IN GOD WE TRUST

From the facebook page of the Jasper County (Missouri) Sheriff's Office:

MEDIA RELEASE
The Jasper County Sheriff's Office is very pleased to announce that we are adding "In God We Trust" decals to the vehicles in our fleet. The first vehicles have begun to have the decal applied this week. We are extremely fortunate that many citizens, businesses and organizations of Jasper County have volunteered to help finance the making of the decals.
Randee Kaiser
Jasper County Sheriff

       

 https://www.facebook.com/jaspercountymissourisheriff/photos/a.494704127234303.107887.492581910779858/930200770351301/?type=1&theater

This is offensive.  Jasper County Sheriff's Office as a government office is responsible for enforcing secular laws consistently and fairly, in service of the public.  The “IN GOD WE TRUST” phrase (abbreviated IGWT) is contrary to the goals and identity of a Sheriff’s Department. 

What does it even mean?  In regards to law enforcement this “IN GOD WE TRUST” statement is meaningless (or corrupt and bigoted), divisive, politically motivated and unconstitutional.  Oh, and incorrect.

Meaningless: In what way does the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department, as a government agency, trust in God?  If they really trusted in God they wouldn’t even need patrol cars, weapons, protective vests or even a budget.  What is it that the deputies, the Sheriff or the department as a whole actually trust God to do, other than generally do nothing?  What does God contribute to law enforcement other than superstitious beliefs?  Do deputies believe God will protect them?  They certainly take a lot of care in protecting themselves (as they should).   But deputies have and will continue to be injured or, God forbid, worse in the line of duty.   I would never tell a deputy they aren’t allowed to trust in God.  But if deputies, the Sheriff, the department or anybody else thinks that deputies can and should trust in God they are just not looking at demonstrable facts.  Maybe God does help, sometimes.  “Miracles” happen.  Phenomena that are improbable, difficult (or impossible) to explain and beneficial do happen, sometimes.  But with equal frequency phenomena that are improbable, difficult (or impossible) to explain and harmful also happen.  The one thing we can trust in from God is inconsistency.  Is that what “in God we trust means?”  How can you trust in inconsistency?  (Ask a statistician if you have half an hour to waste.)  “in God we trust” is a meaningless phrase.  I hope no deputy would be foolish or faithful enough to change their behavior (lower their guard) because of a departmental policy to trust in God.  Is it the policy of the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department that deputies should trust in God?  I very much doubt it.  In the image provided by the Sheriff’s Department’s Facebook page “in God we trust” is in quotes, so maybe they’re irony quotes.   Either way, why put this meaningless phrase on the cars?  Why associate the department with the phrase at all?

Corrupt, bigoted, divisive:  Maybe it’s not meaningless.  Maybe entities that claim or appear to be working in parallel with God receive a greater presumption of innocence?  Maybe advice and testimony from preachers or priest carries more weight in the execution of law enforcement duties than similar or contrary (but equally sound) advice and testimony from lay people?  Or people of contrary faiths?  Or people of purely secular beliefs?  Some might wish to claim that “IN GOD WE TRUST,” doesn’t really specify which god we’re talking about.  Presumably it’s the god of the Old Testament, New Testament and/or Quran.  But maybe I’m jumping to conclusions.  (Show of hands, who laughed at that?)  Maybe “GOD” in this case is a more general Godhead ideal that would be inclusive of Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Gaia, the Tao, Yahwei, the Source, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Zeus, Thor and a holy host of others?  Maybe, but probably not.  Maybe “IN GOD WE TRUST” refers to a deistic, rather than theistic, god.  Maybe, but again, probably not.  In the image provided, the phrase is in all capital letters.  And regardless of what argument someone might want to offer about all caps or vagueness of which god, “GOD” in this phrase is used as a proper noun.  Even if it doesn’t verbatim say, “In YHWH we trust,” or, “In Allah we trust,” that’s exactly what it means.  (“YHWH is a version of the Old Testament name of God.)  If it actually said, “In Allah we trust” (even though it’s the same god) the people who pretend the current issue is no big deal would be outraged (as they should be).  And their problem wouldn’t be that “Allah” isn’t vague enough; it would be that that phrase, with “Allah” in it, is not representative of them.  That’s really the bottom line.  “IN GOD WE TRUST” implies a preference for biblical values (a nebulous term) and biblical authority.  And that does not represent everyone in the county.  We could debate whether it gives license to police discrimination against anyone rejecting the authority of the Bible.  But if it doesn’t imply that the Sheriff’s Department general policy is subservient to the god of the Bible then why suggest it by prominently displaying that’s where they put their trust?  Whatever authority the Sheriff’s Department has, it is not derived from any god or religious text.  Attaching the IGWT phrase in any way to the Jasper County Sheriff's Office only undermines their credibility as an organization that is honest, accurate and just.

