Max Severin

Essays, Articles, Videos & News

Page 3 of 3

The Epicurean Paradox Refutes Classical Theism

2022-11-13 /

The Epicurean paradox points out the contradiction between the existence of evil in the world and the supposed existence of a god who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving), and omnipresent (present everywhere). The Epicurean Paradox is one formulation of the problem of evil.

Most of the world’s monotheistic religions (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Christianity) describe their gods as having the four attributes described above. This is generally known as classical theism.

As for what philosophers mean by “evil,” it is just a general term of art to describe things we consider to be really bad. In moral philosophy, evil is separated into two general categories: moral and natural.

Examples of moral evil are torture and murder — some very salient examples would be the various acts of mass murder and genocide that have occurred throughout human history. Examples of natural evil would be things like earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, famines, etc. — which are capable of killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people over a short span of time. Natural evil also includes the more banal, but still horrible facts of reality (e.g., that we all die and suffer; that many animals are forced to kill other animals to survive; the sheer fact that parasites, predators, and pathogenic organisms exist).

Starving Child in Sudan — “The Struggling Girl”; Kevin Carter / Fair Use

The Epicurean Paradox points out that we would expect the world to be very different from the way it is if a god having these 4 traits were the designer. The fact that the world is the way it is presents a paradox to the traditional religious believer.

Here is how the Epicurean Paradox puts the problem:

“God, [Epicurus] says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?”

(Note: The Epicurean Paradox is named after its purported originator, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus; however, this authorship is unconfirmed. The paradox is not found in any existing copies of Epicurus’ works, though many of Epicurus’ works have been lost — including an extensive work about his views on theism. Notably, the passage above is preserved through the Christian writer Lactantius, who attributed it to Epicurus while arguing against it — a fact that adds an ironic dimension to its survival.)

Every classical theistic religion facing this problem has some explanation for the existence of evil in the world. A justification of evil is referred to as a theodicy (theos = god; dikē = justice). A theodicy is essentially a defense of the classical theist’s conception of god. There are many theodicies employed by classical theists, however, none of these are widely seen to be satisfactory by the skeptical.

For example, Christians usually say that God did not bring evil into the world, rather, they say that it was man that brought evil into the world. The story goes something like this: God gave man free will, he misused it, and evil is the result.

This explanation has some pretty clear problems. For one, why did God create a world where the existence of evil is a possibility? He could have created the world however he wanted if he is all powerful. For instance, one could ask, “why give man free will?” Surely an all-powerful God could create a being that didn’t have free will, but was still happy / fulfilled (this is not a logical contradiction). Alternatively, he could have created beings with free will, but placed them in a universe where sin was impossible.

Moreover, the free will defense fails entirely when confronted with natural evil. Human free will cannot account for earthquakes, tsunamis, childhood cancer, or the existence of parasites that blind and kill millions. These horrors exist entirely independently of human choice, and no appeal to free will can explain why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God would permit — let alone design — a natural world so indifferent to suffering.

There are plenty of other holes to poke in the traditional Christian explanation of evil, but apologists will likely respond that it doesn’t really matter if there is evil in this world, because this world is only temporary — God has offered us a way out of evil and suffering through accepting Jesus as our savior. We are told that if we accept Jesus, we will go to Heaven and there will be no evil there; but part of this story is that there is another place where we will go if we don’t accept Jesus — Hell. Hell, according to the traditional or popular interpretation, is said to be a place of eternal torment. In some versions of the Bible it is described as a “lake of fire,” where there will be unimaginable suffering for those sent there — suffering that will last forever.

So, even if we grant that there is some way for the classical theist to resolve the Epicurean Paradox, there is an even bigger aspect of the problem of evil for their beliefs: the problem of Hell.

