Category Archives: Ethics

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part SEVEN): Practical application and examples of Argo’s universal and objective morality

“The violation of morality is to be found in all instances where one attempts to apply contradiction, the ultimate imposter of truth.”

I know that this explanation is relatively enigmatic, so in this last installment of my series on objective and universal morality, I will provide the reader with some clarity by referencing practical examples of moral violation and showing the connection to contradiction.

In the last article I used the example of “apple” to reveal how the attempted application of the contradiction of “apple”—that is, that an apple both is and is not an apple—renders that concept useless, and no longer available to the observer in order to promote himself nor reality in general. “Apple” is an aspect of existence no longer available to him; he has willfully rejected it by attempting to synthesize what IS the apple with the infinite absence of the apple (NOT apple).

By accepting that IS simultaneously IS NOT, the observer has ultimately undermined his ability to ever discern truth from falsehood. “That which is, also is not” is a black hole of meaninglessness which renders epistemology ultimately moot. And without the means to declare truth, via a rationally consistent epistemology, existence, reality, and the observer at their very natural root are irrelevant. And so go the metaphysics. Contradiction destroys the observer and reality by destroying epistemology which destroys the metaphysical substrate of existence, itself. And that is why “thou shall apply truth consistently” is THE categorical moral imperative.

Now, let us examine contradiction as it applies to more profound, substantive issues than a mere apple. And the most profound, of course, are church and state.

Look at the history of both of these institutions, and behold the mountains of dead bodies and oceans of blood; witness the endlessly burning cities; hear the thousands of dirges sung around countless funeral pyres. We wonder and marvel at the seemingly infinite capacity for mass destruction and death, and ever expanding heights of misery and torment; their love of war, hatred of the masses; their deftness and dexterity of lies and artifice and manipulation and their insatiable lust for everything evil.

Well, wonder no more. I will tell you why they are so evil, and why their god is satan, and why they ever worship and kneel before the bottomless pit into which they have ignobly dumped all love, virtue, compassion, honesty, honor, integrity, competence, truth, meaning, and peace.

“Contradiction” is not just an awkward, four syllable word; it’s not merely a fun little category of logic; not merely a “gotcha” of philosophical debate.

Have you ever wondered why even good men and women have participated en masse in the atrocities of church and state which have littered history for thousands of years? What is it about these institutions, which we are told are established by men and God for the glory, protection, and perpetuation of the human race, that in virtually all instantiations and in all times leads to absolute and abject collapse of all that is good and holy, even though they may be filled with the brightest minds, the most competent hands, and the most compassionate souls mankind has to offer? Why, in even the best of times, do these institutions constitute little more than an inexorable march toward schism, war, tyranny, and mass murder?

Look no further than the contradictions which are so inherent and endemic to church and state that without these contradictions, neither of these institutions can be defined at all, let alone established as the official head and potentate of broad swaths of humanity.

Government and the church rest upon on a single, primary premise which is so profound that it cannot be overstated, and utterly metaphysical at its core. It is relatively easily articulated, yet so all-pervasive and so widely accepted as ipso facto that it can be exceedingly difficult to see. And this premise is: the root existential evil and insufficiency of man.

Let us distill church and state down to a simple analogy. The point of this article is to show how contradiction leads to chaos, and a good example of inevitable chaos is the attempt to move that which is immovable. In other words, if my only fundamental purpose is to move that which is immovable, then I will always fail. My failure will be infinite…there will be no hope of success. I will try and I will try until I collapse and die, because that is my purpose. The entirety of my endeavor will be defined by frustration and pointlessness. Why? Because I have established my purpose upon a contradiction.

So it goes with church and state. The church exists to compel man into goodness, because man himself is utterly incapable of goodness in his very nature (the doctrine of Total Depravity, rooted in the allegory of the Fall of Man). He is, by dint of birth, an affront to God. The church must thus compel him into goodness by force and threat, that he may be acceptable to the Divine, for man cannot do this himself because all he does and all he thinks and all he wills comes from a place of root existential moral failure.

The state exists to compel man into a successful and meaningful life, because man, himself, is insufficient to his own existence. Left to himself, his life must necessarily collapse into a festering pit of of conflict, exploitation, oppression, misery, and death. Man is, by dint of his very existence, incapable of the life implied by his birth. Therefore, the state must, by threats and force and punishment, compel him into a life of meaning and success and peace. Man cannot do this himself because all he does and thinks and wills is from a place of root existential inadequacy.

