Let's Just Cut The Crap.....

Incentives, incentives, INCENTIVES! Will you please give me more incentives to do the very things I claim to value so highly? If this is how we think as a society, then we value nothing but reward and recognition.

This is a tacit admission that we do not value the very things we claim to value. Rather, we value predominantly, perhaps only, reward and recognition. Not that this is wrong or bad, nor particularly right or good either. Apparently it just is what it is.

With this in mind then, can we cut the crap about claiming to value things in themselves and realize that what we are ultimately after is reward and recognition? Examples follow:

- We need to offer children incentives for working hard in school!
- We need incentives to compel people to better care for themselves!
- We need tax write-offs for charitable donations (to our selfishly selected causes)!
- We need God (or at least belief in Him/Her/It) in order to compel us to be compassionate and merciful
- We need belief in reward and punishment rendered by God to compel us to seek virtue and avoid depravity
- We need others' approval to validate our beliefs and actions

Counterpoint: we shouldn't NEED any of these things if we value, or at least claim to value the underlying values themselves!

My own suspicion is we do not value the values, rather we value only what benefits can be had (if this isn't selfish, what is?) through the practice of said values.

In the end, if society takes an honest account of what it actually values, I'm afraid INCENTIVES are a necessity. For if there were no incentives to do the things we claim to value so highly, I can only imagine the result: a totally self-absorbed society devoid of feeling or sympathy for anything outside of selfishly chosen causes.

What's doubly alarming is that oftentimes the practicing of our selfishly chosen causes is ultimately at the mercy of incentives! Which implies we value very little other than reward and recognition via incentives.

For atheists, this comes as no surprise and is logically concluded. For theists, on the other hand, an account must be made of our ultimately selfish behavior.

Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?

It is commonly claimed by the faithful that when things go horribly awry, God is not punishing us necessarily. But using this type of reasoning in a consistent manner, we are then forced to conclude that neither is God necessarily blessing us when things go well!

In the same way, if it is true that bad outcomes do not necessarily discount the existence of a good God then neither must good outcomes necessarily suggest the existence of a good God!

Furthermore, viewing God as blessing good behavior and punishing bad behavior is viewing God as nothing more than a "vending machine"!

One can avoid this “vending machine” dilemma if he does not believe God blesses good behavior and/or punishes bad behavior. But at this point, what would be the use of worshiping God if not for the assurance that we will ultimately reap what we sow?

Technology: Good Or Bad?

Many will likely be critical with my contention that technology is neither good nor bad. For how can it not be good that the lifespan of humans in industrialized societies at least has dramatically increased in just the last century, for example?

It is tempting to judge this as good but ultimately our judgment on any given matter is only ever based on something already known or experienced. For example, if the longest any human lived was known to be only 30 years, we would base our judgment on living approximately 30 years. If one attained this age or beyond, this would of course be deemed good. On the other hand, if the longest any human lived was known to be 200 years, a 30 year lifespan would seem tragically short and deemed bad.

It is enticing for the marginalized to see something “better” and label it good or for the fortunate to see something “worse” and label it bad, but this is only due to disparity. This disparity can be analogous to having something good taken away. Once it is seen what can be, this then becomes the de facto standard and of course there is a desire to attain or maintain this good thing.

But it must be pointed out that this thing is not really good. It is only relatively good. In other words, the thing just is.

I want to further express what I am talking about with what will no doubt be a very emotional topic. Let's suppose that due to medical technology, the infant death rate goes from 1 in 5 to only 1 in 5,000. This is good, is it not? But what if we subsequently came across a civilization that experienced an infant death rate of only 1 in a billion? Is 1 in 5,000 still good? What if your child was one of the 1 in 5,000 that perished?

In this case, statistically it is almost certain your child would have survived if the death rate was only 1 in a billion. As such, might you, or anybody else for that matter, now see this death rate as bad?

One might claim that only 1 in 5,000 is good because it is better than 1 in 5. However, when compared to a death rate of only 1 in a billion, it seems bad. Furthermore, it is tragic when any infant dies but is especially so when it is yours! So whether the death rate is 1 in 5 or only 1 in 5,000 or still more impressive only 1 in a billion, if your child dies, none of these is good. Conversely, if your child survives, none of these is really bad either.