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god create a place of eternal torment? Why would this god create a certain individual, knowing (remember, omniscience entails knowing everything, both past, present, and future) that this person will spend an eternity in Hell? Why wouldn’t such a god just not create any person that will end up in Hell? Why create Hell in the first place, or why not just send everyone to Heaven from the start? Ultimately, we must ask why would such a god create anything at all, if even one person has to be subjected to eternal torment? Wouldn’t a universe devoid of conscious experience (besides God’s) be preferable to one in which any conscious beings experience infinite suffering? None of these questions can be satisfactorily answered by traditional religious believers.

It is worth noting that some theologians attempt to soften this problem by reinterpreting Hell not as a place of active eternal torment, but as annihilation — the simple cessation of existence — or as a state of self-chosen separation from God. These reinterpretations, however, fare little better. A god who creates beings he knows will choose annihilation or permanent alienation from all goodness remains difficult to reconcile with omnibenevolence. The problem does not dissolve — it merely changes shape.

So, the Epicurean Paradox, with the Problem of Hell taken into consideration, points out that the typical religious conception of god presents an apparently irresolvable contradiction. Theologians and religious apologists have proposed various solutions to this paradox, however, none of them appear to withstand serious scrutiny.

UAP and the Singularity

2022-09-27 /

The following is my speculation on the increasing emergence of evidence for the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and how it might relate to what I see as the approaching technological singularity event.

Photograph from Department of Defense / AP

All of human history will someday be seen as a selection process that gave birth to the first Earthly artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the resulting technological singularity event.

Intelligent biological life is unlikely to persist on a cosmic timescale. The universe is simply too volatile and inhospitable to biology of the sort we are familiar with.

At some point, relatively soon after the singularity event, I believe we will effectively become post-biological — probably in a manner similar to that described in the transcension hypothesis — and move into “inner space” (that is, we will move outside of our universe, in a sense, and into a preference-optimizing simulation).

At this point I believe we will join a galactic or intergalactic community of post-biological or synthetic biological entities. A community whose scout probes — that is, what we call UAP (most likely AGI-controlled von Neumann probes) — are probably already here in anticipation of the emergence of our singularity event.

These scout probes may also be steering this process in subtle ways, preparing for our transition, or, more ominously, standing guard in case there is an alignment problem that constitutes a threat to their (and / or our) existence.

Whoever wins this race to the singularity is who will determine our future — that is, what values will dictate our future, and our possible position in the cosmic community.

This situation is highly concerning, considering that our superpower governments have little concern for the suffering of non-human sentient beings, and many do not even have a great deal of concern for human suffering.

An AGI that develops under the influence of these value systems could place national (or ruling class) imperatives over universal concern for sentient life (perhaps setting out to dominate rather than liberate).

It is my hope that something akin to Pearcean abolitionism (constrained, Walk-Away-from-Omelas negative utilitarianism) or Ataraxism guides AGI development / alignment. And that something similar guided ET artificial superintelligence — if, indeed, that is what created these UAP.

The Wisdom of Youth

2021-12-09 /

When we think about young people, in general, we tend to think of their errors — their naiveté, their recklessness, their pretensions, etc. — however, we fail to see the ways in which young people are perhaps wiser than the aged.

Unsplash

I argue that young people are generally wiser than adults in some important ways. This wisdom may stem partially from the fact that young people have not yet been fully indoctrinated and broken by society, and in the sense that they seem to understand that life is to be enjoyed to the fullest. Yes, they are prone to mistakes because they lack life experience, but they intuitively know that adults have become neurotic with worries. They can see from the careworn faces of adults that they are beaten down — trampled in the rat race for money and status.

Most adults are miserable. They desperately clamor for status to impress others, or to prove that they are normal or successful. The happy marriage, the good job, the big house, or even the special attention and sympathy that comes with victim status — these things become an obsession for so many adults.

Young people — if they haven’t already been brainwashed by the dominant culture, or toxic subcultures — tend to laugh at these pursuits, and would much rather just be having fun with their friends. (Note: Yes, status games tend to start in the teenage years — due to the prison-like social environment most young people are thrust into — however, status seeking does not seem to reach its obsessive climax in most individuals until the adult years).

