Refuting the Divine

Introduction

Divine Command Ethics is a philosophical system of ethics that rests on the idea that God or the gods determine what is right or wrong. It is also a philosophical view that defines an action as good or bad on the basis of whether or not God or the gods command it. It is, in short, a philosophical concept deriving its basis and authority from religion and religious text. The question I raise is this: “Does it work?”

Conflict between the Gods?

You might initially answer with a “yes”, particularly if you are a deeply religious individual. However, what is the basis for that “yes” answer? At this point, you might respond with the name of some religious text such as the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran. And at this point, my first point of refutation can be made. This first point refutes the concept of Divine Command Ethics on the basis of the great diversity of religions and gods out there (as partially demonstrated by the texts mentioned earlier). It makes this refutation because that very diversity means that a state of conflict exists within the framework of the ethical system wherein one god might command an action (making it good) that another might condemn. If such a thing occurred how could an effective moral or ethical system operate?

How do you know it is God?

For some, the answer “yes” will still be foremost in their minds and thus I must present my second point of refutation. This point is as follows: If God is the origin for that which is good, how do you know that it is God with whom you commune or God who gave the command? That is to say, how do you know that the text you read is in fact the word of God, and how do you know that the commands of God are in fact his commands? If no answers to these questions are possible (as is the case for some religions) or no evidence exists to support the answers to these questions then the ethical system runs into a quandary. And a quandary in the ethical system would be far from good.

Some will of course continue to argue the matter purely on the basis that the written word was dictated to divinely anointed prophets who couldn’t have altered the given word or been deceived in any fashion. However, this argument is flawed purely on the basis that the prophets were human and thus like all humans, prone to error. Besides, even had the prophets been honest, how do you know that the subsequent copiers of the good word were as honest? How do you know that they held to the original scripture?

How do you know God is moral?

The final point I raise to refute Divine Command Ethics is for those last few individuals who continue to answer “yes” in the face of my previous counterarguments. For them, this final point of refutation or negation might be construed as offensive. I do not, however, intend to cause offense; instead I intend to merely offer a final argument hoping to persuade those last few holding out. This final point is as follows: How do you know God or the gods are moral? At this point, it might be argued that because the divine are supreme beings they must of course be moral beings. But this would be flawed reasoning and that is because the idea of being supreme doesn’t necessitate the idea of perfection or morality so much as it articulates the idea of power.

Of course others might raise the objection that the Gods are moral, not on the basis necessarily of being supreme beings but on the basis of being creators and thus defining morality. This objection is also flawed because creating something doesn’t necessitate defining its morality. At this point, I will raise an interesting example to prove my point, and that example is parenthood. I raise parenthood as my example because parents create an organism capable of developing a moral system much like the gods or God create beings capable of possessing moral systems. Those parents (creators like the gods) don’t necessarily or even successfully define moral systems in all instances, just as the gods don’t.

Conclusion

I close this paper with a synopsis of my arguments against the concept of Divine Command Ethics. I began by arguing against Divine Command Ethics with an argument centered on diversity and conflict between the gods. I then followed that argument with one centered upon the idea of how you know that the commands you receive originated with God or the gods. Finally I closed with the most controversial of my points-that of whether God or the gods are moral or not. I hope my arguments proved persuasive and my points were well made, I also hope my paper proved an enjoyable read.

NOTE: This is not intended as an attack on any religion whatsoever!

Responding to “The Long Road to Zero”

So here is a recent essay written for a political science course:

I write this short critique in response to an article entitled “The Long Road to Zero”. This article focuses on how the United States and the global community can reduce the need and desire for nuclear weapons and how the global community could meet energy needs in an environmentally sound fashion. It is a very well written piece, which raises a number of valid and worthy points - and with which I agree. However, I do believe that it fails in two key respects. After highlighting them, I will provide my own perspective on the issue of nuclear proliferation.

When I say that I think this article “failed”, by no means am I rejecting the largely valid reasoning behind it. Indeed, I use the term to more or less highlight the areas of the article which I found to be rather weak or erroneous. For example, I readily agree with the series of principles that Dr. Ferguson raises when discussing the need “to develop principles of responsible behavior”[1] for those possessing nuclear materials. However, I believe that he has erred in failing to account for the human factor. That is to say, I believe he raises perfectly valid points when it comes to the state factor, but I feel that he doesn’t adequately account for the foundation of the state - its people.

When I say that Dr. Ferguson errs in considering the foundation of the state (the people that constitute the nation), I mean that he doesn’t account for the various aspects of the society comprising that nation. He fails to account for the factors within that society that could have particular effects on the subject matter at hand (nuclear disarmament) and for the numerous non-state actors (only briefly mentioned) that hold sway in the international system. This is certainly a strong article, but I believe he needs to account for the above-mentioned weaknesses.