Politically motivated:  I actually hope the motivation is political and not merely religious.  If an individual elected official or coalition of elected officials wanted to promote their deity through their secularly vested authority it would be disgusting.  Don’t believe me?  Would “PRAISE BUDDHA” or “ALLAH AKBAR” decals on cop cars be OK?  It would be the same thing.  But what if the vast majority of voters were followers of one of those faiths?  And what if there were a political movement that suggested the followers of the majority religion were somehow being persecuted and excluded by minority religious groups or the non-religious?  Well then as a political candidate you can appeal to the majority by getting yourself identified as a martyr and proponent of that religion’s deity.  Giving God, or Allah, or even Buddha an official identity in a secular law enforcement agency is a good way to get in good with that god or voters.  If the motives of the elected secular office holder are religiously motivated that smacks of fanaticism.  If the motives are to appeal to the constituency that smacks of shrewd political maneuvering.  Either way, it’s disrespectful to the political office that is currently and temporarily being held.  It’s disrespectful to those who hold alternate beliefs.  And it’s even disrespectful to those who hold similar religious beliefs because it appeals to them on an issue that should not even be an issue.   If you have a candidate who wants to make the popular deity an issue and another that wants to focus on the actual secular responsibilities of the office, the constituency is essentially asked to choose for or against the god.  Could the seated Sheriffs across the state of Missouri see this as an opportunity to grab some entirely too easy votes in subsequent elections?  I know how I would vote when there’s an official who panders to the majority and doesn’t mind alienating the minority.  I know where the Sheriff can get some slightly used “Gott mit uns” belt buckles to go with those IGWT decals.  That’s a little unfair because I don’t think the Sheriff wants to invade Poland or kill Jews.  But where the metaphor holds up is in the religious majority are abusing their secular police authority while further marginalizing the minority.

Incorrect: There are deputies who are not Jewish, not Christian and not even Muslim.  Are we telling these deputies that once the decals go on they trust God?  I don’t think the decal has that authority.  Or maybe IGWT means that we as a community trust in God?  That’s just insulting.  And is it the responsibility or right of the police to remind me I’m supposed to trust in an alleged supernatural entity that pre-literate Hebrews and subsequent Europeans and Middle-Easterners cling to?  That’s just infuriating.  There are deputies who don’t trust in God and there are citizens who don’t trust in God.  This is true not just in Jasper County, but across Missouri and the US as a whole.  Of course many of us, even brave deputies, do not welcome the prejudice and discrimination that comes along with being identified as a non-Christian or worse, *gasp* atheist.   Even the well-meaning ignorant bigotry like: “You’re an atheist?  But you’re so nice,” is generally unwelcome.  And where it could effect a performance review or assistance in a hazard-prone work environment… maybe it’s better to keep it to yourself.  You know, like gays used to have to do. 