Do you see the problem? Can you see the looming disaster and chaos just over the next hill?

Both the church and state exist specifically to solve a problem for which, according to their own fundamental and self-admitted purpose, there can be no solution.

Man is by the very fact that he was born at all, utterly exclusive of goodness and utterly exclusive of the efficacy of life.

Without the church man is an inexorable and absolute slave to evil, because that is the sum and substance of his very nature…his very being. Yet this description of man makes moot any action the church may take to rectify man’s insuperable natural flaw.  Man is entirely exclusive of good; it cannot be forced upon him any more than he can earn it, because if it could, then it would mean that man is NOT in fact naturally exclusive of it, and this undermines the basic essence and relevance of the church. If man is not exclusive of good then does the church actually need to exist at all? That question becomes debatable at best, and I submit that the answer is ultimately no. Because the very admission that man is not by nature exclusive of good is to cut out the heart of the church.

The same argument can be made of the state. The description of man as naturally insufficient to his own life and prosperity makes moot any action the state may take to rectify this flaw. Man is to be compelled by force of law into his life and existence in absolute existential spite of himself. This kind of strategy is categorically unmanageable. The implementation of such a strategy is a forgone, abysmal failure, because it is rooted in an impossible contradiction: that man both can and cannot successfully exist according to his nature. The consequence is catastrophic moral disaster, where only suffering and destruction and death is reaped for the ruled, and likewise, inevitably, for the ruler. The fool who leads is crushed by the same folly that flattens his followers.

Both the church and the state are inexorably anchored to an intractable contradictory purpose which can only equal the very misery and chaos which history has seen them produce time after; and this misery and chaos they will always produce, forevermore, until they are finally abolished. That contradictory purpose is, once again: to solve the unsolvable; to move the immovable.

Thus, we witness in church and state the moral disaster of the failure to implement the categorical moral imperative: Thou shall apply truth consistently.


Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part SIX): The objectively subjective consciousness fallacy

I suspect that the bulk of the criticism of my theory of objective, universal moral ethics will focus on the conscious observer. Consciousness is something to which I clearly appeal as being integral to objective moral ethics, as well as epistemology and metaphysics…well, to the whole of philosophy, really. In other words, let me be clear: the claim that consciousness is purely subjective and epiphenomenal with respect to reality makes reality impossible to define, thus there can be no truly efficacious defense of reality at all. All declarations of truth—of anythingmust and do proceed from a singular conscious frame of reference.

This is not a defense of the “primacy of consciousness” metaphysic, but it IS a defense of the inestimable and critical metaphysical value of conceptualization—which is the only relevant function of consciousness—and similar value to epistemology; and from epistemology, to ethics, and the rest of philosophy.

All truths are conceptual, and this is because all truths must be defined, understood, and willfully applied, otherwise they are meaningless. And “meaningless truth” is a contradiction in terms. It is not enough to observe a tree, but “tree” must be conceptualized in order that it be defined and differentiated from the rest of reality. All distinctions are fundamentally conceptual. Conceptualization is thus the fundamental efficacy of what is observed. Observation qua observation is redundant. Sense data need not be sensed at all unless it is conceptualized, and via conceptualization, constructed into an epistemological framework by which the the observer can derive and discern truth.

I find it helpful to assume that “consciousness” and “conceptualization” are essentially synonymous…at least with respect to metaphysics and epistemology. The only relevant function of the consciousness is to conceptualize…to create concepts for what is observed, and from these build language, and from that language communicate with other observers.

And this is key. Asserting the object necessity of consciousness in building an efficacious and meaningful epistemology is NOT asserting consciousness, itself, as the objective metaphysical and/or epistemological standard. Conceptualization implies language, and language implies communication, and communication implies “other”. Meaning that if the conscious self (the self-aware observer) conceptualizes and thus must communicate, then the self necessarily implies other selves with whom to communicate. So it would be foolish to pretend that the self qua self is the root arbiter of what is truth and reality. That is, to assume that one’s self qua one’s self is the plumb-line by which anything is called real, and true, and ethical, is indeed merely an appeal to solipsism, which is completely irrational, because it is easily proven to be wholly subjective. Yet accusations of solipsism and other such vapid, ethereal ideologies are invariably leveled against anyone who claims consciousness as not only necessary, but fundamental, to objective reality, truth, and morality, by those who assert the primacy of existence as the metaphysical absolute.

