Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 2

This is Part 2 in my three part series about the Nature of Morality. You can find Part 1 here.

In the first part on morality, I established several things: 

1. Universalism is demanded by any moral system. 
2. Morality is universal.
3. Morals aren't based on public opinion.

The only question left to answer is: What is morality based on?

Finding the answer to this question is no simple task since it has been debated for literally centuries but allow me to sift through it all and figure out the truth. 

I must first denounce divine morality before it is ever seriously asserted (theologians have done so for centuries). Morality cannot be based on a divine being because once you set foot on that territory, it begs the question: which divine being? There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of gods/demi-gods conceived throughout history, many times, arguing for different moral systems. To assert the moral rationale of one god would be to deny the systems established by the thousands of other gods. Pascal's Wager has been heavily disproved.

But there are larger reasons for the denunciation of divine morality. Allow me to expound on my reasoning by concentrating on the two most popular religions' today, and Judaism (the mother of the monotheistic religions).

There are many divine decrees that we all ignore today because they are viewed as cruel and unusual if not immoral. Let's take, for example, the Biblical and Torah punishment for breaking the Sabbath:

Exodus 31:

14: Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15: Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

In Islam, the punishment for theft is to cut off the theifs' hands:

“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned [i.e. committed] as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah. And Allaah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 5:38] 

I would hope that anyone reading this would believe that such actions are immoral, yet they are the decrees of an Abrahamic God. Based on what I know, no one today is killed for breaking the Sabbath and few Muslim countries today chop off people's hands (but feel free to prove me wrong).

The world of religion has greatly changed. Where once the act of God is considered divinely just, today we shrivel away from the call to kill each other for not relaxing. Every day our government or people don't kill those who work on Sunday, we are ignoring the word of God. The very fact that you would view such divine decrees on a scale of morality shows that God's calls can be judged by an independent standard; to tells us that God doesn't establish the good, rather, he is judged by it.

If you still aren't convinced, Christopher Hitchens laid out a challenge to all theists, and so far hasn't gotten an answer (that I know of, and including myself). He asked:

"Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an 'infidel'. [Then] Name a wicked action or saying that is justified by faith."

The challenge is the best way to summarize my position. Immoral things are/have been preached for the divine, while all moral things don't need to be.

There are plenty of debates about the source of morality and the divine; here is one with Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. It is the first part and at the end of each video you will see a link to the following part to watch the full thing. Al Sharpton isn't very impressive and if you are really interested in the debate, look for William Lane Craig. Although he has some flawed arguments, he's the most formidable theist opponent to atheists in this area. 

If a universal moral standard does exist and is not based on any specific deity, how do we determine if something is right or wrong? This is where the Consequentialism and Deontology come in.

Since I ascribe to a kind of consequentialism, let's talk about Deontology first. The most famed supporter (if not creator) of this moral system is Immanuel Kant.

Kant believed that we can base moral requirements (decide if something is right or wrong)  by what he called the "Categorical Imperative." He promoted, like his predecessors, and consequentialists, that reason be the basis for determining the moral standard. He talked of many things such as free will (still hotly debated), virtues, hypothetical imperatives and moral, but the categorical imperative established the following:

1. There are absolute, unconditional requirements that assert its authority on all actions and circumstances.
2. Such actions are judged as right or wrong by being moral as an ends in themselves (as opposed to consequentialism). 
3. He said "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

In other words, there are things that are right and wrong and must be universally applied to all circumstances. These acts can be judged as moral or immoral, not based on their consequences, but the act themselves. For example, lying should be considered universally wrong, as should things like murder and rape (among many others). 

The flaws with Kanatian morality is obvious and most usually shown by the "Inquiring murderer" hypothetical scenario. I'll explain the scenario, but to remove the hypothetical aspect from the example, I'll frame it in true historical events. 

