Moral Authority

Isn’t it essential to have presidents with morals?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Isn’t it important, and even necessary to have presidents with morals? Regardless of party affiliation, or none, religion, or none, can an ethical America ever be restored if truthful leaders, and humane officials are elected?”

People will elect leaders who echo their standards, and that leader will validate those standards. That dynamic becomes a feedback loop that pushes a society to evolve in a particular direction.

A political duopoly creates a dynamic of competing standards that pulls a society in opposite directions.

In the case of the U.S., and the emergence of a Neo-Liberal sensibility, the nation’s standards toward the accrual of material wealth put the oppositions in alignment, and the consequence has been a nation that has become increasingly sociopathic over the decades.

Since both Republicans and Democrats embraced power through wealth, there was no room for any competing morality to maintain any semblance of a compassionate society.

This dynamic is how they managed to create such moral abominations as instituting privatized prison systems, blocking universal healthcare, and eliminating the right to claim bankruptcy on student loans.

The U.S. morality has evolved completely around the veneration of wealth and the worship of greed. Due to that perversion of humanity, they have evolved into a corporatocracy to become a kleptocracy on the way to becoming a full-blown fascist state whose national character is defined by gluttony and an attitude of entitled expansionism.

“Greed is good” is the morality that the U.S. has embraced and the character that its leaders cultivate within the people.

The morality they have embraced throughout the decades since Ronald Reagan has put them on a path of becoming a nation defined by a narcissistic character, and that makes them an enemy to the world. Even their current “friends” aren’t actual friends but fellow sociopaths who will exploit them for their benefit.

The record-breaking “gift” of a $400 million plane that would require up to $1 billion to inspect and convert into an appropriate means of air travel for the nation’s leader is a manipulation tactic by those the current American leader views through envious eyes.

Although this question presumes “morality” to describe a state of being beneficial to all citizens, that’s not the case with what the word means. People do vote for and elect a president with morals. Those morals, however, are entirely self-serving for the current American president and would make people consider him “amoral” or “immoral,” but that’s because the nation has lost track of which morals they value.

Currently, the opposition to the extraordinarily corrupt Republicans who enable and empower the malignant narcissist in charge is also struggling with the same form of corrupt morality as they deny the truth of being lulled by their failure to represent an opposition to a materialistic morality adequately.

The DNC’s old guard is as responsible for the monstrously corrupt morality ruling the nation as the RNC for installing Trump as their party leader. The DNC continues to show that they have not learned their lessons, and because they’re not as willing to “join the dark side” as the RNC, they suffer internal struggles which turn their supporters away.

At the moment, there exists a younger sensibility of opposition toward established morality within the DNC, and the old guard seeks to excise what they view as a threat rather than a necessary evolution for their party to survive.

Had they not been so corrupted as a party, they would not have prevented Bernie Sanders from having his opportunity to lead the nation back from the brink of a sociopathic morality. They have not yet learned their lessons and seem to presume their Neo-Liberal beliefs are still sustainable in a world that crumbles around them.

One-third of the electorate stayed home and abstained from voting because they saw no difference between the RNC and the DNC. To some extent, that’s very much true because both parties continue to embrace a materialistic morality that has been responsible for the destruction of the middle class throughout the last several decades.

Many people have reasoned that if both parties are the same, the only solution is widespread chaos that causes their society to crumble. By refusing to vote, many voted for the current state of protesting nationwide in every city every day until the problems they see being ignored begin to be addressed.

The DNC is undergoing internal strife, and the more the old guard resists giving way to the new who fight for a morality that represents the people, the more that party will become fractured and ineffectual against the trajectory of a nation becoming a full-fledged fascist state or autocratic rulership.

People like Chuck Schumer need to be pushed out of the party, and the DNC must start paying attention to the goals that David Hogg has been promoting. They desperately need a cleansing of the morality that fully characterizes their opposition’s morality of being sycophants to the wealthy in society if they want to preserve some form of dignity as a party that can install leaders who have enough backbone to lead the nation out of a dark morality and toward an enlightened one.

The notion of a “dark enlightenment” currently characterizing the RNC and Conservatives worldwide is a morality of misanthropic cynicism which embodies an Ouroboros that ultimately consumes itself. Adherents of this worldview of rulers and serfs are so primitive and barbaric in their thinking that they cannot fathom a world not characterized by a zero-sum game of winners and losers.

We are all responsible for allowing this sensibility to become a threat to the world order because we have worshipped the wealthy to such a degree that when the term “centibillionaire” was first coined, we celebrated it instead of becoming horrified by the abomination we allowed to come into being.

In short, having presidents with morals is neither essential nor necessary because they all have some form of morality, even if it’s considered an “anti-morality” or destructive morality. What matters is selecting leaders whose moral fibre is such that they place the good of all people above the whims of the few.