Adults tend to create problems where none actually exist. They believe they have been harmed just because they were told so. They are consumed by fears — many with no basis in reality. They use their fears to justify an excess of authority in the home, in the school, and in society in general. In the age of woke signaling, the only oppression that seems to have popular support is the oppression of youth. (This is not to argue that young people do not need leadership from elders, but rather to argue that this leadership is often taken to authoritarian extremes.)

Adults, and especially religious authorities, do their best to make sure guilt and shame are heaped onto young people for any real or perceived misstep in their ways. They must be brought to heel for their own good, and for the sake of their “eternal souls”.

Young people tend to lack the pretense of metaphysical certainty, and they seem to be naturally irreligious in the absence of indoctrinating influences. They tend to see through religious pomp, and often mock the senseless narratives of the world’s major religions. Adults, on the other hand, are so terrified of death and punishment in a supposed afterlife, that they revere or cling to whatever superstition wins the popularity contest in their culture.

Young people are often idealistic, sometimes naively so, and many adults love nothing more than to shoot down youthful idealism. “Life isn’t fair” — who hasn’t heard this cliché in their youth? Incidentally, this cliché seems to be employed most frequently by those who want to justify unfair conditions. What is missing in this retort is the sort of nuance that would make it worth uttering. What should be said is: “Life isn’t fair. We must accept those unfair aspects of life that we currently can’t change, and work on those we can — in order to make things more fair.”

If we can learn to recapture the wisdom that we had in youth, we can combine this with the aspects of wisdom that come with age. We can start to live for fun again, but do so in a less reckless way. We can recapture our idealism, and temper it with an understanding of what we can control and what we cannot. We can jettison our superstitions and neuroses and live life without a concern for status games, and without an irrational fear of death.

We were all fools in some ways when we were young, but we should also consider that we were wiser in some ways. Never let your youthful spirit die.

“A man’s maturity — consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play. ” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Epigrams and Interludes, 94

Does The Bible Offer Sound Moral Guidance?

2021-07-11 /
Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Without question the Christian Bible contains some timeless and sound moral principles.

For one, there is the golden rule — a moral maxim that predates Christianity, and is common to most of the world’s religions and life philosophies, in one form or another. In the Bible, the golden rule is expressed in a variety of ways. Most succinctly it is stated as: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).

The principle of universal beneficence to other humans is also expressed in Galatians 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), makes it clear that all people are to be considered “thy neighbor”.

There are many admonishments in the New Testament against self-righteous judgement of others, and hypocrisy (e.g., Matthew 7:3–5; Matthew 23:24; Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). Many of our modern over-zealous moralists could benefit from reading these passages. There are also many passages on the importance of forgiveness and compassion (e.g., Ephesians 4:31–32) — two things that the world definitely needs more of.

In contradiction of this noble wisdom stands the fact that most of the Bible is devoted to hatefulness and commandments to violence. Below are several examples.

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for actions that our society does not even consider criminal.

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).

“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:9 NLT).

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT).

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB).

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21 KJV).

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21 NAB).

The Bible is degrading to women.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are” (Exodus 21:7 NLT).

“When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening” (Leviticus 15:19–22 NIV).

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is god. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9 KJV). *Note: New Testament verse.

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16 KJV).

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 NLT).

“Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law” (I Corinthians 14:34–35 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression” (I Timothy 2:11–14 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“’Have you allowed all the women to live?’ he asked them. ‘They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man’” (Numbers 31:15–17 NIV).

“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Deuteronomy 25:11–12 NIV).

The Bible is not tolerant of other religions.

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him” (Deuteronomy 13:13–19 NLT).

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:7–12 NAB).

“Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death” (Deuteronomy 17:2–5 NLT).

“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20 KJV).

The Bible does not condemn slavery.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property” (Exodus 21:20–21 NAB).

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever” (Exodus 21:2–6 NLT).

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them” (1 Timothy 6:1–2 NIV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

The God of the Bible desires animal sacrifice.

“The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the Lord. You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting. You are to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord’” (Leviticus 1:1–9).

