The Principle Directives

If you agree with these ideas, please share with your friends. What are your thoughts?

Separate from morality and ethics, if one generally applies these principles in one's life it would help one to develop and maintain good character.

From the chapter Principle Directives in my book -- To Make a Better World: The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1512115894

To Make A Better World - Excerpt #6

I will be publishing my book -- To Make A Better World -- on the 30th of April, 2015. That's later this week, Thursday to be precise! So here is the final teaser excerpt from my book, and it's a "two-for". You will be able to get your eBook copy through Amazon.com. Be sure to share this excerpt far and wide, enjoy, tell me your thoughts and, thanks.

Image Copyright, 2015, by Joshua Michail

FROM: To Make A Better World; The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.

 This excerpt -- #6 -- from two chapters: FROM: "Morality & Secularity" and FROM: "Honor in this Modern Age". 

(NOTE: ellipses indicate skipped content.)

We are moral. At least as far as it being a part of being human goes. Of course, there are some who are not. But, mostly we are moral. The fundamental point is that since morality is the evolved trait that helps our species work together for our mutual benefit, logically it is not only the religious who are moral. That is a sort of birthright of our species. Morality is a defining feature of us. This, alone, would be good enough to say we can be good without god. But, religions are actually, in and of themselves, corrosive to morality. The first problem is that they demand one place the supposed deity above everyone else. This is contradictory to what works for a community.

I don't want to hear excuses about how someone else is behaving badly. You are responsible for yourself. No other person is responsible for what you say or do. Firstly, one should understand that whether or not other people behave morally must in no way influence whether one behaves morally him or her self. We are all responsible for our own actions and words. No individual can rationally justify his/her behavior on account of another. The greater good is achieved by the accumulation of individual acts of good deeds. 
As Robert F. Kennedy had said: “Some people see things as they are and say, 'why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'why not?'” But society can never be improved without the benevolent actions of individuals. The argument against behaving properly that so many others are not also behaving properly is flawed. Easily rebutted with something like “If everyone else were jumping off a cliff, should you as well?” If every person were to excuse him or her self from being ethical and moral on the imagined pretense that no one else is then no good change in the society can happen.

I'd say that without morals a person is just an animal and dishonors himself/herself, one has no dignity without a strong self discipline. This doesn't mean that we need religion or spirituality. No moral code worthy of the human intellect could come from religion, but rather from an honest respect for one's fellow people. So that those who would think everything is permitted because they've shed the chains of delusion, are in fact no better than those who remain chained in slavery to the dogma of cult leaders. For, however liberating it certainly is and however noble it is to see the light and walk out of that cave of perverse corruption that charlatans will push, we are not honorable nor dignified when we mistreat others, when we make ourselves lawless brutes. When we fail to discipline ourselves, to abandon ourselves the to the animal within, we become unworthy of any respect. When we fail to maintain inside ourselves a compass, not given from out of the archaic ethers but rather from our fellowship of humanity and our empathy, we make ourselves deserving of the receiving back the abuses that we give. . . .

Ethics are a system of behavioral rules based on both empathy and morality and is designed to address specific possible situations. While morality is a set of general philosophical codes of right and wrong, of justice and of social order. Thus murder is immoral, but sometimes killing another person can be ethically acceptable, such as in the case of self-defense against someone who is a clear and immediate threat to one's life. Then, we can say that it must be our natural ability to comprehend what another person experiences, to grasp how we would feel in the same situation. That is the foundation. We would not want someone kill us, so we can appreciate that others would not want us to kill them. From this the moral code is constructed, in large part due to all the other things we are taught as we develop intellectually.

Essentially, a person must understand that there is a greater and more personal advantage to being ethical and moral than just improving society. When one chooses to behave in accordance with his or her code of ethics and morality, a code that values peace, respect and logical order, then one finds himself or herself avoiding many problems and dangers. Being an ethical and moral person means that one can enjoy a quality of life that would not be possible otherwise. Even when no other person behaves as a human one who refuses to degrade himself or herself, one who chooses to behave as a human ought to, can take comfort in knowing that he/she is exercising the true human potential. It is much better to be a good person and so earn the trust and respect of others than to behave immorally and earn the disdain and disrespect of others. When one behaves morally one can hold his/her head upright and take pride in exercising superiority over the primitive animal urges and tendencies, a superiority afforded by the nature of being human.

From the chapter on honor:

There are essentially two kinds of honor any person holds. The first is “interpersonal honor” in which a person's level of honor is relevant to his or her interactions with others on a daily basis. A person might consider you more honorable if you have been a good friend to him or her. But it is important to note that one's honor is not affected by insults. That is to say that your honor does not in any way depend on a person calling you, for example, a “bitch” or calling your friend or mate such a name. On the contrary, a person who is attempting to antagonize a person by calling another names is in fact damaging his or her own honor by doing so. The second kind of honor is “social honor” in which a person is considered by the society to be of a certain level of honor based on the individual's value to the society. For example, an ordinary person is considered to be of standard honor, while a scientist, doctor, politician or judge is considered to be “honorable” (as an elevated status) and thus is given that title.

While both types of honor are affected by a person's actions, behaviors, achievements and contributions, the interpersonal type will vary among the people one associates with. Whereas, the social type is less movable and depends more on the person's position and accomplishments as recognized by the society. The importance of honor in the society is that one's treatment by others and the society as a whole is dependent upon one's honor. A dishonorable person receives less respect and is often shunned by others. A person should therefore wish to avoid the loss of his or her honor. Meanwhile, those who improve our society are rewarded with a higher regard by the society and the people within.