Perhaps we could legitimately declare it good when no babies die. Then again, could infant death simply be nature's equilibrium so as to preserve the lives of the greatest number of babies and more generally, and perhaps more importantly, to preserve Life in general? Of course this principle will no doubt be hard to accept especially if your baby dies.

In any case, might it be suggested that nature seems to obey the principle of utilitarianism even with an incredibly delicate issue such as this?

One could similarly draw an analogy to the idea of promoting longevity as an intrinsic moral good. Should we adopt this imperative?* What if this places such a strain on society that it undermines the health and well-being of everybody?

Would it be better for people to live 1)marginally well for 150 years, 2)moderately well for 100 years or 3)phenomenally well for only 50 years? Once again, are the ravages of old age nature's equilibrium so as to best serve Life in general (the proverbial One)?

In summary, it seems wise to avoid imparting judgments and to just accept what is.


*Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?

Trying To Have It Both Ways

The "good" guy resents the fact that the "bad" guy does far worse things while largely escaping criticism whereas he is implicated in one small impropriety and the criticism never ends. I am afraid this double standard is the high price of being or at least claiming to be the "good" guy. You can try but you can't have your cake and eat it too!

If the "good" guy fails to accept this most unfair double standard, he is faced with a frustrating realization: if the "bad" guy was judged by the same standards, he would not be "bad" as it were nor would the "good" guy have any basis to claim he is "good" either.

Perhaps "bad" is the unsung hero for "good". For without "bad", there could be no "good". "Good" and "bad" are thus inexplicably intertwined in duality!

Extrapolate this on world conflicts where the "bad" guys are not criticized like the "good" guys, thus triggering anger and resentment amongst the "good" guys. Once again, you can't have it both ways.

Who Of Us Makes Mistakes?

It is often said the man who makes no mistakes is the man who does nothing. Why would this be so?

Because just about everything any of us does is fraught with "mistakes" from somebody's point of view. The reason this is the case is that reality is or certainly seems to be predicated on a duality of opposites. Meaning something considered good is only good if there is something bad to oppose it, and vice versa.

But depending on the point of view espoused, good and bad can simultaneously be bad and good. Hence, no matter what action is taken, it is a "mistake" to somebody. Abstaining from action seems to produce no mistakes because of this "point of view" dilemma, hence the implication that the inactive man makes no mistakes.

But of course from a certain point of view it can be said that inaction itself is an action meaning even inactive types are prone to making "mistakes" as well.

So what is the best course of action then? Do 1) X,2) its opposite or 3) "nothing"? Why that is left to the discretion of the individual.

Whichever way, one's inevitable fate is that of making a mistake, or many I suppose. But of course the opposite seems true as well.....

Who Among Us Causes Wrecks?

Some will say it's the slower of us, others the faster. But in the end, it is essentially neither. How can this be so if wrecks happen with such reckless abandon?

Because it is neither fastness nor slowness in itself that causes wrecks* but the duality of two starkly different and hence contradictory behaviors!

It seems much like politics and religion. Whereas many identify with one belief or style, the remaining must be made wrong or bad because these contradictory beliefs or styles do not lend themselves to cooperation.

*Though once they happen, it is likely fastness or slowness will greatly affect the severity of the wrecks

The Paradox Of “Good" Guys Using War For Peace's Sake

It is often resentfully claimed that when “good” guys are "forced" to attack “bad” guys, these “bad” guys routinely resort to cruel and sadistic methods to tip the scale in their favor. They even use innocent women and children as shields! Can you believe that? Innocent women and children as shields!

Well, since they have already been labeled “bad”, why should they be dissuaded from using any strategy which might afford them an advantage over the “good” guys. What do they have to lose in the way of reputation at this point? The best they can hope for in not using women and children as shields would be for others to view them as merely “bad” instead of something much worse. In essence, this would assure their defeat but be mitigated by the fact that others will see them as only “bad”.

This does not sound particularly alluring even to me. And I have little or no proclivity to get angry or violent when confronted by people that accuse me of being bad! What does one suppose a person with this proclivity will do if he is accused of being “bad”. If I had to guess, he will become really bad!

