Re: "Morality?" - Composite Reply

Delmar England (
Thu, 09 Oct 1997 21:53:21 -0400

You say about my post:

>In an alternate Universe, you wrote:
>> However, if we eliminate individual opinions as the basis for
>> "objective reality", what logically remains except the opinions of a
>> superior being?" To be more precise, what remains is a 'feeling' that
>> something superior to individual exists. Do we not need an external
>> "something" opinionated thing to create an "objective reality?"

First, I never wrote anything in "alternative Universe." I even reject the
phrase as a contradiction. The only thing I can find that even has a very
vague similarity by a line or two is this:

{{{{{Nevertheless, when we eliminate human
individual as reference for the concept, morality, what remains
except an expressed or implied superior being; indeed, what
psychological force does the concept, morality, have without
subordinating individual to an "external superior?"}}}}}

Hardly a match, is it? As you can see, what you're saying I wrote is quite
a bit removed from my actual statement. There are several instances of this
in your post and its most confusing. Sometimes a whole paragraph is not
mine, and sometimes there appears to be a mix. I have no idea what happened,
but considering the circumstance, I'll just respond to a major point or two.

>> In literally every claim of "objective value" I have encountered apart from
>> the formal religion variety which openly claims "God" as "objective value"
>> cause, the claimant manages to bring in a personal value and pretend that it
>> is objective discovery. Some, like Rand, go to great lengths to "prove" this
>> discovery. The "ought from is" fantasy. Others just toss it in without so
>> much as a by your leave.
>You are incorrect. Where have I done so? I have claimed that "objective
>value" exists, although not that my values are objective.

What are you calling "objective value?" Please define objective, then value,
then put the two together. I'm really not getting this unless you are
arbitrarily changing the meaning of objective in an oscillating fashion. If
your values are not objective, then they must be subjective, right? Also, if
objective value exist, I presume it its objective by the same criteria that
the law of gravity, etc. are objective. If not, it appears that the term,
objective, is being used non definitively. If so, then objective value is
inherent in objective reality and can't be escaped. So on what do you claim
that objective value exists, but are not your values? Does your idea of
morality, objective or otherwise incorporate an "ought", as in "ought to
choose a particular end" - as opposed to the objective mandate that one
MUST choose appropriate means if a desired end is to be achieved? Again, I
request: Please define and elaborate with illustrations.

>> What of the phrases, "values of society", "public welfare", "national
>> interest", "government does", as only four of a horrendously long list of
>> concepts that express and\or imply the subordination of individual to a
>> superior being? Separation of church and state? Quite a joke. How does
>> "state" exist except by thought and action treating "State" as a volitional,
>> valuing, acting, supreme god to which each and every individual is
>I suggest you read up on the Constitutional Convention. A state may exist as
>a social compact between the rulers and the ruled - the theory the Founding
>Fathers(*) started out with. Or as sovereign power which has its sole source
>in the people and is willingly delegated by them into a formal government - a
>concept introduced by James Wilson that wound up as the base of the
>Constitution. There was a great deal of debate regarding how much power the
>United States should have, whether it should be able to overrule the component
>States, and even what the fundamental basis of government was. In our modern
>times, government is by thought and action treated like some huge, lumbering
>beast. The attitude you describe is not often seen.
Are you telling me that I'm mistaken, that government IS NOT the initiation
of force and coercion? Yes or no? Your comments that posits abstracts as
real things (standard practice) evades the question and proposes to cover
the facts with the usual fare of illusions that have long supported the idea
of government. As for reading about the Constitutional Convention, I did
some time ago, and am quite familiar with the Constitution itself which I do
not hesitate to call a monstrous slave paper. As pertains to suggested
reading, may I suggest "The Principles Of Epistemology" and "The Anatomy Of
Language" as a basis for understanding why and what I label as contradiction
and reject. You might also want to go on to the chapters, "The Illusion Of
Categorical Identity" and "Law And Disorder."