It is 1940, and World War II is has exploded as the United States joined "Europe's fight." For years, the anti-semetic Nazi regime (amongst the larger anti-semetic Europe) had began finding, labeling, and soon imprisoning Jews (amongst gays, minorities, political opponents and more) as the Holocaust came underway. 

A Jewish family, not different from Ann Frank's is hiding with a non-Jewish family in Germany-invaded Poland. Nazi soldiers, on the search for "rats," come to the house asking the family if they have seen any Jews. 

What should the family do? Tell the soldiers that they have Jews hiding in the basement? or lie to the soldiers to protect their Jewish neighbors? 

Under Kant's moral theory, things are determined as moral or not in all circumstances. Therefore, it is the moral obligation of the family not to lie, and to tell the truth at all times. Lying would be immoral, even in this real historical example. The family is best off telling the soldiers the truth, thereby their actions are moral in-and-of themselves, and the Jewish family is taken away to labor camps and eventually thrown into ovens after being deprived of basic necessities. 

This is no hypothetical example that philosophers conjured up to show the flaws of another moral philosophy at all costs; it's history. Surely such a system shouldn't have been followed during World War II or at any other time period. 

With Deontology denounced, I'll delve into consequentialism in the last part of the series, Part 3. (I wanted to include it but it is just too long).

Part 3 is coming soon!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Author's special note:Happy Birthday dad

Happy Birthday to the person closest to my heart,my mentor,and my best friend and that is my dad Rod Adagio.He influenced the musical preferences that I have now.I wont be writing about my favorite bands the Beatles,The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin right now If it weren't for him.I remember when I was a little boy he used to tell me stories about these huge bands and how he listened to them when he was in his teens.We would sit and he will turn on the radio and we would sing all these beautiful Beatles songs.I took it from there and I bought all these cool albums and started reading myself.

For me,he is the coolest dad in the world.Thank you for being a good father and thank you for giving me a cool name,a beautiful family name,awesome ancestry and heritage.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD

White Rock Angels accused in massive drug-smuggling ring

White Rock chapter of the Hells Angels supplied marijuana and muscle to a multimillion-dollar cross-border drug-smuggling ring in which 22 people have so far been charged, U.S. court documents allege.

U.S. law enforcement agents allege Hells Angel associate Trevor Jones was the Canadian "boss" of the drug ring alleged to have distributed up to a tonne of pot and 200 kilograms of cocaine a month for several years.

The ring was broken up last month with a series of arrests in several states and the seizure of almost $2 million US and 1,000 kilograms of cocaine from various locations.

The just-unsealed court documents say that Jones, who is not charged on the indictment, was observed by U.S. agents meeting a key member of the drug ring in Las Vegas in February.

And the documents say that U.S. members of the gang were caught on wiretap in April trying to get guns, baseball bats and pepper spray for the B.C. bikers so they could go after an associate believed to have stolen 106 kilograms of cocaine.

In fact, the coke had been seized by police.

"I believe that cocaine was destined for Canada and for the Hells Angels, possibly Trevor Jones," special agent Bryan Winger, of Homeland Security, testified in one court affidavit.

Among those now in custody are Jacob Stuart and Richard Lamar, the two Washington men alleged to have led the U.S. side of the operation, and John Washington, described as the group's main Seattle customer and "a member of the Blood street gang."

Three Canadians were also picked up: Glen Stewart -a 51-year-old who lives in Blaine -and Michel William Dubois and Mario Joseph Fenianos, who were arrested on April 26 in Los Angeles.

Dubois and Fenianos were arrested in a vehicle containing a duffel bag full of cocaine after agents observed them arriving to meet associates of the Sinaloa cartel.

The investigation began in early 2010 when U.S. Homeland Security came across three separate drug cases that all linked back to Stuart and his associates. Investigators got a series of wiretap authorizations and watched suspects in several states for months.

The U.S. Attorney said in one court document that the Stuart gang was international in scope, receiving shipments of B.C. bud trucked over the border, which were then transported across the U.S. using "aircraft flown by multiple pilots, who all have been observed by surveillance agents picking up suspected loads of marijuana."