This is perhaps the most fundamental dilemma in trying to reconcile war to morality and peace. Labeling people negatively will only further aggravate them, in turn dragging them into an even deeper state of unconsciousness thus prompting their use of more and worse defensive measures.

Using violence under the guise of upholding truth and righteousness is yet more unconsciousness fighting unconsciousness*. This cycle will only ever manifest itself as more unconsciousness.


War is like a pendulum. No matter how out of equilibrium it might be at any given time (this being analogous to lulls in violence and conflict), if left untouched for sufficiently long, it will reach equilibrium (war)!

*Am I saying "we" should NEVER go to war? Decidedly not! Herein lies the most fundamental insanity and absurdity of existence.....fighting wars while claiming (and presumably believing) they will eventually lead to peace! If "we" choose to go to war or it is chosen for us, "we" should harbor no such pretense that peace will ever avail. War is what it is. Though there does not seem to be moral justification for it largely because of the indiscriminate death and destruction it leaves behind, many times it seems "we" must declare it. Once again, this is life's most insane and cruel irony!

If Only Everybody Believed The Same Thing, Things Would Be Fine!

"Well," it will likely be retorted, "I don't think things would be fine if everybody was a militant Muslim!" But if everybody was a militant Muslim, would anybody be a militant Muslim? It seems a militant Muslim would have nobody to be militant toward and hence no reason to be militant at all. Which just begs the question, how could a militant mindset originate without a purported enemy?

It takes an opposing view, not necessarily any more right or wrong or good or bad than another, to foment conflict in the first place! So once again, if only everybody believed the same thing, things would be fine.

I must confess, however, I'm not quite that naive. After all, I'm pretty certain if we did not have religion or politics or alma maters or whatever else to fight over, we would "find" as-yet-unknown things to fight over. After all, we must fight. It's that pesky ego!

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination?

Where does much of society's conflict and strife seem to originate? Perhaps indoctrination explains much of it, most notably among its naive "little ones". For children will pretty much believe anything they are told to believe (sadly, many of us will too). If they are told in the crib that certain races or cultures are inherently evil or inferior or that others with divergent beliefs or cultural practices are wrong or weird, they will have little gumption not to believe it.

Much of this indoctrination will sow ill feelings in the years to come, creating conflict which would otherwise be absent. Should "we"* forcefully prevent the kind of indoctrination that leads to terrorism, this being perhaps the worst of its many ill faces? Certainly it can then be argued that this would be an affront to the basic freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants to believe". However, the ill consequence of "protecting" this freedom is that it seems to create or at least magnify wars and other such conflicts thus providing the ultimate trigger to kill and maim.

What is the imperative? To provide the freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants" knowing full well its negative consequences or simply banning the kind of indoctrination that creates such violent division in the first place?

*"We" is highlighted to differentiate its many faces. Ask "we" in Iran or North Korea or Afghanistan or Iraq or Papua New Guinea or Scandinavia or France or wherever else and "we" will have many divergent goals and ideals. So the relevant question might be, "whose indoctrination should be censored?" It seems wars and violence are predicated not necessarily on clear right/wrong dichotomies but on the simple principle that peoples' opposing views and preferences create contradictions and hence conflict when "forced" to live side by side. At this point, "creating" enemies out of "others" (herein enters the purported right/wrong dichotomy into the conflict, thus giving the "good" guy moral justification for it) is obligatory when it becomes apparent that any attempt to "intertwine" these contradictions is destined to fail.** And so ensues tension which manifests itself as at best simple conflict and disagreement, at worst war. Much like the AIDS virus being viewed as "bad" from our perspective, it is only "bad" because the both of us cannot peacefully coexist. But ask yourself this: in the grand scheme of things, do you really think there is anything particularly "bad" about the AIDS virus in itself? Decidedly not! It is just trying to make its way about the world like the rest of us! But it causes US harm so we think it fair to label IT "bad" and believe this to be an objective judgment. But of course it is anything but objective! Once again, as per my hypothetical idea of censoring certain types of indoctrination, which types then? Perhaps those with uncontested control of the world should make this decision for everybody else, as has always been the case. But these days, I don't know? Who might this be?