© 2015, Joshua Michail

   

Facebook.com/JoshuaMichail       joshuamichail.blogspot.com      Twitter.com/JoshuaMichail

To Make A Better World -- Excerpt #1

Copyright 2015, Joshua Michail, all rights reserved.

As I prepare to publish my book, To Make A Better World, I will periodically publish here some selected excerpts from my book. The following is the first excerpt of several paragraphs. I hope my readers will enjoy. As always, feel free to comment, to share your thoughts. Also feel free to share my posts. Thanks. 

FROM: To Make A Better World; The handbook for good secular living in the modern era.
by Joshua Michail.

Excerpt #1, from: Introduction. 

It is human nature to be together with our fellows, in tribes or families at least. We yearn for community because we are communal creatures. This is not something that can only be satisfied by a church or temple or mosque though. Many of us feel this sense of community with our neighbors and with people in other groups that we belong to, including fan clubs, or with friends or meet-up groups. The church is simply not necessary any longer. We can get emotional satisfaction without religion. We can get community and a sense of belonging without religion. We can be loved and love others without religion. Indeed, religion is not even necessary for transcendence. So, what does religion have left to offer? Even morality and ethics are within us, as a part of our species' nature. The guidance to morality and ethics are even better satisfied by secular means. After-all, most religions, and especially the Abrahamic ones, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, consider worshiping their god to be a concern of morality. They, however, forget in their holy books to consider rape, slavery and pedophilia to be immoral, while in secular morality those things are all extremely immoral. And, to the issue of having a framework for structuring one's beliefs, values and thoughts religion is no longer the only option. As a matter of fact, it is my desire to offer an alternative worldview and framework to that which religions offer.

The reader should know some things to start with. If you are a non-theist (atheist, agnostic, humanist and/or freethinker, or whatever you think of yourself as) you are not alone. If you are not sure about what you might call yourself, or think on the issue, that is okay. You are the captain of your own ship; you have the right to decide for yourself. Most atheists and agnostics were once religious. Humans have a certain capacity for critical thought, of-course it does take an effort to turn this from just a capacity to actual activity. We are taught to just accept certain notions, but when we can't make sense of those ideas we naturally want to begin questioning. And it's probable that most people will come to that crossroads in which they find themselves beginning to question what they were taught to believe. Unfortunately, so very many will let their fear, their belief that they are being “bad” for doubting, overpower that natural inquiry. Some people may be content to think that anything which doesn't make sense is just a mysterious manifestation of a mysterious will. Thankfully, many of us have such a strong desire to know the truth that we cannot accept unsatisfying claims of truth. You need not feel like you're the only one. Many of humanity's greatest minds have grappled with this very issue. At the end of this book I have listed some other books which the reader will likely find relevant to this context, as well as internet resources including non-theist community and support groups.

At this point I should explain my impelling force – the foundation of all my philosophy. A very simple idea that I think gives rise, to not only my optimism, but also to my reason for writing this book. And that is that perfection is the best of all impossible goals to hold. I don't mean that “perfection” in the sense of a state of being, which can never be attained, but in the sense of the process of improvement. It is necessary, and is the most noble of endeavors. When we strive to achieve perfection we improve ourselves, and our society. When we improve ourselves and our society we narrow the gap between the real and the ideal. This has very real value. The pessimist and the optimist see the same real conditions, but the optimist sees the need for improvement. While the pessimist sees the difficulties presented by reality as a reason to not bother, the optimist sees the challenge as ultimately conquerable, however difficult. Every time a change is made, a condition improved, it may indeed reasonably seem that the work never ends – though progress shouldn't be viewed as pointless. But we can say that progress is the shifting of difference between what is yet to be done and what has been done. Progress is incremental and often slow. While the pessimist can teach us that we must understand what reality means to our endeavors, we shouldn't give up. Instead we must analyze the conditions and adapt to reality to form a workable strategy for accomplishment.

I do not believe that one needs to be religious to be moral, nor do I believe that one cannot be both religious and moral. The fundamental difference is in what one concerns oneself with when considering what makes for morality. Take for example, homosexuality, while at least several religious authorities consider it to be very immoral, there are also many good religious people who know better. I have talked with homosexual people who love their partners in the exact same way that heterosexuals do. There is no logically valid argument for the alleged immorality of homosexuality that I have ever heard. I seriously doubt that anyone could ever make such an argument either. Meanwhile, many of the people I have heard in the public arena who lambaste homosexuals as immoral have themselves been caught-up in scandals that demonstrate their own immorality according to their own proclaimed beliefs. Yet we, those who are religious and those of us who are not, all agree that murder is highly immoral. So, when in this book, I discuss morality I mean it in the practical sense and not in the sense of religious dogma. Practical morality is the kind that is amenable to nearly every person; it is something that is generally agreed upon despite differences in culture or group affiliation. I say generally because there are some variations in some ideas of practical morality between some differing groups, but the principle concept still stands.