Several suspects caught in the act agreed to become confidential informants and linked the case back to the Hells Angels in B.C., the documents said.

Members of the drug ring were "prepared to use violence to further their activities." Suspects were caught on tape plotting abductions and beatings as part of debt collecting, the U.S. Attorney said.

"Stuart was also intercepted talking to Lamar about obtaining guns, pepper spray, and baseball bats for use by a different crew of enforcers being sent down from Canada to investigate a large amount of missing drugs," one document said.

Stuart says on wiretap that he needs "some heaters, burners" -which is slang for firearms.

"They want some right now -our boss man does -because they are sending some people down to deal with the situation," he said.

One document alleges that Jones, 41, is the owner of Surrey's T-Barz strip club and the twin brother of fullpatch White Rock Hells Angel Randal Jones.

"Interviews with cooperating confidential informants (CIs) and subsequent wire intercepts indicate that the primary source of supply of the marijuana to the Jacob Stuart drug trafficking organization is a person who has been identified by their moniker of Red," Winger said in his April 26 affidavit to the court.

"Red is the nickname or code name for Trevor Jones. ... According to Canadian law enforcement Trevor Jones is a Hells Angels member and/ or associate."

Winger further alleges that while Jones was not captured on wiretap during the investigation, "we have intercepted calls we believe are about Jones and surveilled meetings between Jones and Lamar, acting on Stuart's behalf."

And he quoted records that confirmed that Jones "did fly from Canada to Las Vegas, making entry into the U.S. on Feb. 14, 2011" and stayed at the hotel where Lamar was sent by Stuart twice over several days.

"We believe that during this and the previous trip, Lamar was delivering money to Trevor Jones, which the Stuart drug trafficking organization owed for marijuana obtained from the Jones brothers," Winger testified in a court document.

After meeting Jones, Lamar is captured in one call to Stuart saying Jones praised him: "he says you're his best guy, which is good."

Jones, who lives in Langley, did not return telephone or email messages left for him Friday through T-Barz.

 

 

VICTOR SPINETTI:The funny man who drove the Beatles' movies

Ever wonder who's that musical director in the film A Hard Day's Night,the mad scientist in Help! and the army drill sergeant in Magical Mystery Tour? That is none other than Victor Spinetti,a Welsh comic actor who drove us all nuts on those Beatles films that we all loved.

Victor was a favorite comedian of the Beatles particularly George Harrison's.George even stating "You've got to be in all our films..If you're not in them,me mum wont come and see them coz she fancies you.."

Spinetti was born in Wales of Welsh and Italian ancestry,he attended the Cardiff College of Music And Drama.Waiting tables and a factory worker were one of his first jobs before entering showbusiness.Perhaps the most memorable role Spinetti had was from the Beatles' second movie Help! where he played the role of Foot-the mad scientist who got obsessed over Ringo's ring and later on the orchid essense which has the power to shrink things from its normal size.He teamed up with the late Roy Kinnear,who played Algernon-Foot's not so clever assistant.

Actually,it was in Help! that I fancied Spinetti even more.Sir Paul McCartney used to describe him as the man who makes clouds disappear.

Spinetti made his last appearance on a Beatles movie in the film Magical Mystery Tour where he played the role of a wacky army drill sergeant.Post-Beatles,Spinetti appeared on Paul McCartney's London Town music video.

The last musical appearance of Spinetti was in 1985 when he teamed up again with Roy Kinnear and did a comic stint on Mike & The Mechanics music video "All I Need Is A Miracle".Kinnear died three years later in 1988 when he fell off while horseback riding.

Spinetti is now a fellow at his alma mater  the Cardiff College of Music and Drama.