Unconstitutional:  This is really more of an opinion.  I disagree with the findings of the legal cases which fail to recognize “IN GOD WE TRUST” (which if you didn’t know, has actually been the US motto since 1956.) as being inconsistent with establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Here’s what I’m talking about, from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#Controversy :

Advocates of separation of church and state have questioned the legality of this motto, asserting that it is a violation of the United States Constitution, prohibiting the government from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion.^[29] Religious accommodationists state that this entrenched practice has not historically presented any constitutional difficulty, is not coercive, and does not prefer one religious denomination over another.^[29]

"In God we trust" as a national motto and on U.S. currency has been the subject of numerous unsuccessful lawsuits.^[30] The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."^[31] The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."^[32] In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court also held that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.^[33]

Aside from constitutional objections, President Theodore Roosevelt took issue with using the motto on coinage as he considered using God's name on money to be sacrilege.^[34]

*But this issue has presented constitutional difficulty.  We have some court cases here that pretty much make that point. 

* “…is not coercive…”  Directly coercive?  No, no it’s not.  But it does create a line in the sand inviting ideological tribalism with the word God as the point of contention.  But let’s say hypothetically, you’re a deputy that doesn’t believe a god, or at least not one that can be trusted.  Let’s go on to assume one day your boss wants to put ‘IN GOD WE TRUST” on your patrol vehicle.  How comfortable would you be telling your boss that he’s wrong?  That seems coercive to me. 

* “…does not prefer one religious denomination…” If we’re comparing Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and even Jewish and Muslims believers then that statement would be pretty much true.  But it does prefer all of these “denominations” over any belief system that does not identify with a singular deity who goes by the name “God.”  The religious accommodationists are just wrong.

* In Zorach v. Clauson (1952) Justice Douglas offered the opinion: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”  But it’s not that simple.  As individuals many of us are religious people.  But our institutions are not capable of thought, let alone presupposition.  Perhaps we may assume he meant that in the establishment of our institutions we presupposed a Supreme Being.  I repeat my counterpoint, as individuals many of us are religious people.  But as a people we neither have the authority to declare a Supreme Being over government and its citizens nor to declare our government and its citizens are under the authority of a Supreme Being.  To clarify, assuming there is a god, we can’t force the responsibility of government oversight on it and I would hope no one believes we should as individuals nor en masse should be forced to submit to a super-governmental authority.  One might argue this is a natural state which just exists between a god and our government (or all governments) but for this to be official recognition it does imply a deity/government religious relationship even if there are additional religious practices.  It would not be the state sponsored church the founders so vehemently wished to avoid (a la Church of England).  But claiming that the government is subordinate to a Supreme Being or that the authority for the United States to self-govern comes from a supreme being is a religious belief therefore the kernel of a state sponsored religion.  Further, it creates an unfounded but tangible barrier between Americans who accept the existence and authority of a Supreme Being and those who don’t.  Justice Douglas just got it wrong.

* In Aronow v. United States (1970) “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”  It’s not obvious.  Actually it’s obvious that it does.  It declares that 1. There is a god, 2. We have a relationship with it, and 3. In that god is where our trust lies.  As religions go it’s pretty watered down.  But it is a religion.  Further, religions that are already established that also claim there is a god, we have a relationship with it and are (unintentionally or otherwise) endorsed by the US motto.  Religions (or belief systems) that don’t claim there is a god, we don’t have a relationship with it and/or we can’t trust it run contrary to the motto and therefore are dis-endorsed by the motto and US government.  That’s kind of hurtful.  “Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character…” This doesn’t make it none religious.  It just ties the religion/religious belief to state identity.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just got it wrong.

* Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, (2004) “…protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”  This is regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.  The implication is that if you say “under God” enough it just loses significance.  If that’s true we can extend that to the Pledge itself.  The more you say the Pledge, the less it means.  I suppose in elementary school it felt that way.  But this is a ridiculous assertion.  In trying to decide whether “under God” belongs in the Pledge the school district ruled that it had actually become meaningless so they didn’t have to consider its significance.  Elk Grove Unified School District just got it wrong.

History: “IN GOD WE TRUST” was ratified as the official United States’ motto in 1956.  Before then “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one.  Meaning out of all the different states or many different people, they come together to form one Nation.) had been the nation’s accepted but unofficial motto.  The IGWT motto was adopted during the Cold War due to McCarthyism and a general fear of ‘godless communism.’  “Under god,” was added to the pledge in 1954 for similar reasons.  Subsequently, millions of Americans have felt alienated due to politicians and fellow Americans they who have proven themselves narrow-minded, oblivious and/or callous.