The essential purpose of morality is three-fold. First, is that of the society, one in which the moral behavior of the people helps to maintain the integrity of the society. For example; when police officers and/or judges accept bribes they begin to foster a growing sense in the people of a need to take matters into their own hands, vigilantism. This vigilantism, or voluntary amateur policing, is dangerous to the social good because it often leads to miscarriages of justice. Innocent people are strung up, witch-hunts get out of hand and neighbor distrusts neighbor. The society or the community at least, begins to breakdown. Second, is that of the people who depend immediately on the moral behavior of others, that is to say those who may be harmed by a person's failure to be moral. Children, for example, necessarily depend on the good moral character of daycare employees, teachers, authoritative adults and their parents for their physical and mental well-being. Third, is each of us individually, our own moral behavior benefits us in several ways, such as preserving our honor and dignity. If one allows oneself to use illicit drugs, like cocaine or amphetamines, one harms and endangers himself/herself, lies, steals and disrespects others and self, i.e.: behaving immorally. The use of drugs is not necessarily immoral, per-se. But, it often does lead to other behavioral problems that are immoral. Among users of illegal drugs it is common that one's actions and behavior will anger people who are prone to violence. And the use of illegal drugs will, in and of itself, greatly increase health dangers, cause mental disorders and often kill

the user in short order. A healthy society and a healthy person depend upon law and order. A healthy person and his/her society depend on the moral strength of each individual and that of one's self.

Which leads me to the book which follows. I believe morality is very important. I also believe that honor and dignity, as well as the beliefs we hold, are very important. Indeed, how we come to the beliefs we hold is important. It occurred to me that all too often what passes for morality, is either actually immoral, or nothing to do with morality. So, I decided to work on this issue. I also saw a need to address honor and dignity. I've seen and heard so much, from so many people, about honor in which the concept is just offensive. The fact is, however, that honor is important and it does play a much bigger role than many people are willing to acknowledge. Then there is the issue of how one can live in a meaningful way. People often say that they want to know that their life was not a waste, that there was meaning. I think it's possible, in a secular life, to have plenty of meaning. To go with this I wanted to address several issues of character. Issues like greed, ignorance, violence and destructive attitudes. I also wanted to provide some sense of structure, so I modeled a new secular moral codification on the very familiar “Ten Commandments”. I've also included a list of material for quick reference, on logic and fallacies, science and moral principles. I hope that this book will be more than enjoyable. I'm hoping that it will prove useful and inspiring.

To make a better world, one must start by making oneself better. One must be willing to improve oneself before one can improve the world in which one lives. It's sort of like surviving a car crash, if you want to improve your chances you'll first get into the habit of wearing the seat-belt. You'll put in the effort to learn how to drive more safely; if you want to survive a crash. As improving your chances of surviving a car crash is a goal, there are things you must do to achieve that goal. So it is, also, for improving the world around you. There are many “self-help” books out there. Some are genuine efforts to help people. Some, however, are just blatant scams. There are also probably many that fall somewhere in between. Of the self-help books in which the author has actually tried to be helpful, some are misguided and some are well-founded. Many will tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. Of course many people want to hear, or read, what makes them feel better, good or what flatters them. Often that will sell books, which is great if you're trying to make a heap o' money. But, often they will also have learned nothing new, it will not actually help. Real help doesn't necessarily make you feel better about yourself. Real help won't just pat you on the shoulder. Real help gives you the tools and teaches you how to help yourself. Get it? That's why it's called “self-help”. So, in a way, I think this book is a sort of self-help book, but it's a guide as well. My intention is to explore the way things are, and to offer alternatives that can lead you to a good life, or even a better one, without the superstitions and myths.

 

© 2015, Joshua Michail, all rights reserved.

 Facebook.com/JoshuaMichail            joshuamichail.blogspot.com             Twitter.com/JoshuaMichail

Please Help Me! Here's Your Chance To Help Me Decide On A Title For My Book.

I'm now trying to settle on a title for my book. I would like some input. So, here are the candidates. Please vote for the one you think is the best. You can comment below with your choice and anything you'd like to say. I'd really appreciate some participation in this poll. Thank you.

For reference, the book is a sort of handbook, self-help book, in which I try to offer a secular alternative to the rules and form of religions. The idea in this book is that in the first of the three sections, I discuss society, evolution, humanity, government and economics, philosophy and psychology. I do this to layout some basic concepts and establish a basis for the rest of the book's discussions. The second section I discuss morality, secularity, honor, and ways to look at living life in a way that we find meaning, without any religious context. In the third section I discuss a variety of things that people often wish to improve in themselves, and how these areas can be accomplished without religious context. Often self-help books talk in a religious-mystical context, but I wanted to help people but with a secular option.

1. A Moral New World (the current working title)
2. Your World Within
3. Being In the World
4. The World and Us
5. Life and You
6. Making A Better World
7. Lifelong
8. Your Life
9. A New View To Your World

Be Good To Each Other, A Sunday Secular Sermon.

How about a sermon for this Sunday? Since I am an ordained minister, and an atheist, I'll offer a secular one. I believe that sermons can be good. They can be motivational, since they are meant to be food for thought. So, I say we should be good to each other. How many of you would consider yourselves to be Humanists?

The nature of the ethical and moral philosophy of Humanism is that we must be concerned about the suffering of all people. The basis for our Humanist morals and ethics is solely the consideration of the well-being of others. Life is too short. There is all too abundant sources of misery, pain, illness and abuse, and all too many of us endure these things. All of us suffer to some degree, from some thing or another. Surely, if we can think of our own struggles, our own suffering, we can understand the need to not cause more for other people? It should be easy for us to think of when we wished for someone to help us in our times of need. And so, it should be easy to realize the need to help others in their times of hardship. But, we also reject the outdated and irrelevant claims to morality that so many religions proclaim to hold. We must question the motivations, effects, and uselessness of such religious claims to morality.