My tribute to Victor Spinetti with all the love and admiration...Thank you Victor for making us all laugh

Gaza: The World's Largest Prison

Gaza is the world's largest prison. Home to over 1.5 million people 95% of which are under the age of 65.  Overpopulated, the Strip is greatly restricted by Israel (and the United States). Since Israel first enacted its policy to Gaza years ago, 100% of all textile factories were closed, which is part of the larger 96% of all factories  that were closed. The agriculture and fishing industry were almost completely destroyed, ruining tens of millions of dollars worth of food that would have been locally grown for families. 

All medicine that goes through Gaza is inspected. Israel constantly denies humanitarian aid to the strip and controls overwhelming majorities in Gaza's electricity and water production. Finally, all international funds going to humanitarian aid toward the Palestinian people is withheld by Israel unless it deems it appropriate. Israel even has control over Palestinian tax money in the West Bank (although the regulation is a bit easier there). 

It is clear that the territory has all the characteristics of a prison: Controlled hours when lights are on, confined (and in California's case) overcrowded rooms, controlled food and drinks, inspection on anything and everything that wants to come in and out. 

Actually with some reconsideration, Western prison is a better than what Gazans go through because they are at least guaranteed protection for their lives. Gaza is more of a Syrian, Egyptian, or Saudi jail.

Israeli leaders, such as the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and most of his predecessors), have always said something to this effect: "In the name of security we must continue this policy!"

Recently Israel just extended its emergency law powers for another year which would have the policy implemented for over 63 years. Haaretz describes the law's effect as the following:

"It bestows upon the government broad powers that infringe on civil liberties. These include the power of administrative detention, seizure of land, arrest of infiltrators, and limitations on the rights of terror suspects. In Israel's improvisational style, numerous writs have been issued under emergency law guidelines for the monitoring of goods and services. In such case, the emergency law was used not because of any real concerns about state security, but rather for bureaucratic convenience."

These expansionist powers are no secret and have been used against the Palestinians for some time now. The policy toward Gaza by Israel and the United States aims to alienate Gaza's leadership: Hamas, a group deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, EU and Israel. 

The policy is not only impractical, it's deeply immoral. The effects of the policy make the policy itself immoral, and if you can't see that, then just wait for my second part on the Nature of Morality. It's impractical because the harder you make the lives of a people, the more extreme their views will become. With more extreme views people will inevitably turn to more extreme leaders. Let me frame it this way:

A household is deprived of water, food, electricity, and medicine; no one is allowed to leave the house to get a job or get any essentials. The family knows that their current state is because of the neighbors who have initiated the harsh imprisonment. As the family gets organized, two possible leaders come up, the first of which, declares that negotiations must go on and we must sit with the neighbors that are starving our children, while the second declares that they must continue the fight for their independance and right to a proper household. 

Which would you choose? It may be difficult to feel empathy for the Palestinians because you read this of some kind of electronic device, at home or at work. You may not be deprived of basic living essentials as they are, and until you are in their position, you may never understand why they choose the more violent rebellious leaders. 

This short TED Talk may help you better understand, please watch:

This is why such a policy is impractical to long term solutions. The lack of empathy alienates entire populations most noticeably... the two closest to each other: the Israelis and Palestinians. As a result, radical leaders will take radical results which has led to 60+ years of non-stop violence.  

In the name of security, Israel takes such extreme actions. I'm not saying that the Israeli concern about its security isn't warranted, but I'm saying that the actions aren't however, I think there is a more fundamental issue at hand so let's talk about that first.

Israel enacts such strict controls over Palestinian life (but especially Gazan life) because they do not approve of the last Palestinian elections where Hamas won significant numbers of spots in the government. Since then, much has happened and the split between Palestinians factions broke off, with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip. In the last month, a unity government has been formed and will push for UN statehood recognition.

Rightfully or not, the Israelis don't like who the Palestinians elected to office. The fear of whom may be elected once democracy is established reminds me of the ongoing Arab uprisings, and specifically Egypt.

There was much (unnecessary) speculation that with Mubarak out, the Egyptians would elect a government that is unfriendly to the United States, Israel and their policies. That may be the case since elections haven't begun yet, however, the larger concern is this: Why are the rights of (literally) hundreds of millions of people predicated on who foreign governments approve of as "representatives" for their nations?