There’s one point I’d like to push just a little bit harder.  When we think God is on our side we tend to over-estimate our righteousness.  I don’t want police who believe they are infallible.  I want police that understand they are mere humans, subject to emotions, imperfect sensory perception and misjudgments.  I want police that are self-policing, looking for opportunities to learn from their mistakes.

In parting I’d like to leave you with a quote from S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley (R).  She was referring to the battle flag of the Confederacy flying over the state Capitol.  I was going to paraphrase but I’ll leave it to you to consider the similarities and differences between these two issues.  If you insist on being obtuse, please don’t annoy the rest of us.

"I think the more important part is it should have never been there," she said. "These grounds are a place that everybody should feel a part of. What I realized now more than ever is people were driving by and felt hurt and pain. No one should feel pain."

~SC Gov. Nikki Haley (R)

Open letter to Microsoft, mad about hotmail security

This rant at Microsoft has nothing to do with the general theme of this blog.  Yet I feel compelled to give this rant an open and long-term exposure.

What idiot is in charge over there this week?  The only reason I chose hotmail many years ago was the ease of access.  And the inverse of access is security.  I want minimal requirements and security and maximum ease of access.  And for many years that is what hotmail provided.  And now just because I didn't log out of hotmail before I left for work... or maybe it's because of the stupid new version of Office (that is tied to my hotmail account) which my wife might be using at home... your security locked me out of my account.  Office365 would explain why I'm not having trouble with my other hotmail account (yet).

Am I going to have a problem every time I effect a contemporaneous login?  Is this because some retard decided to tie Office365 to Microsoft online accounts and then realized 'Ooops, now people can share our overpriced latest/worst Office software instead of buying it?"   Did you guys really fuck up the webmail of thousands of loyal Office and Live.com customers in one retarded move?  Please relay my sardonic thanks to Steve Ballmer, good riddance.  Don't even get me started on Win8/8.1... there's never been a better reason to switch to Linux or even totalitarian Apple.

I want my old six digit, all numeric password back.  Don't lecture me on how it's not secure.  Don't tell me it's for my own good. Hypocrisy.   You won't even accept a 16-place all lower-case password which is astronomically more secure than an 8-place alphanumeric.  If Microsoft email security can't detect brute force crack attempts you should be ashamed.  And none of this protects me from saved passwords complicated further by remote access, whether legitimate or nefarious.  "Saved passwords, you say?"  Most browsers including Microsoft's decent (as of the time of this writing) Internet Explorer and *tada!* Windows operating system allow for the saving of passwords on web pages including live.com (hotmail).  It is not in the user's best interest to allow them to save their passwords but Microsoft is encouraging it, basically recommending it.  If a password is easy to remember and easy to enter there's no reason to save it.  So which is less secure, the Microsoft way of saving your one's password on PC, laptop, tablet, phone.. or manually entering a simple password upon access?  The Microsoft security requirements are bogus and hypocritical. sure their the IT industry standard which would make sense only if Microsoft is a follower and not a leader.  How embarrassing for you.

Why are you even worried about the security of my Microsoft online account?  Is it Office365?  That's a poor excuse.  You guys had a mediocre idea and implemented it poorly.  Where you hoping to lure away some Google+ or Yahoo users?  Does it allow me to install on many machines as long as I only use it on one at a time?  I haven't tried that but I doubt it.  Or is it just some crackpot attempt at making it harder to pirate Office?  You and so many other deluded publishers waste far more money on trying to prevent piracy than you actually save.  So maybe you're a highly principled international corporate giant trying to save the world from the evil of infringement upon archaic copyright laws.  Or is it the horrid communism of sharing intellectual property that you abhor?  Maybe you're just trying to appease your shareholders who are even more myopically greedy and stupid than your management.  As I mentioned before security is the inverse of access and these presumably anti-piracy efforts do nothing but vary the challenge and slow them down a little.  What's it take... a week, maybe four to crack the software so it either bypasses the security requirements or fakes them?  And who really pays?  We the legitimate consumer pay more for the same product and then have to suffer your paranoid yet self-defeating authentication regimen.   You are putting the cart before the horse but at least you’re greasing the squeaky wheels.   