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Many Argue that Jesus does away with the Old Testament Law, but, in fact, he seems to support it — at the least, he does not seem to oppose it.

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid” (Luke 16:17 NAB).

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17 NAB).

Further, the Trinitarian doctrine — which most Christians espouse — confusingly holds that the Old Testament God, Yahweh, and Jesus are but different manifestations of the same entity.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Clearly the Bible does not accord with our modern consensus morality on most issues. Nor does it give much consideration to the suffering of non-human animals. It is easy to see how some of these passages may have inspired the historical atrocities committed by believers.

Fortunately, there are many life philosophies that offer an alternative to Christianity and traditional religion in general (e.g., secular humanism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Unitarian Universalism, secular Buddhism, etc.).

The Danger of Unrestrained Morality

2021-05-19 /

Moral foundations theory describes how humans evolved to possess innate moral impulses. These impulses drive us to value:

  • fairness
  • purity
  • in-group loyalty
  • liberty
  • caring for others
  • respect for authority

These six moral foundations are found across all human cultures, however, they are expressed and understood in various ways depending on the particular culture or subculture in question.

Image by Anil John from Pixabay

Moral impulses were selected for in our evolutionary history due to the fact that they are essential to a social species, and because they tend to enhance group fitness. In a society these moral impulses are codified into laws and moral norms —what we generally refer to as morality.

Morality, however, is often a double-edged sword.

While moral impulses and moral norms tend to enhance group fitness, some moral systems may harm group fitness. And unrestrained morality, in any society, has the potential to be a serious threat to the well-being and liberty of the individual.

Those who run afoul of popular morality have been treated with extreme cruelty throughout human history — either by a retributive (rather than remedial) legal system or through vigilante acts. Morality has also been used to drum up support for various forms of violent aggression (e.g., pogroms, terrorism, wars of aggression, etc.), and it has been weaponized in order to persecute those who have simply been accused of wrongdoing.

In recent times we see this type of abuse associated with “cancel culture”, however, this phenomenon is nothing new (for historical example see: McCarthyism, witch hunts, the Inquisition).

A modern philosophically and scientifically informed view of morality demonstrates the complexity of moral questions, and it confirms descriptive moral relativism — that is, it shows that what is considered morally good (or bad) in regards to particular issues changes over time and varies from culture to culture. This fact provides prima facie grounds for being skeptical about moral realism, and at the very least it should make us question the epistemological status of generally accepted morality.

A philosophically informed view also provides prima facie reasons (at the least) to be skeptical about free will. If humans do indeed lack metaphysical freedom of will, then no one can be said to be deserving of punishment. Even if we assume some degree of free will, there are many reasons to oppose cruel punishments, and any sort of aggressive violence in general. Additionally, ignorance and neuro- or psychopathology are much more parsimonious explanations of antisocial behavior than metaphysical evil (all of which are possibly remediable).

In consideration of this view, one may be tempted to give up on the project of morality entirely (that is, to accept a passive form of moral nihilism), but this would be a mistake. Morality is necessary for the practical functioning of human society.

What is needed is a system of morality that is grounded in compassionate understanding, and which is appropriately restrained by philosophical reason.

Plato, and Freud — who borrowed from Plato in his work — wrote about why morality must be restrained or guided by reason. Both Plato and Freud viewed the human psyche as being divided into three parts: a rational part, a primitive desire-driven part, and a moral part. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer (reason) who has to restrain and coordinate the actions of a white horse (morality) and a black horse (primitive desire). Freud describes a tripartite psyche divided into the ego (the organism’s conception of self — which uses reason to understand the world), a superego (morality), and an id (primitive desire). These conceptions are helpful when we think about the influence of morality on the individual, and on society.

Both of these thinkers emphasized the importance of reason as a moderating force to restrain or guide these two instinctual drives. If either of these instinctual drives is given too much freedom the individual will be in peril (as will be those they interact with).