The fact is, religious claims to morality are: a few coincidentally good, most irrelevant and some even quite immoral and harmful. For instance, it's easy for Humanists to agree that murder, theft and lying are immoral acts. The harm these acts cause to humans is well understood. When we are concerned with lessening the suffering of all people, we quickly come to the conclusion that murder, theft and lying are inherently wrong. We can easily understand that they are immoral if you consider deliberately causing suffering to be immoral. But, what about saying that homosexuality is a “sin”? Many religious people believe the simple natural being of someone feeling attraction and love for another person of the same sex and same orientation is supposedly wrong, or immoral. Yet, there is not one singular reason of even slight validity that can be shown to be relevant. Just because you might think it wrong to be gay does not in any way mean that it causes harm to other people. There is simply no tangible evidence, no arguable rationale, no conceivable way to claim that one person's sexual orientation really has anything to do with the suffering of other people.

The best the religious can do is to argue that they believe that gay people will go to hell for being the who they are. But, this requires proof to support the belief. This requires the evidence that no religious person has ever been able to produce in thousands of years. However, it is quite clear, and there is plenty of evidence, to show that acting on this myth-based belief is extraordinarily harmful to humanity. In fact, realizing that religion does harm to people, that it actually causes suffering, a Humanist must be inclined to speak out against it. It is the religion that drives people to oppose so forcefully the equality of rights for people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex. The religious are motivated by their unfounded and invasive beliefs to fight against people for nothing more than those people not matching the ideal of the religious people. They are instructed by their religion to impose on others against their victims' wills what they think is good, but for which they cannot show a legitimate argument for suffering. And this means the religiously-motivated are actually causing the harm and suffering that we Humanists find immoral. There are, of course, plenty of other examples. But, that should suffice for this point.

I also believe we should consider what morals and ethics have to do with one's honor. Fundamentally, there is honor is doing good. There is also dishonor in doing harm. This means that religiously-motivated people who impose their beliefs, which are not concerned with actual tangible human suffering, they are dishonoring themselves. While those who are only concerned with helping to eliminate suffering, based on tangible and actual evidence, they are motivated honorably. Why do you help people in need? If you do so because you wish to alleviate their suffering, then you are improving your honor. If you do so because you are told to do that, then you do not improve your honor. If you help, but believe you will be rewarded, even in some imagined afterlife, and avoid punishment thereby in that same afterlife, then you do yourself no honor. Such a reason is not selfless, but quite selfish. A desire to gain some reward, like heaven, or even an Earthly reward, cannot be an honorable motivation to help. One can only gain honor by helping others, if one's reason is solely that one understands suffering and wishes to end that suffering for others.

So, I say that we should all be exceptionally kind to each other. Be generous, be respectful, be thoughtful, be helpful, be compassionate, because that is the right thing to do. For there is a bounty of honor, only when you do not deliberately seek such honor. I say help others, because it helps them. Be a Humanist. Be human and humane toward others. Being a Humanist is not merely the honorable thing to do, but it is the human thing to do. One who fails to be a Humanist, is short of being fully human.

Copyright © 2014, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.

Conspiracy; The Nature of Beliefs & What They Have to do with Honor.

The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 is one of
the most controversial and heated subjects of all
conspiracy stories.

I am going to tell you that the beliefs you hold can affect your honor. I know this may seem odd, but I will explain my position. However, I want to also delve into some other issues regarding beliefs, most specifically on conspiracy “theories”. Recently, a friend of mine shared a link to a video lecture by Rob Brotherton, an Irish psychologist. The title of the lecture is Psychology of Conspiracy Theories [linked], which happens to also be his doctoral thesis. I found the lecture to be quite interesting, and it got me to thinking on the issue, and beyond. It raised a few issues for me that I want to deal with here. One being the problem I take with calling conspiracy stories “theories”, and I believe you can start already to see where I'm going on that point. Another point is about beliefs based on emotional thinking versus beliefs based on evidence.

There is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”. I know this is a bold statement, but soon you'll see my point. There certainly are people who believe that there are secret plots, by a few allegedly extraordinarily-powerful interests, to take control of the world. And, it's true that sometimes conspiracies occur. Though, you'll never find the truth on sites like Info Wars, or Conspiracy Watch, and from people like Alex Jones and David Icke. In fact, there are some red flags sources like those raise, and alarm bells they sound. For instance, as a general rule, one should be quite suspicious of anyone who insists, without being questioned first, that they are telling you the truth, or that they have a secret that no other has. One should be, rightly, ready to dismiss those who make such ridiculous claims as the conspiracists do. For instance, if it's a secret that some extremely powerful cabal of conspirators would kill to keep silent, then why is the person revealing the secret on media outlets, such as You Tube, or Facebook, spreading these “secrets” for so long with no interference? Why would such secret cabals do what they are being accused of doing, what do they really gain? Why can't they use more reasonable approaches? Why is it taking them so long to accomplish their goals? If they're so powerful and secretive, why is this secret even being talked about by anyone? You get the idea, the list of questions about the story tellers goes on for a long time.

The point, however, about the term “theory” that raises my ire, is that it's not acceptable to use that term for such nonsense. The term “theory” is specifically scientific, and so should be limited to that use. The definition of which is this, Theory (n.): A stated set of ideas that; 1. coherently, 2. explain observed phenomenon, 3. and which is derived from a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly by different groups who all found the same results. I make this point because there are two main ways people with questionable agendas tend to misuse the word. First, the conspiracy story tellers, who want people to believe there is more veracity to their claims than really exists. After-all, “theory” sounds much more important and intellectual than “story” or “opinion”. The second way that it is misused for a particular agenda is among creationists, who actually use the term in another way. They like to say “theory” as if it means the same thing as “opinion” or “just a guess”. They use the word for such actual scientific theories as Evolution by Natural Selection in the context of their discussion in the hopes that they can discredit the veracity of such science. The common acceptance of people using the term in both ways actually harms the public understanding of science. I suggest, strongly, that everyone starts to call people out on this problem. We owe it to humanity to demand intellectual honesty. We must correct our friends on the misuse of the word “theory”, and this is why I say there is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”.