Why is their even discussion about helping suppress the inalienable rights of our fellow human beings because we won't like who they have a right to elect? Is this even moral? (rhetorical) Better yet, when is a system democratic when those "elected" are filtered by forces such as Israel and the United States (if not Iran and Saudi Arabia)?

This discussion seems to have been re-ignited recently over the military government in Egypt's decision to permanently open the border that has been long closed by the U.S.'s puppet Hosni Mubarak. It is the first effort by any country to improve the lives of the Gazans and bring an end to the world's largest prison; I applaud the decision.

Of course, the border isn't opened for everyone; men between the ages 18-64 are required to have visas to travel back and forth, but it is still an important step. The system aims to allow for the flow of people and the economic opportunities they bring, but takes measures to inspect and limit the shipment of weapons that could be used against Israel.

Perhaps I'm downplaying Hamas attacks against Israel; attacks that seem greatly overshadowed when Israel responds and kills 75% more people, however, Israeli policy thusfar is not serious about long-term change. Illegal settlements, manipulation of basic necessities, illegal and immoral acts that radicalize another generation will never be the answer to peace.

Yes, the Israeli state deserves peace of mind, but more importantly, the Palestinians deserve a state. It is our job as fellow human beings, to ensure that everyone has access to the basic universal freedoms that I do when I type on this blog but we must remember that there are no strings attached to such freedoms and it is none of our business to dictate what they decide to do with that democracy.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Shootings at Motorcycle Club HQ

Police in Helsinki detained several people early Tuesday following a series of gunshots at a motorcycle club headquarters.
A number of shots were fired after midnight in or around the premises of the Cannonball MC on Viipurinkatu.
Police have declined to release any details about the incident, but say they do not know of any injuries.
Cannonball MC was formed in the 1990s by former Hell's Angels in Finland. It has member groups at least half a dozen Finnish towns and cities. A number of its leaders were convicted of drug-related and violent crimes in the 1990s.

 

Hells Angels member gets bail

chapter president of the Hells Angels motorcycle club was freed Tuesday pending sentencing for drug offences after a jury acquitted him last week of belonging to a criminal organization.

John Neal, 61, was granted bail, pending the outcome of a sentencing hearing on June 9.

A jury on Saturday acquitted five members of Hells Angels, including Neal, of the criminal organization charge. Lorne Campbell, 62, was released on bail immediately on Saturday and Larry Pooler, 61, had been under house arrest since charges were laid four years ago.

Two other members, Mehrdad Bahman, 48, and vice-president, Douglas Myles, 54, remain in custody. 

All the bikers were found guilty drug charges and will be sentenced on June 9.

But the criminal organization acquittals mean the men were spared lengthy jail sentences on top of their pre-trial custody.  

“If the state wants to go big-game hunting, they better bring out the heavy artillery and the evidence just wasn’t there in this case,” said defence lawyer Lenny Hochberg.

“The courts have found on multiple occasions that the Hells Angels are a criminal organization, but it has never been tried to the best of my knowledge, before a jury before the accused’s peers in other words.

“Now that a jury has determined, based on all the evidence and a year and a half of investigation, that it is not a criminal organization. It’s a huge decision.” 

Neal, Myles and Bahman were found guilty of conspiracy to traffick GHB, the date rate drug.

Pooler was found guilty of trafficking in oxycodone and possession of  a restricted firearm.

Campbell was convicted on trafficking cocaine.

The bikers were arrested in an undercover project — named “Project Develop” — which featured a former club officer named Dave (Shakey) Atwell, a paid police agent. 

The jury heard that Atwell hung out with the bikers for 18 months and secretly taped conversations with them between 2005 and 2007.

Bahman, whose club nickname is “Juicy,” pleaded guilty to nine counts of trafficking drugs and possession of proceeds of crime.