Reason, for example, informs us that retribution and cruel punishment are not actions that have clear justifications (see my point about free will above). Rational analysis also shows us that we should withhold assent to some moral impulses — such as those to purity — since they are outmoded in light of a modern understanding (such as a modern understanding of disease causation).

If one’s moral impulses are not restrained by reason, they may become an inspiration for cruelty in the form of retribution, hate, and aggressive violence. History is rife with examples of aggrieved groups standing up to injustice, only to end up matching or overshadowing the injustice of those they opposed. We see this today in some of the most zealous segments of the cultural Right and Left.

Generally speaking, certain segments of the cultural Left want to enact violence on those who do not share their conceptions of the moral foundations — their egalitarian view of care and fairness, and their emphasis on positive conceptions of liberty; whereas those in certain segments of the radical Right want to enact violence on those who do not share their in-group loyalty / care, their meritocratic conception of fairness, and their emphasis on negative liberty.

If one’s moral code can be used to justify a non-defensive infliction of harm, then it is not sufficiently restrained by reason. And without reason we have no hope of arriving at significant intersubjectivity about moral questions — we will only have competing systems of morality based on epistemically suspect cultural conventions like dogmatic religion or folk wisdom.

If we do not challenge priggishness on the individual level we risk developing a judgmental attitude that results in conflict and possible social alienation; similarly, internally focused judgment can harm us by engendering unproductive guilt and shame. On the societal level we risk the possibility of letting anger and vindictiveness grow until violent conflict is unavoidable. Only critical thought and reason can prevent these damaging consequences.

Social Justice Warriors: The New Moralists

2020-11-14 /
Kenneth Copeland “Wind of God” [Digital Image]. (2020). Retrieved from
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kenneth-copelands-wind-of-god / “Triggered Feminist” [Digital Image]. (2017). Retrieved from https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/triggered-feminist–2

Abstract/ TL;DR: Many modern secular moralists act in ways that are counterproductive to the urgent cause of creating a more just society — especially by exhibiting an alienating sanctimoniousness and over-zealousness for morally condemning others. The pejorative term “social justice warrior”, with its connotations toward self-righteousness and officiousness, is often used to describe such individuals. To effectively advocate for social justice we must combat this tendency to hyper-moralize or use morality as a weapon for “canceling” or punishing those who do not share our views; instead, I propose that advocates of social justice should adopt an approach that is more compassionate and more conducive to changing individual minds and changing society.

Social Justice Warriors: The New Moralists

There has always been a tendency in society that leans toward moral obsessiveness. Historically, obsessive moralists were religious theists that believed the creator of the universe had handed down moral imperatives, however, in modern society secular priggishness is just as common as the religious variety. The pejorative and sarcastic term “social justice warrior” (SJW) is commonly used to refer to one of the largest cohorts of secular moralists — as they tend to focus much of their moral scorn on real or perceived social injustices (sexism, racism, ableism, etc.) — and because they exhibit a characteristic over-zealousness and overreach in their approach.

To be clear, I am not criticizing the movement for social justice or prescriptive morality in general, rather I am criticizing the sledgehammer approach to prescriptive morality / social justice (or, colloquially, moralizing) where nearly every aspect of life is scrutinized to absurdity — and in which there is no coherent ethical theory or theory of human psychology to guide this scrutiny. This sledgehammer approach also tends to take the maladaptive approach of globally labelling people as good or bad, rather than their specific acts — an approach which is counterproductive for several reasons.

The most salient examples of this new moralism gone astray invoke Poe’s Law with their tendency toward hyperbole: feminist scorn over the horror of “manspreading”; the interpretation of just about everything as being a “microaggression”, or an overt form of bigotry; the idea that the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science need to be decolonized; describing even the most benign examples of trans-cultural diffusion as cultural appropriation; the belief that minority groups cannot hold racist views; the belief that the best way to counter prejudices is to invert them (e.g., matriarchy instead of patriarchy, counter-racism instead of anti-racism); etc. An internet search of any of these terms will provide plenty of examples if you haven’t been keeping up on the culture war.