To help facilitate this effort, I suggest a few terms that can be used to replace “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”. So, one who proposes, endorses, or spreads conspiracy stories is a “conspiracist”. This term should not be confused with “conspirator”, which is one who conspires to commit whatever the story alleges. For instance, in Jenny McCarthy's endorsement of the false story that vaccines cause autism she, by extension, endorses also the claim that governments and doctors are conspirators attempting to keep their “conspiracy” a secret. In this sense Jenny McCarthy is a conspiracist, because she is spreading the conspiracy story that vaccines allegedly cause autism. It should be noted, by the way, that the original article making the claim was scientifically discredited and the publisher retracted the article, though the doctor who initially made the claim sticks to it, even after his medical license was revoked. Further, “conspiracism” is the term I use to describe the attitude or belief that conspiracy stories have some legitimate footing for consideration and deserve to be taken seriously. More specifically, I'd say conspiracism is an undue and excessive willingness to believe, or accept as plausible, such conspiracy stories.

In the lecture that inspired me to write this essay, Rob Brotherton discussed the psychology of conspiracy stories. I find psychology to be an astoundingly interesting subject, but I'll try to keep this discussion short since we all have busy lives. Among the particular issues discussed in the lecture were the personality traits of people who believe conspiracy stories. Some research has been done which indicates the possibility that people who believe one conspiracy story also tend to believe many other conspiracy stories. Additionally, there tends to be a sense of powerlessness in the world on the part of the person who believes such stories. The typical conspiracy story narrative is a perception that some evil and extraordinarily-powerful group is responsible for the bad things that happen in the world. Rob Brotherton defines conspiracy “theories” as: (1) “an unsubstantiated allegation of conspiracy (2) pertaining to events of profound importance, (3) competing with a more plausible explanation (4) which assumes deception and misinformation [from the alleged conspirators], and (5) presumes malicious intent and hyper-competence, and (6) insulates the idea against correction”.

Moreover, there are some distinctive personality traits that are often quite evident. For one thing, most people who believe such conspiracy stories tend to be extraordinarily open to unusual ideas and are more willing to accept the stories that seem compelling to them. Additionally, believers of conspiracy stories tend to be mildly, or more, paranoid than most. They also tend to have quite a bit of bias. There's Projection Bias, in which a person presumes that most others think and behave like he/she does. Michael Shermer calls another bias “Patternicity”, which is an ability that most people have to see meaning in random stimuli. Though for the religious and many conspiracists this trait is more noticeable and usually not considered by the person who believes such things. A very common bias among conspiracists is Proportionality, they often believe that major events must have major players, such as the John F Kennedy assassination. Conspiracists often insist that because Kennedy was an important man the assassin must have been involved in a conspiracy that must have been far bigger than a lone mentally disturbed gunman. But, perhaps the most powerful and intractable bias is Confirmation Bias. People who believe in conspiracy stories usually ignore and reject evidence that does not support their existing beliefs but willingly and quickly accept anything they can perceive as supporting their presumptions.

One more very interesting point that I want to discuss is the difference between emotionally based beliefs and evidence based beliefs. Mr. Brotherton also raised this issue in the video lecture. And, as promised, here is where I'll begin discussing how one's beliefs can affect one's honor. Now, for Mr. Brotherton's sake I will state that he never mentioned honor. Rather, he talked about how in debating with someone evidence-based arguments will not be effective if that person formed his/her belief through emotions. You see, there are two basic ways people form opinions, or beliefs. One is through being presented evidence and logical arguments. The other is through appeals to emotions. Obviously the problem with emotionally-based beliefs is that they are not formed through critical examination of evidence. So emotionally-based opinions or beliefs tend, all too often, to not reflect anything resembling reality. Fundamentally there can be no honor in holding beliefs that are wishful thinking, that are discordant with reality.

But, worse still, some beliefs can be actually quite dishonorable. In fact, when one holds a belief that can motivate one to do harm, or to advocate others to do harm to themselves. And since there is no honor in ignorance, one cannot expect that being ignorant of the facts can excuse the dishonor one does to one's self by such dangerous beliefs. Such examples, sadly, exist. When someone like Jenny McCarthy tells parents to not vaccinate their children, she is actively giving medical advice. The problem in this sense is that she is nothing like a qualified doctor. This is a highly dishonorable thing to do. In fact, I will tell you this is the fundamental reason I say Jenny McCarthy is without honor. She has chosen to accept the already discredited claims against vaccinations, and she lends her cheapened celebrity status to support a most ridiculous conspiracy story. Her activism against vaccinations is, in plain fact, actively encouraging parents to harm their children. And, for this, there is no excuse. She has thrown away whatever degree of honor she might have had by holding fast to her beloved conspiracy fantasy.

Copyright © 2014, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.

Has Honor Become Worthless?

What do you think when you read, or hear, the word “honor”? I'd wager that your idea of what “honor” means is flawed in some way. That's just a guess though. Perhaps you have a negative view on the concept? If not altogether demanding that the word be banned from ever being used again, you're likely, at least, thinking it's outdated. It's a common opinion. Around the globe, and over centuries, the concept of honor has varied greatly. It has varied in many ways. Even the importance of honor has varied. In recent decades the idea of honor seems to have become disliked, possibly even despised. But I'm not convinced that doing away with the concept of honor is the right way to go. It seems to me that honor still does, and will continue to, have a valuable role to play in society. I'd guess there are many bad ideas out there about honor. But, I think those should be exposed and dealt with reasonably. What we need is a logical and clear concept of honor. I think I can offer an intelligible, useful and even a moral concept of honor here. So, let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.