And what are you protecting anyway?  Open Office (openoffice.org) and Libre Office (libreoffice.org) are perfectly acceptable alternatives.  And they are FREE.  It could even be argued that they are better and easier to use.  And they don’t get uglier and more convoluted with subsequent releases.  After using Office365 it’s never been easier to recommend Open Office and Libre Office.

And no, you can’t have my phone number.  Stop asking, ya creep.  Microsoft (or any other company) may be trustworthy today.  It’s debatable.  But what about tomorrow?  What about best intentions going awry?  What about corporate espionage or disgruntled employees?  How do I know that stock holders won’t insist on a greedier less ethical CEO at the next meeting?  If you want to ask me to trust you that’s OK.  If you want to require or manipulate me into giving you more personal information that is not OK. 

I want my simple password back.  But I’m not going to get it because you are a close-minded my-way-or-the-highway attorney-fearing money grinder.  Why should you care if someone is unhappy with how simple it could be to securely access your free service if someone else could try to sue you for their own blunders if you don’t follow or exceed the industry standard?  You obviously don’t care.  And you certainly don’t have a way that a support technician can override your ostensibly more secure settings.  You would rather lose me than allow me to put a checkmark in a box for a liability disclaimer and use my own preference of passwords.  What’s wrong with you?

Sure I could just find another free webmail provider.  I already have some yahoo, gmail accounts (to name but two) for compartmentalizing… and because as it turns out I need to be able to get email somewhere else so I can verify to you I am the actual Hotmail account custodian.  Dozens of times over several years I’ve had to be able to get mail elsewhere so I could access my Hotmail account.  How many times have I contacted Microsoft or even been a little worried that my account may have been breached?  Zero.  Never.  And yet dozens of times Microsoft has refused to accept me as authentic following authentication.  How many times have Gmail, Yahoo, GMX, hushmail, fastmail and zoho required me to authenticate after putting in the correct password?  Zero.  It doesn’t happen.  Sometimes they prompt for more personal information ostensibly in case there’s a problem later on (it’s probably just for their marketing department).  But when I provide the correct email address and password I get in.  Why doesn’t Microsoft do this?  What’s wrong with you?

I don’t want to give up my old familiar Hotmail accounts for several reasons.  Inertia is one reason.  My accounts are old enough that the usernames are short and simple.  Is it even possible to sign up with a meaningful username that has less than 8 characters at a major webmail provider anymore?  And I several information services that feed to my Hotmail or use Hotmail for confirmation.  And I shouldn’t have to move.  I didn’t do anything wrong.  I didn’t break any rules.  I didn’t make any mistakes (unless you count my using Office365).  It’s Microsoft’s false positives that have screwed things up.  And obviously will continue to. If you are causing the problem shouldn’t you fix the problem?  Give me back my simple password and get your “I was only trying to help” retarded security measures out of my face.  What’s wrong with you?

Did God create the "evil"?

First, "evil" doesn't truly exist.  It is not a force in the universe.  It is a valuation of behavior and phenomena.  In the absence of subjective experience that valuation does not exist.  It may also be that a subjective concept of fairness cannot exist in the absence of social drives.  (I suspect this is true but I'm not prepared to make such a claim in absolute terms.  Comments are welcomed.)  As a result, what we perceive as 'wrong-doing' wouldn't be perceived as wrong without social instincts or culturally learned social norms (which stem from social instincts).  If somehow we managed to be social creatures in a world where harm were not possible we probably couldn't conceive of wrong-doing or evil as no action could result in consequences worse than lost opportunity.  Evil is merely a shorthand for behavior and phenomena that offend our desires for fairness and freedom from harm.