The problem with this moralizing is not that sexism, racism, or other forms of prejudice which contradict human rights do not deserve moral concern — they very much do! — it’s that our approach to correcting these injustices must 1) identify actual cases of unjustified prejudice (rather than what are likely false positives); 2) seek to explain the origin of prejudice cogently, and 3) use this information to combat prejudice effectively — without exacerbating divisiveness and alienating people.

Unfortunately, many proponents of social justice fail in all three of these areas, such as by identifying innocuous behavior as prejudiced or by advancing illogical definitions of prejudice; by misidentifying the causes of prejudice; and by causing alienation and division in various ways (e.g., through the use of hyperbolic or histrionic rhetoric, by advocating cancel culture vindictiveness, by espousing a puritanical and unreasonable set of counter norms [such as hyper-political correctness, hyper-vigilance in calling out perceived wrongs, or ideas similar to vicarious atonement for ancestral sin; etc.].

Irrespective of causative explanations for this moral scrupulosity on the sociological level, the distal origin of this phenomenon, on the individual level, is the human mind itself, which possesses evolved emotional impulses (see moral foundations theory) to engage in moralistic judgement — impulses which may become hyperactive or problematic when they are not restrained by rational faculties or judicious moral codes (see The Danger of Unrestrained Morality). When this scrupulosity is turned inward we might refer to it, in Freudian terms, as an overactive superego — and this form of neurosis frequently leads to a self-defeating and non-productive anxious preoccupation with one’s current or past actions. Such a preoccupation paralyzes the individual in a self-imposed hell of unproductive shame and guilt (see Albert Ellis on guilt/shame), thereby preventing growth.

This self-punishment does not help anyone and harms the individual, perhaps preventing them from making the changes necessary to truly change for the better. The adaptive converse of unproductive shame or guilt does not attach essentializing labels to oneself (you are not defined by your history), and believes in the possibility of reform; such an approach involves the recognition and acceptance of past wrongs, and an earnest commitment to not making the same mistakes in the future.

Just as with inward hyper-moralizing, turning unrestrained moral impulses outward, onto others, leads to a similar type of harm — this time in the form of applying essentializing condemnatory labels to others. Such an approach is likely to cause an amygdala response that results in the accused becoming more entrenched in their position (see reactance), or it may result in a paralyzing shame that prevents the individual from changing for the better; what it is very unlikely to do is to result in critical reflection and/or a positive change in their behavior or beliefs. Further, this approach engenders non-productive anger and retribution, which perpetuates the cycle of conflict between groups. History is replete with such examples. As the proverb states, hurt people hurt people…and so on, ad nauseum. Further exacerbating this harmful moralizing is the moral impulse to in-group loyalty or tribalism — which ironically also drives many of the hateful ideologies which prejudiced individuals cling to.

To draw an analogy with religion, the modern secular moralist resembles the Pharisee or the Sadducee whom Jesus criticized for myopically focusing on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. And, just as with the hyper-religious moralists in the story of Jesus, the modern secular moralists wield morality like a weapon — with an intent to “cancel”, or psychosocially destroy those who have transgressed. This approach is problematic on multiple levels, but most importantly it is likely to alienate people, including allies, and it is not likely to produce a situation in which an offending individual can grow or reform themselves (if, indeed, they have done anything that is clearly harmful); in other words, it is a punitive and retributive approach to justice. From a rationalist perspective, Christian morality and metaphysics are grossly flawed, but secular moralists would do well to consider the admonishments to forgiveness, compassion, and against moral hypocrisy, which are said to have been espoused by Jesus.

A more effective approach to morality — in terms of inter-subjective sociocultural goals — should, first and foremost, focus on reforming problematic behaviors and dialectically countering hateful ideologies; additionally, it should be grounded in reason (including the consideration of theoretical and evidence-based skepticism towards individual free will; the tenuousness of a permanent concept of personal identity; and a logically parsimonious, constructivist conception of morality — all three of which serve to temper hyper-moralizing), compassionate beneficence, and a non-retributive/non-maleficent conception of justice (social or criminal). A dialectical and non-retributive/non-punitive approach is more likely to circumvent the amygdala response that causes a person to dig in their heels, and is therefore more likely to change minds.