Misconceptions about honor certainly abound. Among them are several problems, which are as much the fault of those who've been in past so wound-up in honor as it is of those who have been so offended as to reject the idea of honor altogether. It seems to me that for most of the last century the fashionable trend, on a large scale, has been to target honor for abolition. It seems the very idea that honor matters has been claimed to be obsolete. The line dividing opinions on whether the concept of honor is good or bad seems to have become parallel to the fence between political camps, conservative and liberal. I don't think that is really the way it should be. While there have been changes – particularly in the U.S. – to the societal concept on honor over the last century, since the sixties the abolition trend has accelerated. I believe that the times have changed, and thus the concept of honor has had to undergo updating, but I think that that does not necessitate the wholesale doing-away-with of honor. Nor, do I think this modernization, and what it entails, necessarily validates being rid of honor. I suppose in some quite serious ways our cultural ideals of individualism and personal liberty have had something to do with this trend as well. Perhaps we've developed an unhealthy obsession with individualism and personal liberty to the extent that they pass the level at which they're good things and have in our culture become contrary to the very nature of society.

That unhealthy obsession is something that I can't help but see in many Libertarians and Ayn Rand's so-called “Objectivists”. These are two similar groups – birds of a feather, if you will – who argue that “greed is good”, that “government is bad” and that “rational selfishness” somehow motivates people to be good. That view is, at best, a bit of a farcical stretch. A balance is often best. Indeed, our American cultural ideals of individualism and personal liberty must be balanced so as to hold our society together. Without responsibility and duty what good are we? Well, we've seen a terrifying glimpse of a lack of control, and excessive self-interest, in the example set by Wall Street and many corporate CEOs. Excess is inherently antithetical to honor. For that matter, so are individualism and “self-interest”, or greed which is self-interest in its extreme. Though, individualism and self-interest are not altogether bad, it's really a matter of degrees. This is why it's a matter of balance. It's a matter of not allowing our individualism and self-interest conflict with what is best for our communities and humanity. Honor is, by its nature, a concept that arises because of the nature of society. To put it in a picture, hermits have no use for honor.

Extreme liberals, let's call them “hippies”, also often tend to be opposed to honor. While many Libertarians and Rand-variety “Objectivists” can't find the strength to be honorable, the far-out kind of liberals seem to not want to be honorable. I mean, in the sense that most Libertarians and “Objectivists” fundamentally embrace ideals that are contrary to the nature of society, and thus contrary to honor. While the extreme among the liberals seem to not like what honor means. It is common to hear “don't be judgmental”, and yet it is an inescapable part of human nature. We all are judgmental, the only relevant question is to what degree and what particulars do we consider in making our judgments. Honor requires some amount of judgment by people. In fact, you can't be either honorable or dishonorable without other people judging you to be so. But, I also agree with most liberals, even the extreme among them, that we ought not to be judged by such superficial and pointless things as the color of our skin, or whether the gender of those we lie down with is the same as our own.

More specifically, I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. when he said in his “Dream” speech about judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. It is absolutely right to judge people by the content of their character. One's character is no trivial thing. Character is whether you're a liar, or a cheater, or a thief, or a murderer. Part of your character is whether you are corrupt, or a just person. Of course, your work ethic, your sense of social justice, your integrity and intellectual honesty are all parts of your character, and thus your honor. The extremely liberal tend to include a prohibition on judging people by whether or not they are liars or thieves, and it is there that an honorable person must depart from their company. As a matter of fact, being able to judge people's characters is important, if a society is to be cohesive. How can a society survive an epidemic of “don't be judgmental”? We would, if we took it – following the directions of those who are so extremely liberal – to the extreme, allow known pedophiles to run daycare centers, and allow known terrorists to manage our nation's security and so forth. It must be obvious that there is a limit to that “don't be judgmental” mantra. Clearly society could not operate without people being judgmental in some ways. We need only be concerned about what is reasonable, in the context of the greater good, to judge others on, and to judge by.

Surely many people dislike the unpleasantness of many different ideas on honor. Particularly the archaic ideas. Bad ideas like; honor-killings done when a woman somehow “dishonors” her family by being the victim of rape, or the ritual suicide to save one's honor after some failure, or the misappropriation of honor as if it were gold to wealthy and famous people. Clearly those ideas are all seriously misguided. In no way does a person deserve more honor simply because of being born into a certain family, or because of being famous or wealthy. Indeed, to the contrary of what they think, any family that murders a member of that family in order to save their honor severely dishonors themselves. They mostly tend to miss the mark, or get a warped concept about the subject. The perversions have run the idea nearly into the ground. Though, I suspect it's easy to reject the idea of honor, altogether, given the other twisted views on honor. Just as there are absolutist views of morality – religiously oriented views – there are some who believe honor to be an absolute. Absolutism is the idea that there is some outside source of, in this case honor, and some idea that it's set in stone. The idea that morality, or honor, can't be relative to the changes in society is highly absurd.