Second, in a theological god model, we need to separately consider (a) the creation of a world which allows evil (harm and unfairness) from (b) other actions by that god that we might perceive as unfair or harmful.
a.  Should we hold the god accountable for harm that results from creation of a harm-enabled environment?  For example, if someone were to put broken glass in a playpen and also put a baby in the playpen can we blame them for the cuts the baby will almost inevitably receive?  It may seem a straw man argument in that the baby lacks awareness necessary for alleged free will, but (1) real babies are really harmed in our real world and (2)  and even as aware adults our awareness is never complete; thus we are susceptible to harm we can't be adequately aware of.
b.  Additionally, a theological god is 'at work' in people's lives.  And if in our material world wherein we cooperate and compete for resources, is it possible for such a god to tip the scales in any one person's favor without tipping in a less favorable way for other people?  There may be exceptions but generally the answer is: no.  If we are to assume God had a hand in David's victory over Goliath it shouldn't be hard to see that from Goliath's perspective (and that of the Philistines) God's intervention was evil (unfair and harmful).  Who created that evil?
Third, let's not overlook natural evil.  I think we can generally agree that animals are capable of experiencing pain.  (They have nervous systems.  If they didn't they would suffer the same consequences as congenital analgesia patients.)  Most animals die painfully... to predation, disease, trauma.  Natural disasters produce massive concentrations of suffering to humans and other animals.  And, "Most accidents happen in the home."  Were we placed in a world created for us yet is obviously out to get us?  It might be argued that harm has benefits.  And it's somewhat true, in a tautological way.  When we get hurt we learn to value freedom from harm.  But if the world weren't harmful we wouldn't need this lesson.

Fourth, did the god create the animals?  With varying degrees of denial of a natural bio-genesis and evolution we have to consider where these animals came from? 

(from: God's Parasites )

Fifth, does (or will) evil 'exist' in Heaven?  If not then how can all the reasons evil is necessary on Earth suddenly become unnecessary in that change of venue? There are arguments (rationalizations actually) for why we might 'need' to experience a temporary world of suffering before we experience an eternal world without suffering.  But these postulates really don't hold water, especially considering the vast range in both duration and quality of life we experience.  How long does a baby, child or young adult need to live before they've met the heavenly prerequisite?  How much must they suffer first?  The whole concept of this life being a necessary evil as a stepping stone to a perfect afterlife is intellectually bankrupt.  And if it is true that good is not possible without the presence or potential for bad, it doesn't bode well for the ultimate good of Heaven.  (I half expect someone to claim that the "bad" of Hell allows for the "good" of Heaven, or some special case pleading for Heaven/God.  Feel free to preemptively counter one of these claims in comments.)

The argument that the possibility of evil is necessary for the existence of freewill is largely meaningless unless you can make a decent case for the existence of freewill.  Arguments that are made for the existence of freewill are unconvincing on an objective level.  Arguments that freewill is in illusion are increasingly consistent with demonstrable facts as science continues to improve our understanding of neurophysiology.  It would be irresponsible of me to claim this matter has been resolved.  But as our knowledge increases, the presupposition of freewill unravels.

Some believe that good vs. evil is about picking sides, choosing to be on the side of good.  In the sense that behavior that is 'good' is behavior that is beneficial to something (perhaps humanity or some part of it) and behavior that is 'evil' is harmful to something (perhaps humanity, perhaps a fly that has just had it's wings removed) you're either acting in our (humanity's) favor or against it.  (I would argue that even in the example of torturing flies, humanity is harmed even if it's only morally, philosophically or on some academic level.)  But no one is going 'pick a side' and strive to do 'evil' at every possible opportunity.  Likewise, those who consciously choose to pick the good side are going to make choices along the way that will do more harm than good, knowingly or otherwise.  Sure, you can pick a side, but it's merely an abstract and unrealizable ideal.  It might be better to realize that as humanity, and life in general, are going to outlast you, your greater responsibility is to them, rather than yourself.

Did God create the "evil"?  If a god can take any credit for the creation of this world and the good things that exist in it, then it must also be accountable for the world it created and the evil things in it.  Just as we would hold accountable any human creator that knowingly unleashes harm into the world.