1.>A state may exist as a social compact between the rulers and the ruled -

Please explain to me a "social compact" between two individuals who agree to
rule and be ruled. An agreement to be ruled is a contradiction in terms is
it not? So, what's really going on, rule or non rule? Is there really any
doubt? The only ones actually being ruled in all this are those who reject
the idea and system. In reality, the relationship between the rulers and the
ruled is one of master and servant; fundamentally, it is the subordination
of one individual to the will of another. As maintaining this relationship
requires initiation of force and\or coercion, instead of being a social
compact, it is an anti social action. That most, programmed to not know any
better, volunteer for the system and seek to direct the centralized
offensive force does not change the character of it, and the certain end
result of resentment, hostility and violent conflict. I'm not saying its
"evil." I'm just saying that if peace and order is the goal, those that try
to gain it by means contrary to ends just don't have any respect for natural
principle and truth. Their privilege, but I do wish they would just leave me
out of it and\or quit pretending that everyone goes along with the suicidal
and destructive idea.

2. > the theory the Founding Fathers(*) started out with.

The "Founding Fathers" (and the rest of the gang) did not start with a
social compact, but the will to rule, and did not hesitate to harm any who
Do you find anything in the old records or the new that says if an
individual wants no part of the system, said individual is excused and will
not be subjected to any of the offensive laws? I've read a lot of
constitutional and law stuff and have ever seen anything like this. Have you?

3. >Or as sovereign power which has its sole source in the people and is
>willingly delegated by them into a formal government<

"Soverign power"? Soverign power is not a thing. Its an action. Thus the
question: Who has "soverign power" over whom, and how is it really brought
about? Since the term, people, denotes a subjective category existing only
in mind and is not a thing, volitional or otherwise, "people" cannot
delegate anything to anyone. As for the "willingly", If there were
universal willingness as implied, why did the "Founding Fathers" ( and the
rest of the gang) keep so much fire power around and draw up "laws" to give
themselves permission to use the fire power to persuade the unwilling? The
pretense of all volunteers just won't match the obvious facts.

4. >There was a great deal of debate regarding how much power the
>United States should have, whether it should be able to overrule the component
>States, and even what the fundamental basis of government was.

This entire statement floats in an abstract circle far far removed from the
reality, human individual. The "United States" nor "States" are things, so
the power did not exist in these abstracts, but the individuals who manged
to gain, hold, and direct the superior offensive force. Since real
individual was left out of the equation, except as means to "divine end",
the "debates" came down to emotional persuasion via arguments of "divine
cause" and who were the "inspired."

5.>In our modern
>times, government is by thought and action treated like some huge, lumbering

Treated as a thing? Does the term, government, denote "a thing?" If so,
please show it to me. If not, is not the contradicion clear?

6.> The attitude you describe is not often seen.

Huh? When is it not seen??? Treating "government" as a god, as a superior
being and subordinating individual is the ONLY way the idea can survive and
be implemented. "not often"? How about ALWAYS, both past and present. Take
away the absolute and intolerant power premise of the god called government,
and the whole thing disappears. If ALL individuals are not regarded as
property of this imagined god, government, you tell me how it is sustained.
Can I say, "Go away" and be left alone? Oh no, then anyone would who wanted
to could also. Absolute ownership and absolute intolerance of individualism
are the only premises that sustain any and every governmental system
regardless of label. The term, government, is a direct contradiction of the
term, individualism; and there is no statement more absurd that depicting
government as a superior being and "protector" of "individual rights."
That which inherently negates cannot "protect" that which it dismisses.
Silly word game. Silly yes, but very deadly. Did you ever notice that when
"countries" go to war. It is individuals that bleed and die. No matter what
the carnage, the sacred idea and "divine abstract" *must* survive. This is
the mindset of billions, and billions have paid the penalty in suffering and

Delmar England