectures.

###

The last lecture I have concerned the nature of evil. I don’t have much to say on this lecture for two reasons. First, I ran out of pages in my composition notebook about this time, so my notes are incomplete. Second, I thought the lecture contained some good points, but didn’t seem sufficiently concrete for me to really grasp what the lecturer was trying to convey. It seemed like he was just sharing his thoughts on the topic somewhat extemporaneously.

I’ll share some of my own thoughts on the nature of evil, as I think it relates to Ayn Rand’s philosophy here.

Ayn Rand defined the good as that which is pro-life. In other words, that which promotes or enhances man’s life. On a concrete level, penicillin is good because it cures disease. Clothing is good because it keeps you warm and protects you from the elements. Food is good because it nourishes and sustains your body. Shelter is good because it protects you from the elements. Sex is good because it is a source of pleasure and of having children. Reading fiction is good because it lets you imagine other people and other ways of living. Friendship is good because it lets you learn about things you enjoy from other people, and to have companionship concerning what is important to you in your life. Knowledge is good because it allows you to create the things that you need in order to live. Happiness is good because it provides you with the emotional incentive to live. Self-knowledge and introspection is good because it lets you correct character defects to better live your life. A long-range perspective of what you need will help you to live beyond the range of the moment. From these concrete things that are good, you can generalize to that which all people must act to gain and or keep, because they are fundamentally important to their lives. Reason is important because an ordered mind connected to reality enhances your life with knowledge and understanding. Self-esteem is important because it provides the individual with the confidence that he is worthy of living and of happiness. Purpose is important because it provides you with a long-range perspective on your life, and acts as a measuring stick in gauging your choices over a lifetime.

“Evil” for Rand’s philosophy is that which is the anti-life. That which negates, opposes or destroys that which is necessary for living is the evil. Fundamentally, evil is the refusal to think:

“Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict ‘It is.’” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evil.html )

For me, it has always been difficult to believe that someone would deliberately unfocus their mind. Since I cannot get inside other people’s heads to see what is going on first-hand, I can only look into my own mind, and also observe what other people say and do, in order to try to infer what is going on inside their heads. I have never been fully convinced that Ayn Rand’s description of evil is actually happening in some other people’s minds.

I try to be on the lookout for it in my own mind, which is the only one I can ultimately perceive directly, and the only one that I can control.

Rationalization certainly seems like something real that matches Ayn Rand’s definition of evil. I try to be on the lookout for this, in myself and in others. I define rationalization as giving a fake explanation for an action or behavior that really has nothing to do with your explanation. Examples might include the following: You might tell yourself that you are in love with a girl one night, even though you really just want to have sex. An alcoholic might say they normally wouldn’t drink anymore, but it’s their friend’s bachelor party, so they’ll drink just this one time. A smoker might say they are too stressed to stop smoking this week.

A more vicious example of rationalization might be the rapist who tells himself his victim was dressed too provocatively, or she shouldn’t have been out walking alone late at night, so she got what she deserved.

There was a story back in 2020 about someone in Portland Oregon who murdered another man in cold blood, because he was on the political right. The murderer, Michael Reinoehl, was a Black Lives Matter and Antifa supporter. He claimed he was protecting his black friend, although the video footage of the murder showed him lying in wait for his victim, stalking him, and then shooting him:

“Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove of the garage and reaching into a pouch or waistband as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue.

Homicide Detective Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl ‘conceals himself, waits and watches’ as Danielson and Pappas pass him.

After the two men go by, Reinoehl followed them, walking west across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.” https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html

In an interview, Reinoehl’s sister described him as:

“…an ‘impulsive’ person who let his ‘worst emotions guide his actions’ — and then tried to rationalize them afterward.” https://nypost.com/2020/09/04/michael-reinoehls-sister-relieved-feds-killed-him/

An essential feature of rationalization is the evasion of your true motives or reasons for taking some action. In the case of Michael Reinoehl, it sounds like he simply let his emotions guide him, and then justified his reasons with left-wing rhetoric after the fact.