Freewill, The illusion of

For every choice, there are perceived factuals which are weighed by the chooser. Counter-factuals could alter the choice, depending on the nature of the counter-factuals. The previous experience and current psychological state (including desires) of the chooser are beyond their choice. Fatuals that are not perceived do not weigh into the choice. There is a choice that is made but under a given set of perceived factuals and psychological state the chooser could not choose differently. "I could if I wanted to." But you don't want to. That would be a different psychological state.

For every choice I've ever made I can imagine circumstances which would have caused me to choose differently. Feeling how I felt, wanting what I wanted and knowing what I knew I could not have chosen differently. If there had been a different feeling, desire or understanding then the choice made would have been subject to those influences.

There are times when I don't know why I make the choices I do. But the spontaneous or capricious nature of the choice doesn't make my choice less deterministic. If anything these mysterious choices suggest that feeling and desire are capable of operating with minimal influence from an understanding of the circumstances.

When I do something random this does not suggest that I am exercising free will, rather I'm responding to (usually) ineffable stimuli. When I do something deliberate I am reacting to better identified, better considered stimuli. In all cases I am beholden to environmental, physiological and psychological influences.

Each feeling, desire and perception of circumstances is another bit of coercion steering me (and any of us) to a resulting choice. There may be no outside agent twisting our arm, the choices we make may be our own, but it is a mistake to think that for a given set of circumstances we are able to make more than one choice.

Morality

What is Morality and where does it come from?

It’s usually best to begin by defining confusable terms.  In this case I’m using “morality” and “morals” to simply refer that part of us that seeks to act fairly, kindly or altruistically.  It is the innate desire to do right.  We may have rules, laws, social conventions and other codified ethics.  But the feeling, the underlying motive, the meta-ethic is “morality.”  This definition may seem to be inconsistent with traditional usage.  By this definition many activities traditionally identified as immoral seem to be dismissed or perhaps still are immoral but for different reasons.

In order for an entity to be a moral agent it must have subjective experience and empathy. 

The subjective experience is a matter of environmental factors generating preferences in us.  Things that tend to damage us tend to feel uncomfortable or painful.  Things that tend to increase our safety, survival and reproduction tend to feel comfortable or good.  Without this subjective experience it would be difficult to justify any claim of one thing or state being better than another.  We would still have considerations of practicality.  For instance we might realize it is better to keep both arms than to lose one.  Or we might consider it is better to be alive than dead.  But without subjectivity in our experience we would not develop spontaneous preferences.  Without our own subjective experience it would be difficult to appreciate the subjective experience of others.

As biological organisms we have needs and constraints and as a result: drives.  Food, water and breathable air cover our most basic individual needs.  Since we are mortal, we as a species need to reproduce as well.  We require an environment that is neither too hot nor too cold with a fairly narrow ideal temperature range.  We can refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy for an extend list of less basic needs.  But the required resources available to satisfy these needs (and/or our ability to gather them) are limited.  We typically find ourselves in competition with each other and other organisms for the resources to satisfy our needs.

We have the ability and tendency to recognize, anticipate and appreciate the subjective experience of others.  It’s difficult to say whether (or to what degree) this empathy is genetic versus cultural (nature vs. nurture.)  The physiology of mirror neurons supports genetics but I wouldn’t expect that to be the whole story.  Additionally we are social creatures.  There are many species of social creatures all of whom have little or no culture.  Whether empathy gave rise to our social drives or our social drives gave rise to our empathy is subject to speculation.  (“Empathy gave rise” is far more plausible.)  But in humans social drive and empathy don’t seem to scale in one-to-one correlation.

Subjectivity and empathy make us moral agents: entities capable of recognizing, anticipating and appreciating the subjective experience of other subjective entities, even where that capacity is not reciprocal. For instance we would be able to appreciate the suffering of a komodo dragon but we should not expect it to appreciate our suffering.  The dragon is not a moral agent.  What about a baboon or gorilla?  These are creatures that appear to appreciate the subjective states in others of their own kind, at least of their own group.  If they attacked a human they would probably have a fair understanding of the suffering their human victim would experience.  But would they care, or rather could they care?  The answer seems to rely on previous interaction, on established relationships and on the situation at hand.  Moral agency in non-human primates appears to be present but stifled.