Anger in response to oppression is entirely understandable on an emotional level, however, it is not likely to be effective when it inspires action. Rational understanding is the antidote to untampered anger, and this approach appears to have a better case record of success. When we eliminate the destructive passion of vengeful anger from our minds and from the social sphere we will witness the birth of a less hateful, less violent, and more compassionate world.

Revolution and Evolution: Why Those Seeking Social Change Should Understand Adaptationism

2020-10-14 /

In modern evolutionary biology there is a core concept known as adaptationism (or functionalism). Adaptationism seeks to explain a trait’s existence by describing the adaptive function it serves.

In other words, adaptationism proposes that the most likely explanation for why a particular trait was conserved (i.e., persisted over time), is the one that best demonstrates why it would be adaptive — that is, why the trait serves to increase individual or group fitness. For example, it is hypothesized that dinosaurs first developed feathers for thermoregulation, and later some species developed more specialized feathers — such as those that enhanced gliding abilities. In this case, feathers served a primary adaptive function — to insulate the body; this and other, secondary functions (sexual signaling, gliding enhancement, etc.) helped ensure that the trait was preserved after it appeared.

Cultures, in many ways, are analogous to organisms — a fact that is illustrated well by Richard Dawkin’s concept of a meme, or a unit of cultural information that is analogous to a gene in biology. Due to these analogical similarities we can often develop an understanding of cultures and cultural phenomena by appealing to evolutionary principles.

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay.

An adaptationist view of cultural evolution holds that a cultural phenomenon is extremely unlikely to have been conserved if it was not advantageous to the population. The adaptationist view, when applied to culture, seeks to describe a cultural phenomenon in terms of its function or adaptive purpose. For example, some hypotheses explain the cultural phenomenon of religion through demonstrating why such a belief system could prove to increase the fitness (the group flourishing and persistence over time) of a culture — or, more precisely, the population which gives rise to the culture (see evolutionary psychology of religion).

[Note: Over time it is possible that successful cultural adaptations are encoded genetically through a culturally mediated selection processes. For example, certain forms of prosociality are socially enforced, which tends to increase the reproductive fitness of those who are predisposed to adhere to them.]

Those who want to do away with worn out cultural norms or create major socioeconomic changes should first seek to develop an adaptationist approach to revolution — that is, before they advocate for eliminating a targeted cultural institution they should seek to understand why it might have come into being, why it persisted, and then propose an alternative that will better serve its societal function/s —that is, if it is indeed found to still be performing important functions.

(Note: It is possible that a cultural institution has never served an important function — rather, that it is a spandrel, however, one must investigate to discover whether this is the case. It is also possible that a cultural institution may be an exaptation — initially developing as a byproduct or for a particular purpose, but finding later utilization for an altogether different purpose.)

The general principle or heuristic that prescribes the above approach is known as Chesterton’s Fence. This principle uses the analogy of a seemingly purposeless fence found on a road to illustrate why it is important to find out if there is a purpose for something before we do away with it. In this analogy it is possible the fence is serving an important purpose — such as, blocking a danger on the road; if we assume the fence is purposeless and hastily tear it down there may be negative consequences.

One prominent example of the above is the critical situation posed by dogmatic religions (and dogmatic ideologies in general). A cogent case can be made that many of these belief systems now constitute a real existential threat to our species — regardless of how adaptive they were at one point in history. It is likely, however, that religions still serve important adaptive functions in peoples’ lives, and in society.

Psychological research has revealed some of the primary adaptive functions of religion. Religion helps to build an individual’s social support network, it serves to provide a scaffolding for personal meaning creation, it provides practical wisdom and ethical guidance, and it functions in a terror management capacity to assuage death anxiety, epistemic uncertainty, and to connect the individual to something bigger than oneself.