The flip side of that is Relativism, the idea that it's all just relative and so there's no real value to morality, or in this case honor. On this subject, there is a popular notion that honor is irrelevant. Though there are some things about honor which may be quite firm, there is not any convincing way to say that honor is either absolute or irrelevant. The interesting thing is that there are those who believe that honor – or morality – is out dated, or irrelevant, because of claims by those who subscribe to absolutism. In their case it is a misunderstanding. They seem to think that the proposition put forth by the absolutists is the only available version, and therefore deserving of rejection. Conversely, there are also those who view any alternative to their absolutist position to be inferior or unqualified. To their thinking, in the case of morality, it is dictated from upon high and carved into stone. Yet what they think is unchangeable tends to change over generations, but they'd never admit it. In regards to honor, the absolutist tends to treat honor as if it were a tangible concrete thing. They often regard it as if it were inherited from family, as if there are – almost magical – rituals to mend it, as if one's honor could so easily be injured by the words or deeds of others. But, there is a middle option, a third choice. The position that honor is not absolute, nor irrelevant, but rather that it's relevant and relative to what is actually a valid concern for society.

Can your honor be damaged by someone calling you a derogatory name? What if someone insinuates something particularly nasty about your partner? What kind of a slight would it take to call your honor into question? There are so many common misconceptions involving the “insult”. And frankly, I don't get those who puff-up their chests and throw their heads backward in a sort of Chihuahua-meets-Gorilla dance of challenge. Honor is not something that can be “insulted”. I've seen too many instances of some insult, to which a sense of offense drives an attempt to restore honor. It's an absurdity, it seems to me. It's a completely misguided notion that some have that one's honor might be injured by another person's words or actions. How could that be the case? The truth is that one's honor can only be affected by one's own actions, and no other person's. Words are nothing to honor. The great, almost comedic, tragedy lies in when a person, in a misguided and poorly-though-out effort, tries to restore honor only imagined to be damaged and in the process actually damages his/her honor. It bears repeating, honor can only be influenced by one's own behavior. There is no such thing as an insult to your honor done by someone else. Your honor is not affected by someone saying an insult about you, but it is certainly affected by how you choose to react. Reacting violently, or in a vindictive manner, is a failure of self-control. Since we are each responsible for our own behavior, reacting in that way to provocation is what brings dishonor. It turns out, that if someone says your friend is a “bitch”, you only damage your honor if you react with violence. It is dishonorable to escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one because in that case you are demonstrating that you're much closer to an ordinary animal than a thinking animal. It is shameful to allow others to manipulate you, especially in such an obvious and unsophisticated way. This sort of behavior essentially makes one a danger to society.

Many people have attempted to argue that the idea of honor is out-dated. However, I believe good arguments can be made in support of certain concepts. Namely, that honor is an idea that we can't be rid of so easily. Also, that honor cannot be affected by others. And first, that honor is actually still important today. If you behave dishonorably people will not respect you, and deservedly so. Honor is, fundamentally, the currency of social exchange. It is very closely related to reputation. So, while those detractors may have some valid points, they are wrong on the overall case that honor should be abandoned. For one thing, committing suicide supposedly in order to preserve one's honor is misguided. Even when ritualized, suicide is not an honorable act. Though there should be a distinction between suicide and self-sacrifice made to benefit the greater good. Fundamentally, there is no honor in quitting since that is usually the easy and unproductive way out of a difficulty. Though quitting is not always dishonorable, it is how extreme suicide is and the fact that it is giving-up that makes it dishonorable. And even if suicide were not dishonorable, using that approach to try to protect one's honor fails because it's not logical for killing one's self to have a positive affect on one's honor.

Honor is relevant today, vis-a-vis, our reputations and our interpersonal interactions. I'll concede that nagging question, “what about the fact that we live in large metropolises now?”. Of-course, the concept of honor is hindered and not as potent a force in our modern times given the nature of our societies now. But, the nature of humanity, the interdependence of each of us upon one another makes honor still relevant. The anonymity of our reputations that big cities offer can diminish the effectiveness of honor, when compared to ancient times. However, it can't actually do away with it altogether. It is something that you can have a little of, or much of, though one can't have too much. It's something that can be in deficit or surplus. Albeit some people may have undeserved or misappropriated honor. Likely the fault of the people who give such undue honor, as in the case of many famous people. Many fans regard a celebrity with more honor than is appropriate simply because of being a celebrity. That is not necessarily the celebrity's fault. And certainly many average people don't seem to get as much respect of their honor as they may deserve, but that is a circumstance of big cities and popular attitudes. Still the fact is that the concept of honor must change to adapt to the changes of the times. But, honor will likely never go away altogether as a phenomenon of community and humanity. So, your honor is something worth thinking about.

Copyright © 2013, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.

Whatever Happened To Honor?

       It seems that honor has suffered a rather potent deterioration over the past several decades. For that matter so has the concept of dignity. At least this is what I'm led to believe given my observations of the western hemisphere. But I suppose I could say much the same about the ideas of honor and dignity in the eastern hemisphere as well. I've noticed that, for the most part, wherever people do talk of honor in many cases it is a pathetic misunderstanding of the dynamics and value involved. And among most people it seems that it is a concept that has become archaic or quaint or disregarded all together. But I would like to explain my philosophy on honor and dignity. I think I must begin with the concept of individual honor in relation to society and the dynamics and value of honor. I hope that I will be able to adequately establish by the end of this article why I think we should reconsider the import of honor and dignity in our lives.

       Let me now address where I think that far too many people go wrong with their brand of "honor". We can look at the cases of "troubled" inner-city youth, or more specifically thugs and gang members. In which I have been witness to the manifestation of the common concepts of honor in such cases. I mean that I have all too often seen and heard people challenge others tenaciously on the grounds of a perceived transgression of "honor". Some thug will say, for example, that he must attack another person because that person is believed to have insulted his girlfriend. This in many ways stems from the archaic notions of chivalry. I will cover the misconception of insults as an impact on honor just a little later, but I think most of us are familiar to some degree with this ideology in the west.