Group identity will strongly influence behavior in social creatures.  Our devotion to our many social circles varies.  Family tends to generate the strongest devotion but shared experience and ideology can create strong psychological bonds as well.  We find ourselves grouped with friends, neighbors, co-workers, civic groups, political groups, people with shared interests (environment, sports team, music genre/artists…), religious groups and others.  Our devotion to the people and groups we identify with can be based on familiarity.  But often we find ourselves devoted to an ideal, a cultural concept, which in turn reinforces our devotion to the related group and individuals.

From an evolutionary standpoint the power of cultural influences may seem difficult to reconcile.  But ceremonies and rituals almost certainly predated language and served to reinforce group cohesion. Behaviors that originally would have augmented kin selection and nepotism have long since become just as effective at dissolving family cohesion.  I make this claim in regards to potential rather than likelihood or necessity.  Families may share ideological beliefs or hold conflicting ideologies with varying degrees of dedication.  In the early millennia of cultural development it’s unlikely that there was any diversity.  So evolutionarily, the strength of cultural identity on group cohesion is not surprising. 

In considering the origins of morality we should remember that there are many social species aside from humans.  Schools, hives, prides, packs, herds and troops should make it immediately obvious that intelligence and culture are not prerequisites to cooperation.  Social instinct has appeased natural selection in many species. 

We tend to value individuals in our groups that contribute more resources to the group.  Conversely, individuals that contribute less are generally devalued.  And individuals who cheat jeopardize their perceived status as a member of the group through a waning of trust.  Our moral agency (subjective experience combined with empathy) gives us perception of whether interactions are generous or stingy, fair or unfair, kind or unkind, caring or callous, and generally good or bad.  We appreciate the experience of the individual in a way we think of as rights.  We appreciate our relationships and place in a group in a way we think of as roles and responsibilities. 

We need to execute some measure of selfishness to survive.  But given our limited ability to gather necessary (and otherwise desirable) resources as lone individuals, we also need some measure of selflessness, manifesting as cooperation.  The underlying drives for each are instilled by biology.  Like most biological systems the way things work, the ‘rules,’ tend to resemble self-balancing conditional algorithms rather than linear instructions.  We seek equity for ourselves and others.  We deplore inequity at our expense and also when others suffer unfairness.  The more closely we identify with others (an innate recognition of in-group status) the more sharply we recognize and care about their suffering and well-being.

As cognitive social animals we share information: culture.  But cultural information is highly subject to being incomplete, misleading or wrong (by degrees varying form not quite right yet functional to completely contrary to demonstrable factual reality.)  And yet what we learn from experience and from shared information influences how we perceive new experience and information.  We are entirely capable of doing the wrong thing while thinking we are doing the right thing based on existing beliefs.  Ideologies are particularly culpable but simple misunderstandings lead us astray as well.  We develop beliefs which bias us when considering new information which is added to our beliefs in cycles that allows us to convince ourselves of just about anything.

As a result the idea of Objectivism (philosophical morality theory) doesn’t quite make sense because it is based on subjective experience.  Relativism doesn’t quite work because there are some very basic, fundamental commonalities to the subjective experience, many of which can be misinformed by cultural beliefs hijacking our perception.  Emotivism doesn’t work for several reasons: we are always working with incomplete information, morality is a social issue as much as (if not more than) a personal issue and again mistaken beliefs can, perhaps must, skew our perception.

Tribalism presents another skew on morality.  Our empathy for others and disdain of injustice are stronger and consequently more motivating in-group, toward people we identify with, than for “those other ones” (out-group).  Us and them, worse us versus them, undermines our ability and willingness to support “them.”  Ideologies, proximity, appearance, etc. create counter-productive us and them barriers.

If there is any hope of anything resembling an objective morality it will be accessible only by a willingness and ability to consider our beliefs skeptically and strip away dubious opinions in order to find a balancing mechanism that supports individual rights and social responsibility based on common human subjective experience, empathy and a lust for fairness.