Relativist to Consequentialist

Hello, here is another long one, but I can't see breaking it up. I hope it is worth your time. I am working up, perhaps, a book or headache. Have some wine and cheese.  Or, get your computer to read out loud.  Mine actually does that.
-----------------

In the last entry, I mentioned there are differing ideas as to moral philosophy. Of course, these ideas reflect what people really do and try to figure out what is going on; they are not lists of commandments.

One school says there is some sort of objective standard, the other says, ultimately, any standard is personal. Which ever one you tend to be in, you will find the opposite to be strange.

Relativism is on the ascendancy, these days, as we lose or change our Gods, our faith in principles, and deference to laws. Indeed, there is a circle here, one item reinforcing the other. The "me" generation has come to fruition.

Those who find solace and logic in accepted standards are deeply upset, albeit an undefined distress, in the face of blatant relativism. though they are not permitted to object as it would be incorrect, a clever device to spread relativism. When someone stands up to define his standard, he is mocked.

The universities are filled with those who mock. It is an easy thing to do, requiring no intelligence, especially when the target sees personal attacks as irrational and distasteful, not worthy of response. It is easy to attack someone who has to work for a living and has no time to engage in schoolyard games.

So, Bob says "X," and the relativist aspect of our society attacks him, not "X." They don't understand Bob is following X, they feel Bob is X, all things being relative.

Bob merely shrugs in confusion at the irrational attack. His response would probably be lame, having little time to formulate clever arguments, which will bring on more insults. Bob probably know, anyway, you can't really defend an X by nay-saying personal attacks. He doesn't understand the attacks are planned to control others and marginalize Bob in the eyes of the vaguely aware.

The relativist outburst is not really a conversation, it is never about convincing Bob that X is not correct, that some assumption must be addressed; rather, it is about humiliating him and keeping the bleating audience under control. This is the Bill Mayer school of education. Bob is an idiot. Har, har. The audience is happy. That other "comedian," I forget, can quote something out of context and do his double take. Har, har. Clap, clap. Then, we can have a top ten list.  Chuckle, clap. The orchestra played when the Titanic sank.

For his part, Bob walks away to live his life as honor requires and will vote on this matter, if he ever gets a chance to address it.  He is the "cowboy" universally mocked by relativists. In a failing republic, Bob will see his efforts are becoming pointless. Frustration will build to dangerous levels as Bob is not stupid, nor passive. Indeed, he has been exercising control, as his paradigm requires.

Bill Mayer will continue his mockery; more and more sheep created. Then, as the relativists start to absorb Bob's children, he will no longer be passive, at a certain point. Before that, he will be deferential an assume his children are not being brainwashed.

Sound familiar?

So, we have the contrast between those who find standards to live by and adjust themselves accordingly and those who don't believe in standards at all, just notice a moving framework of opinion and laws. Those who want to become, say, an good engineer and those who want to cash out and buy a new car.  As the relativists say, those who die with the most toys, wins. Character, again, is destiny.

The relativist sees no fixed world and no fixed moral or intellectual standards. They like the idea of investing money to make money, not making a better mousetrap. That is for chumps. This craving for ends at all cost devolves rapidly into chaos, so the relativist rabble will realize they have gone to far and fall in with a tyrant, who will now provide his standard. This is history 101.

The tyrant has his own relative standard that he imposes on everyone else, being smarter and all, as tyrants must believe. The masses, for awhile, having bought in, think of the Helsinki syndrome, and will act as though this relative standard of the tyrant belongs to them and will act to defend it.  This is why the cult of personality is important to tyrants. We need Obama hymns for elementary school.

This scenario brings up to the next concepts to visit:  one I often refer to as means analysis, the other, the yan to its ying, is ends analysis.

Philosophers call the ends analysis "consequentialism."  They have to do that to keep their jobs in a college. We can merely think of the conflict as ends vs. means. This is at the heart of the consternation tearing apart out country. It sounds so simple, but few recognize the importance of how we look at life.  Due process is not a rule to discard to win the game; it is the game.

Again, I raise the compass metaphor. A broken compass, before you leave the dock, will take you somewhere not expected and all the course adjustments you work up will  not help.

A person who is focused on the ends has no need to consider the sanctity of any methods to get there. If the end is justified, then the means are justified.  It is that simple, yet few consequentialists will admit to that as they don't bother with understanding their idea. It just is what it is. Consequentialism is a personal, perhaps selfish, philosophy: I want something, so I will take it from those who have it - why is everyone so upset? Those who object need only be crushed or converted.

This is a simple, essentially emotional response to what is perceived as a simple life.

Gangsters live by this view, violence is very efficient, and it works until other gangsters kill them. In 2001 our ancestral simians fought for food and water, then, one day, the monolith comes along and teaches one group how to use weapons, aka reason, as if there is a difference. There is no discussion of the monolith creating a framework to study how to share the water hole; rather, the viscous apes with the extra ability to enforce stealing, do so.

Flash to 2010. See any difference?

The confusion for the means-analysis people (dentological ethics) is that they just don't get what is going on. They accept standards, rules, laws, moral codes and assume others do as well. This prompts them to meet the strange sounding conflicting apes by having a meeting with them, using their standards, rules, laws, and moral codes. They do not understand the apes have a leg bone, now, and are ready to dent in dentological heads. If you are playing second base, you don't expect the runner to break up a double play by shooting you.