**This is a rather silly argument to illustrate my point. I ask you to think more deeply than seeing this only as an argument between 2 young boys fighting over a most trivial matter. As such, project the following parable onto almost any argument and I believe there is relevance: I have never met anybody that believes colors to be intrinsically "good" or "bad". Imagine 2 brothers are going to share a Nintendo DS for Christmas. Peter likes blue but Sam likes red. Each is so compelled to get the device in his chosen color that it becomes an obsession. As a result, they become so identified with their chosen colors that they actually convince themselves their favorite colors are "good" in turn making other colors antithetical to "good" and hence "bad". If you're not with me you're against me! It's that vexatious war mindset so commonly used to justify conflict in the first place***. Since the other brother wants a "bad" color, he is "bad" and thus an enemy. Once again, the purported right/wrong dichotomy creeps into the conflict because it provides moral justification. With this then, the "good" guy is justified to fight because he is "right". And which one IS the "good" guy? Why that's simply a matter of perspective.

***This "if you're not with me you're against me" dichotomy preys on human instinct with reckless abandon. Since we are social animals, we have a need (or perhaps just an irresistible instinct) to be part of clearly defined groups to give us a sense of social identity. What does this compel us to do? Choose sides. In which case people "join" either the "with" or "against" group and conflict is thus born! Note that without this "choosing of sides", there would exist no with/against dichotomy and hence conflict would be avoided altogether! It is also important to note that most of us are compelled to choose one or the other because it "seems" as if those are the only two options. Politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, love to delude us (and themselves of course) into believing there is only "with" and "against" because they are always looking to recruit people for their "sacred" cause(s). Of course if you choose "against" them, they are morally justified in criticizing you! However, this with/against dichotomy is usually untenable. Almost always "with" and "against" are simply opposite ends of a spectrum. In which case there exist many subtle combinations of "with" and "against" along this spectrum. Upon recognizing this "truth" in a given conflict, I myself choose the "middle", in effect doing my part to "strip" the conflict of its "identity". This is what politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, among others, live for: to recruit people for their cause(s) in order to give the conflict(s) "identity".

Adversity Is Bad, But Good Too

“We finally did it, dammit! We finally found the long sought after cure for cancer once and for all!” Then a look of sheer terror overcomes Dr. Rosenberg as if he just shat in his pants. “Oh no! How can I ever expect to pay off my $500,000 in medical school debt without a cancer-stricken patient to treat?”

This seems to be the inevitable ramification of a world no longer vulnerable to calamities such as cancer. Extrapolate this onto every ill of society. Where would we be without them? This is hard to accept, especially if you or perhaps one of your beloved is stricken with some hideous malady. But it is an unfortunate necessity in a reality where the greatest of all needs revolves not around any particular individual but around a collective One, that which we might call Life.

Those that succumb to the most cruel tragedies are what we could call “collateral damage”. If one were to imagine all of life's ills forever eradicated, how would we bide our time? Twiddling our thumbs? Is this activity not pathetically below humanity's untameable spirit? How would we ever satiate our penchant, nay our lust, for victory and accomplishment without continual opportunities to defeat adversity?

The Paradox Of War

I've never understood the idea of following rules during war as if this was some “Godly” virtue to uphold. After all, the general goal of war is to annihilate the “bad” guys or force their surrender.

When the “good” guys criticize the “bad” guys for not adhering to said rules of war, I can't help but be puzzled. War does not seem inherently moral and therefore I am very suspicious of any claim or insinuation of right(eous)ness within the context of war.

So why would anybody attempt to find right(eous)ness within the context of war? To assert the ego's superiority in right(eous)ness thus providing moral justification for it. But obeying rules makes it very difficult to win when the “bad” guys do not, so it seems as if “dirty” tactics must be employed in order to remain at all competitive.

Many will protest this because it necessarily involves unfair and cruel strategies. This implies there exists some righteous manner in which to approach war. But I do not believe there is. Refer to the beginning of this discussion and notice the circularity of this argument.

And herein lies the dilemma. I am not saying “we” should never go to war. I simply reject the idea of proclaiming or at least implying right(eous)ness within the context of war and recommend doing whatever need be to win if winning is the ultimate goal. Suffice it to say, I don't think any entity would willingly engage in war if victory was not its ultimate goal.