If we are to supplant dogmatic religion we must promote rational philosophies of life that can also serve these functions. (For some examples see: secular Buddhism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Liberationism.) Likewise with any other outdated cultural institution, an approach to revolution that is conscious of cultural adaptaptionism is much more likely to succeed than one that only seeks to destroy the existing order.

The Ethical Case Against the Death Penalty

2020-01-02 /
Image from National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty — http://www.ncadp.org/

There are a number of arguments that have been used to challenge the death penalty. For example, many have argued that the criminal justice system is flawed by biases and other errors of judgement. Due to this fact, innocent people have been put to death in the past.

According to one study, 4% of those sentenced to death are wrongfully convicted.

Since humans are prone to bias, and because mistakes can be made, more people will undoubtedly be executed for crimes they did not commit in the future.

Opponents of the death penalty have also pointed out that there is racial bias in capital punishment sentencing, and that there is no definitive evidence to support the hypothesis that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than non-lethal options.

These arguments, like those that appeal to the comparable costs between capital punishment and life-long imprisonment, are largely pragmatic arguments — that is, they show that there are problems associated with using capital punishment, rather than showing why it should not be considered as an option on ethical grounds (even if there were no problems involved in its administration).

In this article, I will focus on what I find to be the most compelling ethical arguments against the death penalty . These arguments appeal to generally agreed upon human values such as compassion and fairness .

I believe one of the strongest ethical arguments against the death penalty is that it runs counter to the idea of reforming individuals; rather, the death penalty gives up on the hope of changing a person for the better.

As our understanding of the mind and human behavior increases it is likely that we will one day come to better understand the causes of antisocial behavior, and effectively eradicate these causes or their effects. For example, we now understand that head trauma and environmental factors like abuse and toxins can result in neurological injury that predisposes individuals to impulsive and violent behaviors.

Additionally, neuroscience has discovered that executive function, including impulse control, relies on a degree of frontal lobe development which may not occur until the mid-thirties (and can be retarded by chronic substance use, toxins, physical or psychological trauma, etc.).

The fact that the state has executed a number of minors (including 14 year-old George Stinney, whose guilty verdict was posthumously overturned) and intellectually disabled persons becomes even more depressing in light of this awareness.

Dramatization of 14 year-old George Stinney being strapped into the electric chair in the movie Carolina Skeletons.

A more informed and rational view of severe antisocial behavior makes it apparent that we should regard this behavior not as incorrigible evil, but as neurological or psychological pathology — pathology which we currently may not be able to effectively treat, but which we one day will. [Note: For a beautifully done theatrical exposition of this argument view Star Trek: Voyager “Repentance” Season 7, Episode 13.]

Another strong ethical argument against the death penalty points out the hypocrisy of the act, and the effect it has on society of promoting retribution and cruelty.

If we are to take a morally legitimate stand against non-defensive violence, we have to oppose such acts in all instances. Since an incarcerated individual is in a situation where they are unlikely to continue to harm others, there is no justification for committing an act of violence against them. To do so would be to act in aggression, rather than in defense. Further, a cogent case can be made that state uses of aggressive violence help to foster a culture that sees the use of violence as an acceptable, morally defensible way to deal with conflicts or perceived injustices.

It may, of course, be argued that chronically violent individuals still pose a threat when they are incarcerated — to other inmates, and, possibly, to the general public if they were to escape. This, however, is only a practical argument which points out one potential negative consequence of death penalty abolition. Rather than viewing this as a strong argument for the death penalty, it would make more sense to see this as an argument against allowing individuals predisposed to extreme violence to have unsupervised or unrestrained contact with others — and for taking stronger measures to prevent the escape of individuals who pose a danger to others.

A civilized society must, if it is to be ethically consistent, oppose all uses of violence that are not justifiably defensive in nature. The state has no moral legitimacy in condemning murder if it engages in acts that could also be seen as murderous or torturous by rational persons. As long as we allow the state to use aggressive violence we are all complicit in these unjustified killings.

Please take action by donating to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty or Amnesty International.

Newer posts »

© 2026 Max Severin

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