The Delusion Of Impartiality

I don't get it.....all this concern and fear that potential judges might base their rulings on politics? Might? Of course they will rule based on politics! That is the whole point! Why would one suppose die-hard conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals find it so important that one of their own is chosen to judge? Presumably so these judges will make decisions that cater to their preferred political positions. Trouble is, it is guaranteed to piss off “the others”!

In my opinion, potential judges should ideally be apolitical. Could this ever happen? Is it even possible for anybody to rule impartially without politics getting in the way? Probably not. As the eminent Canadian physician-philosopher Sir William Osler told the Yale University graduating class in 1913, “every man has a philosophy of life in thought, word, or in deed, worked out in himself unconsciously.

The following analogy quite clearly exposes the absurdity of believing court rulings can ever be free of political preferences. Take a conservative judge and a liberal one. To digress slightly, the fact that these labels are acknowledged to begin with demonstrates the utter futility of trying to approach judgments apart from political preferences. In any case, suppose the conservative believes criminals should be judged to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, suppose the liberal believes criminals should be extended grace. Further suppose our “Book of Law” is the Holy Bible. Can each justify a ruling based on his preferred political position?

Certainly, because the Bible endorses both judgment and grace. Our Constitution is no different in this respect. This “gray” area is the cause of all argument and conflict. By advocating different perspectives, we can reach contradictory but equally valid conclusions. Which is “right”? Both or neither if you like. It is difficult if not impossible to avoid making decisions based on political inclinations! Especially from judges that outright claim specific affiliations.

In the same way, the U.S. Constitution supposedly calls for doing "whatever need be" to protect its citizens but then it also prohibits the torturing of enemy combatants. Do these guidelines seem contradictory at least in some cases*? Yes! Therefore, no matter whether we do this or that, it will justifiably be viewed as subverting the Constitution from one perspective or another! When difficult decisions like this are faced, YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!

*Because of the relativity of just about everything, one can easily craft definitions of things in such ways as to neutralize or at least mitigate these contradictions. For instance, those who wish to get information from enemy combatants in any way conceivable will thus define torture as something apart from what THEY do. Alternatively, those who want to coddle dangerous enemy combatants will thus argue that withholding the use of torture will not place any greater a danger on its citizens than will torturing them.

Therefore, there is no RIGHT answer. Or if you prefer, perhaps we could say there is no WRONG answer!

You Might Want To Think Twice.....Or More.....Before Judging Others

How does one know if another is genuine? What does it even mean to be genuine? Following morality for the sake of behaving as you think others would want you to (including God) or following morality because it is perceived by you to be meaningful in itself?

Why do some naturally possess a forgiving nature whereas others can only muster up forgiveness out of a sense of duty? And still others can demonstrate forgiveness only by believing rewards will follow, be it here or in eternity?

Because I have no reasonable answer to this, I have absolutely no compulsion to judge others on this matter. What do you think? What might God think?

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?

OK.....I admit it.....I'm SELFISH!

I'm reading the newspaper and come across an editorial questioning how we should deal with the backlog of social security recipients in this fine state of Georgia. “I could not care less about this issue owing to the fact that it does not affect me one iota (at least not yet),” the thought occurs to me.

One might be quick to judge me as being selfish. And you know what? You're right! But ask yourself: is this any different a manner in which "I" justify my viewpoints on society's problems?

If you make incredible amounts of money, what are you going to care about? More than likely voting for a candidate that will keep taxes low to preserve your hard-earned money, something or other.

Conversely, if you make little or no money because of laziness or lack of skills or whatever other reason, what are you going to care about? More than likely the candidate which will maintain and/or create entitlements for you by taxing the “evil” rich.

If this is scoffed at because you rise above this selfish standard, yours is most certainly in the minority. But alas, it is not the minority view that “rules the roost” so to speak. It is what the majority does or thinks. 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not judging those that think selfishly. This would include yours truly and why would I ever want to judge MOI? I am simply pointing out what is with no implication to what should be.

This not wanting to judge oneself is the principle reason judgment is so arbitrary and hence hypocritical. 

It is imperative to point out that this strict avoidance of self-judgment is almost always unconscious which is why most vehemently deny being hypocritical.

Alas, simply judge and condemn others engaging in selfish behaviors you do not involve yourself in and hide behind or attempt to assuage the evilness of the selfish behaviors you do involve yourself in.

How Will We Be Judged?

Will God judge us based on our intentions or on our beliefs and actions? In other words, does there exist an absolute standard by which He will judge us?

If it is absolute, He can not arbitrarily evaluate one person on his intentions and another on his actions. If this is the case, it is problematic when carried out to its logical ramifications. If God judges everybody based on individual intentions, I don't see how He could condemn an Islamic terrorist hell-bent on killing innocent people if this person genuinely believes he is doing so for God's glory.

On the other hand, if God judges us based purely on our beliefs and actions, He would out of necessity have to condemn a retarded cripple only because his misfortune, through no fault of his own, precludes him from harboring a cogent belief of any sort and from doing anything worthwhile for God's sake.

Now obviously many will arbitrarily claim He will judge some based on intentions and others based on actions and still others based on a combination of both. But how would anybody know by which standard he himself will be judged?

Firmly Planted In Mid-Air

Many will say my open-mindedness leaves me with no absolute moral foundation in which to approach life. Noted theologian and writer Ravi Zacharias cleverly expresses this by saying that those who lack an absolute moral foundation have their feet firmly planted in mid-air. This brilliant cliché is more or less true but is this necessarily a bad place to be?

Without this absolute moral foundation, it is thought, one is forever precluded from knowing the fine line between what is right and what is wrong. This will then systematically lead to what is commonly perceived as perverse and wicked behavior. It can lead to this type of behavior but it can also lead to a very open and understanding person who feels no need to judge and criticize others who do or believe seemingly peculiar things.

Additionally, many require an absolute foundation only because they need to “know” they are right in order to feel fulfilled. This is a form of control motivated by nothing more than ego. I don't need to be in control of “truth”. I can just be who I am without such control.

Perhaps some are suspicious of their own intentions and as such need a firm foundation in “truth” lest their real self might come out and wreak havoc on themselves and worse, others. Furthermore, I presume many have been indoctrinated with the belief that one must have a worldview based on absolutes to have any semblance of peace and fulfillment. This then commonly becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

Alas, there is a crippling flaw with any sort of "absolute" moral foundation: contradictions inevitably ensue. This is not the fault of the person per se, rather it is the fault of this system of thinking. It doesn't work. Different absolutes are clearly in opposition to one another but are believed wholeheartedly nonetheless. Doublethink as George Orwell so wisely termed this.

In addition, many absolutes are arbitrarily embraced on a preferential basis. At this point, absolutes are merely relatively absolute. Which means they are not absolute. Are they relative? Certainly not, for if they are relative, they could simultaneously be absolute.

I have reflected extensively on the absolute/relative dichotomy and have comfortably concluded it to be an irreconcilable paradox*. On the other hand, not establishing an absolute foundation does not create these contradictions but is of course replete with its own set of problems. Everything pertaining to the morality and well being of societies is a trade-off and therefore nothing can ever be absolute.


*Please see a couple of my writings on a more thorough examination of this paradox:

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Shortcoming Of Absolutes
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html