Now I will ask this of myself. If I was in a situation where I had to fight in a war, would I use “dirty” tactics such as using a child as a shield to tip the scale in my favor? I believe strongly I would not. But why would I not as per my prior argument? Because it is not in my nature to do such a thing. My reason for refraining from such “dirty” tactics is not because I am consciously or unconsciously trying to figure out a “righteous” manner in which to partake in the war, rather it is just not in my nature to do such a thing.

Furthermore, if I had to fight in a war, my ultimate goal would not be to win. Rather, my ultimate goal in a war or in life generally is to just "be myself”. That is why I would not likely use “dirty” tactics. And that is also why I would not be a devoted soldier ready and willing to unquestionably follow orders. Albert Speer and other Nazi officers were strongly condemned for using this excuse!

Concerning war, the paradox is thus: wars are only ever fought over conflicting moral imperatives but the mere act of war is so immoral it becomes complete madness to try to “force” moral imperatives immorally!* War is an evolutionary mindset built upon a contradiction. It is the pinnacle of insanity!

*Perhaps it would elicit less disagreement and anger by suggesting that when uncalled for (this itself seemingly dubious in many instances), war is neither "moral" nor "immoral" as opposed to suggesting it as altogether "immoral". The point of restating war thusly is to make clear that those "forced" into an uncalled for war are NOT "immoral" (necessarily, at least), rather they are neither "moral" nor "immoral". Notice this still precludes any entity from ever claiming right(eous)ness within the context of war because it can only be right(eous) when it is moral. Since morality is precluded within the context of war, it can never be said that the action of war is right(eous). It can at best be neither "moral" nor "immoral", at worst, altogether "immoral"**.

**It seems so unfair to deny an otherwise "moral" entity from being so within the context of an uncalled for war. And of course, it is. Much like the entire class "suffering" for the adolescent antics of a few "immoral" classmates, so too do "innocent" bystanders "suffer" when dragged into conflicts they did not ask to partake in. Lest you forget, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

Good, Bad And Downright Mediocre

Only narrow-mindedness can ever afford us the view that things are actually better than mediocre (for the optimist) or worse than mediocre (for the pessimist). For if we take an extensive, wholly unbiased account of all perspectives simultaneously, it becomes patently clear the bad perfectly neutralizes the good.

It is only by espousing a particular perspective that one can ever find good in bad or bad in good, for example. But any single perspective implies limitation which means it can not point to an “absolute” truth.

The “absolute” truth, if you will, would be the entire collection of perspectives on any and every given matter represented on a continuum. This would entail seeing good in bad, seeing bad in bad, seeing perhaps even worse in something merely bad, seeing bad in good, seeing good in good, seeing perhaps even better in something merely good, etc. If all views are accounted for equally, bad cancels out good and as a result, there is nothing but mediocrity, rendering the totality of reality merely lukewarm.

Many aspire to choose, more than likely unconsciously, only those perspectives which see good in bad or see even better in something merely good. We call these fellow human beings optimists.

On the other hand, many identify with negativity, once again more than likely unconsciously, and as such conclude the opposite. They see bad in good or see even worse in something merely bad. We call these people pessimists.

And of those who see things stoically (those that see all perspectives), we call them philosophers.

The road to peace and happiness in this life is “choosing” the perspective(s) that best fit(s) one's ability to find solace in life's mundane and tragic necessities. On the other hand, philosophers see things stoically for the purpose of humbling those who arrogantly assume they possess the "absolute" truth, be it good or bad.

Ego: Friend Or Foe?

Far be it from me to imply ego as intrinsically bad. It is not. However, with the exception of natural disasters and human “mistakes”, bad or “evil” only ever stems from ego.

On the other hand, perhaps we might say many of the greatest feats of humanity are only ever achieved because of ego. In this case, all or much of good stems from ego as well.

It would thus seem ego is neither good nor bad in itself. Rather, it just is. The problem, if you will, is distinguishing “good ego” from “bad ego”. But this discrimination is prohibitively difficult because it requires an absolute definition as to what is good and bad.

Certainly there would be consensus as to a serial killer's acts being “bad ego”. But what about a military leader who is confident and brash through which he achieves victory for his people? He has given them hope and prosperity for the future but has annihilated another country and its people by doing so. Is this “good ego”? I suppose it is if one is on his side.