In reading his article, I must also mention another weakness that I discerned. This second issue I raise revolves around the following statement: “Were the United States to provide energy assistance to countries across the world, it would bolster U.S. economic competitiveness and help in the global fight against climate change.”[2] My issue with this statement comes from the fact that he doesn’t provide specific economic details as to how the economic competitiveness will improve or how the energy assistance could be implemented to create this increased competitiveness. I agree with the statement in general, but I feel he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to how it could be implemented and exactly how economic competitiveness would be improved.

Other than those rather minor critiques, I agree with Dr. Ferguson on all the major points of his piece. The principles and the policies that he highlights as being important to addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation are more than excellent. They provide an effective examination of the difficulties in foreign policy regarding nuclear proliferation and suggest rather practical solutions. The fact that he follows his rather sound principles with rather well thought out examples is also another plus in his favor. It adds to the authority that the author possesses on the subject matter.

Now that I have explained my critiques and overall opinion of Dr. Charles Ferguson’s piece, I am compelled to give my own opinion on the question of nuclear proliferation. I would like to begin by stating that I feel like nuclear proliferation in and of itself is not a fundamental problem. The biggest problem facing the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear material is the potential for the spread of and further development of nuclear weaponry. At this point, most people would be in agreement with me, but they might disagree with my reason for finding the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a significant problem.

I find the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a problem not because of the simple spread of highly dangerous weapons, but because it is accomplished in such a fashion as to create a security dilemma. That is to say, I don’t find the spread of nuclear armaments to be a problem in and of itself; instead I find it to be a problem because it unevenly distributes said weapons throughout the global system. In my opinion, this is the most significant issue involving nuclear arms. As a result I suggest two potential solutions.

The first solution I would suggest is to find a way to completely remove nuclear arms from the global, regional, and national levels. Find a way to make them disappear. This could be accomplished any number of ways and I will leave the particular details to policy makers. However, this is also the most difficult solution since it requires some level of trust development amongst the nations of the world (a very difficult thing to accomplish on most any subject matter). Since this is the case, I believe solution two is the better option.

Solution two envisions a completely different approach to handling the nuclear weapon proliferation issue. Indeed, with this solution I propose the equal distribution of nuclear arms in the international system with the accompanying establishment of some oversight agency. That is to say, I suggest you equally distribute nuclear arms and technology throughout the international system to all nations willing to accept global oversight of said arms. In this way, the equal standing of all nations in relation to nuclear weaponry negates the security dilemma. As a result, the global system should be infinitely safer. Can you say MAD on a much larger scale?

---

[1] Ferguson, Charles "The Long Road to Zero:Overcoming the Obstacles to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94 Web. 7 Feb 2010 . PG: 88

[2] Ferguson PG: 93

Ferguson, Charles. "The Long Road to Zero: Overcoming the Obstacles

to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94. Web. 7 Feb 2010. .

Democracy Revisited

It has come to my attention of late that the definition of democracy employed in modern times is a flawed one. When I say the “definition of democracy” I am not literally attacking the dictionary definition, instead I am attacking the empty rhetoric behind it. That empty rhetoric is as follows: “Government by the people, of the people, for the people”. I attack this “definition”, this “rhetoric” as empty and as flawed because it has not adequately fulfilled what the purpose of the term envisioned.

I say this because if one looks at the great mass of the world’s governments that label themselves as “democratic” you will realize that something is amiss. But what is it that is amiss? Are they not for the most part countries that function on the Republican democratic principle? And if they are republican democracies what is the problem at hand? To most people the only thing that is amiss is the participatory rates of these democratic nations. However I believe that there is an additional issue that has been overlooked and which I attribute to the faulty definition and rhetoric of democracy.

That additional issue, which I believe to be the reason for the empty rhetoric concerning the “definition of democracy”, revolves around the dominance of the government by an Elite class. I take issue with this because how can the definition of democracy exist, as is, when “government by the people” simply entails government by the elite? In many, if not all, of the countries that identify themselves as democratic-social and economic elites dominant the government. They fill the senior leadership positions and hold most, if not all, of the legislative positions. It must also be noted that these elites pick and handle all the key issues and make decisions that largely benefit their fellow elites (thus largely stripping the meaning from “by the people, for the people”). I could continue along this vein of thought for a great length of time, but for the sake of brevity shall get to my point quickly.

As the above given example(s) shows the current definition of democracy is flawed on the basis of how it is practiced. In reality it completely fails to hold up to the most basic “definition” to which it is held and idealized. Thus I propose that an alternative defining “rhetoric” be employed to describe democracy in the hopes that it will someday steer governments back onto the correct course. That is to say I propose redefining the “rhetoric” behind democracy in the hopes that it will lead to new realizations, which might make the practice of democracy more democratic. My proposal is that instead of defining democracy on the basis of “government by the people, of the people, for the people” we redefine it on the basis of the “love by the people, for the people, of the people”.

Maybe with this definition democracy can truly be what it was intended to be. Maybe with this definition the necessary changes can be made to empower the people to work for what is best for the people. In fact, maybe democracy will truly be democratic.

PS: I know it might seem a little weaker than my previous postings but alas that is what fatigue will do! Planning on posting an article I wrote up for a Congress class in the next few days.