       For now I want to turn attention to eastern ideas of honor. First, let's look at "honor killings" particularly in the middle east. Generally, this is the result of a misguided, and usually religiously influenced cultural notion of individual honor and its presumed impact on "familial honor". There have been in recent years stories in the media of people, usually women, who have been murdered by family members on the supposed grounds that for some reason the person brought dishonor to the family and that in order that the family's honor be restored the family member must be murdered. Often this idea of murdering a female family member to restore a family's honor stems from Islamic notions that women are not equal to men and should not be allowed to leave the house without a male escort, or at least a few other women.

       Additionally, women are required to wear body and facial coverings that are intended to enforce modesty because it is a fundamental notion of Islam that it is a woman's fault if a man should desire her and not be able to behave himself respectably. It is essentially the idea that if a woman didn't want to be raped she should have not be born with a vagina. Okay, perhaps that is over simplifying it slightly. The idea is that men are susceptible to temptation and that women are seductresses and so modesty is so utterly important. It's fair to say that it is possible to have a culture of Muslim people who are enlightened enough to give up such barbaric and misogynistic aspects of their religion, but those cultures are not usually the same ones in which "honor killings" are acceptable.

       On a side note, both Christianity and Judaism have in their religious books a large amount of barbarity and backwardness as well that the vast majority of believers refuse to practice. But the difference is that among Jews and Christians those who practice such horrible teachings are a minuscule minority, while in Islam I would bet that most believers still adhere much more closely to the vile parts of the teachings. We should look at Saudi Arabia as an example of the type of backward culture that I mean. It is a nation in which women who are rape victims have been put to death. Or when the more humane mood strikes them they imprison her on the presumption that her word is worthless against the man's and that she should have known better than to be outside the home without her owner's permission.

       Of-course, to placate their western business interests, i.e.: oil consuming nations like the US, they will occasionally imprison the man as well. Though the man's punishment for raping a woman is usually much less time in prison than hi victim's punishment. In my opinion the Saudi government is, along with its officials and the general population, without honor because of their abuse of women and children.

       Then there is the concept of honor in east Asia, China and Japan for example. Their concepts of honor are not all together bad, though I see some flaws. One of my complaints would be the pressure applied by the family on an individual to maintain his/her honor, because it is assumed that one's own honor affects the honor of one's family and friends. This is in some ways similar to my objection to the misconceptions of honor among western gang members and "thugs". The flaw is the presumption that another person's behavior or words can affect one's honor. It appears to me to be some sort of primitive, almost caveman like notion.

       In my philosophy of honor and dignity one's honor can only be affected by one's own words, actions and behavior. If a person, for example, calls my mother a "bitch" neither my honor nor my mother's is affected, instead it is the honor of the one who is slandering my mother that is affected. Everyone can clearly see that that person made an uncalled for attack upon my mother, and so they should shun that person for such a 'low blow'. As a matter of fact, if I were to attempt to defend my mother's honor because of such an insult, I would not only harm my honor by attacking that person, but it could be seen as giving some credence to that accusation. This would mean that I would be in essence contributing to the insult, and thereby insulting my mother as well. The insult would be perceived as possibly having some truth by my actions and so could affect my mother's image in the minds of those who were an audience to the whole affair. Sadly, that is how people would see it even if her honor should not be affect by such insults.

       Additionally, it cannot harm one's own honor if one's father were a bank robber or one's daughter failed to get the most desirable marks in school. Those things can only affect the honor of the individual that failed or did wrong, etcetera even if that person is a relative or friend. In the real world people are responsible for themselves whether they like it or not. But apart from parents being responsible for the development, education and well-being of their children, no other person can be responsible for anyone else.

       It may have served to the societal advantage in the past to have pressure placed upon the relatives of the individual. Certainly there would have been a force at work to police a person's behavior when it would bring dishonor to the rest of the family. This notion of the individual's honor affecting the family's honor, in a time when there was not an effective police force as there is today in most places, really made sense for social order. So I would say that in this day and age we can discard the archaic notion. We are not only more enlightened today, but we have the means and ways to enforce the laws and order well. But I do not see this as the bell tolling for the whole concept of honor, but rather a reason to modify it. It is my opinion that honor and dignity still have a place in everyone's life.

       We can and should shun those who commit crimes, are unfaithful to their partners, endanger others, disrespect others and otherwise shame themselves. I would like to first point out that there are some other archaic notions that should be left in the garbage heap as we reconstruct a modern civilized idea of honor and dignity. For example, there is nothing immoral, undignified or dishonorable in consenting adults engaging in sexual conduct with other consenting adults outside of or before marriage, so long as one is not cheating on one's partner. By this I mean that if one has a serious and thorough conversation with one's partner and without any type of coercion or manipulation one's partner grants permission to have sex with others then it is acceptable. But cheating is immoral and dishonorable because it is disrespectful and a blatant betrayal of the necessary trust of another person, in this case one's partner.

       Additionally, there can be no immorality, dishonor or indignity for a woman to assert herself, including to pursue a person she might sexually desire and to initiate sex. One's sexual orientation cannot affect one's honor either, though thinking of some recent cases of politicians and preachers who vocally condemn homosexuality only to be caught in a scandal that exposes their own homosexual relations I would say that hypocrisy is immoral and dishonorable.

    

copyright 2010 Joshua Michail