What about a scientist who finds a cure for a deadly disease only by “cheating” here and there? What about vigilante justice of the JACK BAUER type? GO JACK! What about an athlete that inspires a whole society only because of his mind-boggling feats but is later found out to have doped to achieve all of this? What if a doped up athlete inspires a whole society only because of his ill-gotten abilities but is not found out? Are any of these examples “good ego”?

I suppose it might depend on whether one believes the ends justify the means or perhaps the means justify the ends. But once again, these guidelines themselves are wholly dependent on what is considered good and bad anyway.

In summary, ego will achieve ends considered both good and bad. Likewise, ego will operate under means considered both good and bad. But ego seems neither good nor bad in itself because it only ever has one master: itself. In other words, ego does not exist to better or worsen society. It simply exists to better itself.

Incessant Wanting

I always want more wisdom! This is the same as always wanting more money! Except that it entails wisdom, not money! It seems we always want more of something. Be it fame, sex, money, influence, godliness, righteousness, wisdom.....it's all the same. Wanting to want! The fundamental insanity of the ego!

I readily admit that as much wisdom as I already possess, I will never be rid of my want for more! How is this any different from wanting more fame or sex or money or influence or power or even godliness and righteousness? Seemingly not much! Certainly these pursuits produce a wide range of effects on society, from terrible to wonderful, but they are all ostensibly based on wanting to want more than wanting to have!

What could be insane about wanting to want any of these? There is no finality! In other words, it never comes to fruition. It is like tomorrow. It never is! In my opinion, this is the principle reason we always think something should be other than it is! It implies an incessant wanting to want.

Why might this be? Perhaps this keeps us busy? In other words, because we Homo sapiens have “progressed” so much, we have to keep ourselves constantly challenged. And what bigger challenge might there be than wanting to want! It is unquenchable by definition because once you have something you want, you can no longer want it because you have it!

Once again, the fundamental problem with this is that we are never where we want to be. Is this good or bad? It is likely neither good nor bad in itself. It just is. If other less aware animals knew what we human beings obsessed over, might they have pity on us? Why can't you humans ever be completely fulfilled and content exactly where you are?

Blasphemy Of The Masses

Many believe it is blasphemous to equate God to a de facto vending machine. As in, “God, I'm going to be really good and in return I want, nay I expect a red Ferrari and a hot girl! On second thought, make that a super hot girl!”

But those critical of this type of thinking go on to do just the same, however subtly. How so? Well, by what protocol do the most fervent believers, or anybody for that matter, wish God would use to “regulate” the outcomes of tragedies? If one is faithful/good, God should spare him. On the other hand, the less faithful/bad should slip from God's saving grace.

To digress slightly, if the faithful are spared and the unfaithful are not, where is the grace? In any case, it is wished that God would “look over” the faithful/good like a devoted shepherd. This wish implies that God is or at least should be a vending machine. One should be spared because he is good. On the other hand, it is easy to wish for an evil wretch not to be spared because he is bad. Put in the proper amount and you will receive your just reward. Put in too little and you will receive your comeuppance.

This is of course not how things work in reality, at least not always. In instances where God seems to apportion fate by this wished for protocol, many are happy the faithful/good are spared but not the unfaithful/bad. But what about the many instances where, sadly, this wished for protocol fails miserably?

For instance, many wonderful people fail in spite of their efforts and many terrible people succeed in spite of their wretchedness. Why doesn't God always honor the wishes of wonderful people who expend tremendous effort in their endeavors? Conversely, why doesn't God always sabotage the wishes of the most determined wretches?

In instances such as these, it appears God is not a vending machine but it causes a dilemma nonetheless. If God is in the business of sabotaging the wishes of the good and endorsing the wishes of the bad, how does this make Him good? Of course many will resolutely claim God only allows these unfortunate outcomes, He does not instigate them!

Quibbling over this detail, however, does not mitigate the dilemma at hand. He still appears to be one “o” short of good. Of course it could easily be claimed that neither wretched people succeeding nor wonderful people failing has anything to do with God. But then why should it be any more assumed that God's hand is involved in wonderful people succeeding or wretched people failing?

Whatever the case, this assumption essentially implies God is or at least should be a vending machine. And why should He not? What is the point of “worshiping” said God if He is not a vending machine?