The playing field is not as obvious as the watering hole in 2001, but it is the same. The leg bones are the very laws and traditions accepted by the means people, who, according to their own standards, permit the ends people to operate freely within the standards and traditions.  Those standards were developed over hundreds of years, or, one can say, thousands, and are part of the basic personality of the dented ones. It becomes their achilles heel.

I can't find the YouTube video, but a few years ago an arab in Brooklyn was in the street burning an American flag. He was shouting that America has a weakness: free speech. I think he said something like, "We can use it against them."  I wonder if we all understand he was not an hysterical nut, as the film would suggest to a means person, rather he was an understanding consequentialist operative.

The ends people just see methods as a weakness and use the standards as bones. Their goal is to crack heads and steal the water hole. History shows, ends people can do that when the means people are not watching.The force of tradition and history is not to be denied, however, and the ends people get their ends, but to get back on the road of historical development, to a society that respects rules over personal whim, will cost many lives, in many ways.

At least the prototypical mafia guys are upfront about what they are doing. In the past, people understood that lords and ladies are just hitting them on the head, but in a graceful way and with a little twist of the law in their favor. The Marxists, however, have, at least after Marx and Lenin, have operated in the shadows waiting for the time to make their moves to steal a water hole. Surreptitiousness, coupled with the means' peoples lack of attentnion, is a powerful bone.

These ends people call themselves Greens, progressives, community organizers and such, but those packages are all a political facade. During the election, Mr. Obama denied, with a dismissive chuckle (be aware of this technique of mockery) that he is a socialist. If he believes that, we are in more trouble than I thought and of an entirely different nature. Of course, he knows he is. He grew up, on all sides, in the Marxist mind-set. Socialism is as socialism does. Joe the Plumber knows these people aren't interested in discourse or due process.

There are always relevant distinctions that can be drawn, such as socialist leaders are hardly the people they manipulate, look at the money Gore makes, but you can clump everyone together, for a short blog, and say the heart of the socialist movement is:  I need more stuff. I want your money.  I can't or won't start or run a business, but that is your fault, so give me your money. I am entitled to it, see we have a new law telling you to. If I have to I will sit in a government office and not answer phones.


The entitlement to results of others work becomes a moral standard. Finally, a standard, no more relativism or consequentialism. My end is now a moral dictate and any disagreement will be dealt with, as there is no due process, we killed it. There is no moral relativism from now on.


If a business person replies, but I will go broke, people will lose jobs, or I will leave, the response is a vacant stare. They want your money. Don't confuse them with how you get it or what will happen if they start to steal it, sorry, vote to share it.

To the essence of my point: The consequentialists do not respect the Constitution, laws, or moral traditions. They mock traditions and use your silly due process to reach their ends. They will use all means available at any time to acquire their ends, having no comprehension  of or respect for the due process and fairness rules that created the game in the first place.

Consequentialists would stare blankly at one who said the majority of Americans were in favor of school prayer or against feticide, but that the people honored the rules of the society and accepted distasteful ends. To the consequentialist, those who honored their own rules are morons who should be led. They don't understand the wonderful changes coming, so it will be forced on them.

Friends mention that the left, the ends people, have a long view and are executing a plan long in the design. I am not so sure that is true, though there exists a plan book now being used, but that will come to an end. leaving the players to make up plays as they go without the benefit of standards.  I suspect it is more likely ends people refuse to accept any end other than what they want. They merely use all the bones they pick up in the area to work toward it. They work with people who actually have other ends, but, for now, are useful.

The evolution of how this plays out is demonstrated by the history that is no longer being taught in our schools beyond names and dates. Eventually, as the past explains, tyrants take control when conditions are right.

When the tyrants sit back for a second and think, the muse, Hm, other people will do the same thing to get their ends, so we better kill them off, starting with those who led the charge to my end because they know what to do and don't have my ends, the dopes. This is exactly what Hitler and Stalin did. The first to go are the generals, intellectuals, and activists. Recall the movie The Killing Fields? The Jackal, the early terrorist, has even written that it makes sense to work with the socialists, now, to destroy the West.

This is hardly new, google (now a verb) Federalist Papers #10, a brilliant discourse on avoiding consequentialism, a term not in use then. Then, there is Hoffer in the 1950s. Means people instinctively understand what I am saying and the ends people stare blankly and think about how it would be nice if I disappeared.  So, there really is no point to discourse.

This leads us to the reality that there is a power struggle, a civil war, that is not within the rules though it pretends to be a political debate. It is a war between the game itself and the anarchists who pretend to be in the game. It is between liberals, defining the word properly, and conservatives, on one side, and consequentialists on the other. The ends people can be called socialists, communists, anarchists, but the thread is the same: they want your stuff and don't care how they get it. If they win, you lose. Theirs is not to negotiate, it is to win.

The question appears: if there is a war with those who want to destroy your game, the rules inside your box cover, do you use those same rules, the ones you love, to defend yourself even if they will result in your losing?

Do you bring boxing gloves to a knife fight?

The answer is unpleasant, but unavoidable.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he thought he had to in order to keep it.  Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese-Americans when he thought he had to in order to defend their rights to due process.

When the game box itself is under assault, the rules to the game will be put aside; it will happen. One can worry about the idea that the game is lost, if you dishonor the rules, but in battle, only the pacifist has the ability to suffer the consequences not resisting.

Most of us, in the end, become consequentialists, a primitive, yet, human condition. When this happens, civilization itself is in the balance, even where one of the desired ends is to return to a government defined by means. Any war, lets lose its dogs, on both sides, and dogs are consequentialists.