Next Posting

Tomorrow I will be writing a post on what Democracy should be as compared to what it is now so be on the look out! In the meantime I invite you to consider the following news article concerning recent events in the Republic of Niger. Here is the link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8523196.stm

I write today about a singular method by which Congress might be improved. This method envisions term limits, which our founding fathers omitted, on all members of Congress. Our founding fathers omitted term limits largely to allow the electorate to elect whomever they please and to allow congressional members to be elected as many times as their performance warranted. They also omitted term limits because they desired to retain experience within the legislative body.

However, despite their well-founded reasoning, our forefathers were erroneous in not enacting some form of term limits. I say this because the current legislative assembly in the United States is one in which incumbents dominant and members stay in Congress for unduly long periods of time. Also the incumbency advantage has in effect limited the scope of Congressional competition.

Because I respect the reasoning of our forefathers, yet find term limits a necessity, it is my proposal that Consecutive Term Limits (not total term limits) be imposed on members of Congress. That is to say, members of Congress may only be elected to serve but so many consecutive terms before they must take time off (although once the stated period of time has worn off they are welcome to run again). In this way the experience, choices, and performance desired by our forefathers might largely be met-and at the same time the Congressional establishment might be made a more democratic institution.

I now ask you to consider this point-what is your opinion of the idea of consecutive term limits?

Conservatism?

After reading a recent article wherein Glenn Beck explains "Why Progressive States Fail" I thought it necessary to write on the subject matter at hand. That subject matter of course concerns Progressivism vs. Conservatism. However, unlike Mr. Beck I will not be attacking the idea of either progressive or conservative states-but rather shall be attacking the definition of conservatism. In this way I genuinely believe I will be able to effectively refute the concept that stands at the foundation of Mr. Beck’s article.

On that basis I would like to introduce the definition of conservatism most applicable to political matters. That definition is as follows: "a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change"-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Conservatism. I elect this definition because though it sounds good, it is fundamentally flawed.

At this point you might wonder how it could possibly be flawed and I am ready with an answer. This definition of conservatism is flawed in its use of the term “best” when discussing the preservation of the established order. It is flawed in employing this term primarily because it is impossible to effectively define the best components of said established order. You might ask why this is and I would answer with this. Society is an ever-changing “order” that is constantly adjusting to an ever-evolving environment. Thus there are no components, which are static enough to actually be the best of a static or near-static political concept.

I am willing to concede that I might be wrong in my assertions, but I can challenge this definition also at the point referencing “opposing radical change”. I can do this on the same basis that I can oppose the use of the term “best”. After all in an ever-evolving society, what constitutes “radical change” versus say “reasonable change”?

The Deception that is Liberal Democracy

Dear Readers,

I write this post today to highlight the flawed reality that is "Liberal Democracy". The question many will ask is why, and the answer is simple. After reading the book "Latin American Democracies: Columbia, Costa Rica, Venezuela"-by John Peeler it occurred to me that the United States parallels certain Latin American nations to a significant degree. The parallel that I have observed is this; Venezuela (at least until the election of President Chavez) was a liberal democracy that arose out of the ashes of civil strife and chaos (and as a result of elite accommodation). Indeed it became a centrist-based liberal democracy with a two-party political system (both parties stayed near the center of the political spectrum). The United States has over-time (and with its own history of violence) evolved into a liberal democracy nominally with a constrained centrist political spectrum (and two political parties).

One might wonder where I am going with this and I assure you I will come to my point quickly. But first I must highlight where Venezuela is today before I can make my essential point. Venezuela today, despite what the government says, is a participatory democracy wherein a popularly elected president (Mr. Hugo Chavez) has acquired the passage of a constitution granting wide-reaching democratic powers to the everyday citizen. This arose in the wake of the chaotic fall (characterized by the inability of elite accommodation to maintain the system) of the liberal democratic infrastructure that existed prior to Mr. Chavez becoming president. You may yet still question where I am going with that and I understand, but you will soon see the thrust of this whole endeavor.

I highlight this information because the history of the rise of the Venezuelan liberal democracy roughly parallels the development of the United States liberal democracy, which means the future of the United States liberal democracy might soon parallel the fate of the Venezuelan one. At this point you might very well be skeptical, but let me remind you that the essential reason that Venezuela has become the participatory democracy that it is today is because elite accommodation failed. At this point in U.S. history hyper partisanship dominates the government and the two parties (composed of elites) are increasingly failing to accommodate one another. At the same time the citizen body of the United States is increasingly restless and seeking greater power in the governing process.

While my argument might not be the most articulate piece I believe I have sufficiently established where my thought process is going. The failure of elite accommodation and the restlessness of the US citizen body may lead to the fall of the vexed-centrist liberal democracy that is the current government of the U.S. in favor of a more participatory model of democracy. How this fall might take place I can only begin to guess, but fall it just might should elite accommodation completely fail. Goodbye liberal democracy and welcome home participatory democracy.

PS: This too will be revised with time so don’t be too harsh