The morality we all desperately need now to lead us out of our darkness is the morality that acknowledges the necessity of placing upper limits on wealth and power. The morality we must embrace to restore sanity to this world is to recognize how, if someone possesses the wealth of a small nation and can afford to buy themselves a private army, they are a clear and present danger to society.

We must establish a rational and community-based view of social engineering rather than allow a chaotic approach toward our social evolution. We cannot afford to continue allowing the wealthy to shape our morals as a people while empowering the most psychopathic among us to define our character as human beings.

If we want an ethical society to re-emerge as our guiding vision for humanity, we must cleanse the misanthropic darkness clouding our sight.

How do you deal with the lack of a moral arbiter?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “As an atheist, how do you deal with the fact that there is no ultimate moral arbiter and that all morals are determined inter-subjectively and without an objective foundation?”

Have you taken any time to consider how, if a god existed, its morality would also be subjective to it?

If morality had an objective foundation, it would be intrinsic to the object itself. One could essentially “read” morality from within every instance deemed to bear moral implications. If morality were objective, everyone would read and identify identical moral qualities within every situation subject to moral judgments.

It would be no different than having everyone agree that the sun shines and its effect warms us. No one or authority is required to serve as an arbiter for these qualities. We know these facts to be confirmed individually from everyone’s direct experience with the sun.

For the sake of this exposition, let’s refer to those qualities of heat and light emanating from the sun as “metadata.” This description can help us draw some clear distinctions on the language we’re using to resolve discussions on objectivity as it applies to the concept of morality.

For instance, if theft were objectively determined as immoral, then the characteristics defining its morality would be immutably intrinsic to that act of theft. All forms of theft would be considered immoral without condition. It can easily be argued that the metadata ascribing immorality within the act of robbery lies within the harm done to those against whom the theft is perpetrated.

Stealing food to feed one’s family would always be consistently judged as immoral. There would be no distinction between stealing food from a starving person and stealing food from someone with such abundance that most of their food is spoiled from the lack of consumption.

One can argue that stealing food to feed one’s family is not immoral if the person one steals from still has plenty of food to feed themselves. One can say that stealing food that would end up being spoiled from lack of consumption to feed one’s family is moral.

How can both scenarios be valid if morality is objective?

If morality were objective, it would be contained within the object, but as we can see in this simple example, morality is contextual. Morality within this simple case is contingent upon the judgements of those who choose to ascribe varying degrees of value to the individual aspects of the case of stealing food.

Some may determine that stealing food, in any event, is immoral. In contrast, others may determine that stealing food to feed one’s family is an act of self-sacrifice that exposes them to a life-destroying reprisal, which represents the embodiment of morality.

If morality were objective, then it would be immutable, but how many things deemed immoral at the time of the writing of scripture have since been reconsidered irrelevant to the concept of morality?

No one balks today about wearing clothing made of mixed threads. It’s almost impossible to find any clothing that doesn’t mix threads to some degree today. Yet, this practice is no longer considered a moral violation that would anger any ultimate authority such that a reprisal would be forthcoming.

Did God change its mind? If so, how do we know, and when did that occur? By what process are we being informed by an ultimate authority of updates to morality? If morality is subject to updates, how could it be objective?

Morality can’t be objective if an ultimate authority changes its mind and renders updated decisions on what constitutes morality because they are simply conveying (if we can set aside the mechanics of that conveyance) a perspective unique to their apprehension of a situation.

Perhaps you’re still struggling to comprehend the difference between “subjective” and “objective,” and that’s why you insist morality is “objective?”

Let’s look at some definitions to help frame the explanation above:

Any situation in which an authority must intervene to render a decision to settle differences between competing perspectives cannot, by definition, be considered “objective.”

It doesn’t matter whether that authority is omniscient or not; they are still rendering a decision derived from their perspective on the issue in question.

The necessity of an authority to determine morality already renders morality a subjective construct.

Morality cannot be objective by any stretch of the imagination and, most notably, not by arguments ascribing ultimate morality to an ultimate authority on morality — mainly when that authority is not available to provide any direct input into any state requiring a moral judgment to be rendered.

Indeed, the need to render a moral judgement eviscerates the notion of an objective morality.

The appropriate context for perceiving morality is a public dialogue in which we learn to develop our moral paradigms to understand ourselves and our world more clearly. The dialogues we have on morality serve the purpose of developing compassion toward issues outside our frames of experience and help us to apply a moral paradigm to the whole of our existence as individuals and as a species struggling to achieve its potential.

The reality is that objective morality would destroy our capacity for morality because an essential learning process for developing one’s humanity is reduced to rote memorization. In contrast, the human capacity for creativity necessitates means by which moral loopholes can be exploited.

We see this behaviour routinely exhibited by those who claim to be representatives of moral authority betraying their self-appointed statures in society.

America’s Hate Preachers (TV Movie 2016) ⭐ 5.9 | Documentary