So if it isn’t the self, itself, which provides the singular and immutable reference and standard for truth, morality, and so on, then what is it?

As stated, the only relevant aspect of consciousness is conceptualization, to the point where there can be no fundamental difference between them (consciousness IS conceptualization, and vice versa); and conceptualization implies language, and language implies communication (with the OTHER, or other selves). Therefore the objective epistemological and ethical standard is necessarily that which enables objective, relevant, meaningful communication. In other words, the standard is that by which it can be said that communication has actually occurred. And that of course is conceptual consistency. Another way of putting it is “rational consistency”, or reason.

And this is why contradiction is an abject imposter of truth, and thus cannot be successfully applied, and thus all attempts to do so are necessarily, universally, and objectively immoral (see part five of this series). Contradiction denies the efficacy and meaningfulness of communication, and likewise language, and likewise conceptualization, and likewise the observer, and without the observer there can be no one to define and declare that reality is in fact real; and thus reality, itself, collapses.

The presumption that all morality must invariably be subjective—a collection of nothing but infinitely relative hypothetical imperatives—of OUGHTS—which have nothing ultimately to do with objective reality—that which IS—is precisely rooted in the arrant denial of any objective, and thus fundamentally relevant and meaningful, value of the consciousness to existence…to reality, itself.


So, what are the underlying presumptions of the of the nature of consciousness upon which are established the arguments against universal, objective morality?

They are as follows:

That consciousness has no foundation in existence because it is entirely transient (born out of nothing, dies into nothing). And existence is the root standard of objectivity. Therefore consciousness must be entirely subjective. Yet consciousness is singular and absolute in its essence—it is experienced as “I”.  And thus it is concluded that it must be singularly and absolutely subjective. Any attempt then to interpret, define, and apply one’s existence from the internal frame of reference of the conscious self must necessarily result in complete chaos. Sense data, interpreted and applied to, first and foremost, the promotion of one’s self, which is entirely subjective and thus entirely relative, will necessarily pit man against his fellow man, and against his environment, leading inevitably to social collapse, societal collapse, structural collapse, and infinite moral atrocity.

The conscious self then must be anchored to that which is outside of itself. That is, all the conscious self thinks, wills, and desires must be referenced to an objective reality outside. Sense data is to be considered inexorably distinct from the conceptual interpretations of the consciousness.The data is categorically a priori, de facto, intransigent, constant (in its nature), and absolute. This reality—this reality which exists, period—is the reference by which all thought and belief, ethics and politics, should be tied in order to avoid the inevitable chaos that a primacy of consciousness shall deliver. The primacy of existence, on the other hand—the conscious will’s utter deference to objective reality outside itself— is humanity’s bulwark against superstition, mysticism, ideology, self-absorbtion, moral relativism, and all other forms of epistemological and moral relativism, which can only lead to chaos, vice, and misery.

Sense data is a bridge between the infinite objectivity of existence (of reality outside of one’s self) and the infinite subjectivity of consciousness. Consciousness does not interpret what the sense data delivers—it does not create meaning. Meaning is dictated to the consciousness from the “outside world”. What the sense data delivers, it delivers. Any notions regarding greater meaning to the self; any interpretations beyond the face value of the facts; any arrogant assumption that the conscious self is entitled to any role or should have any say In the grand and greater purpose of existence and objective reality is a violation of truth and an appeal to madness; it constitutes rank violent selfishness, which seeks to sacrifice objective reality, and all others in it, to one’s self, merely for one’s own subjective pleasure.

The idea that consciousness is in any way creative, that it any way determines the fundamental nature of what exists—of what IS—, that it is anything more than a receptacle into which objective sense data is dumped, and for no other reason than to perpetually inform the consciousness of its utterly transient, subjective, and thus ultimately irrelevant nature, and that consciousness “exists” only to regurgitate the self-evincing facts of external objective reality, and thus to promote existence as everything and itself as nothing…yes, any and all suggestions that consciousness is anything more than some enigmatic, fundamentally unimportant, redundant epiphenomenon of existence, is to be condemned and dismissed as an appeal to pure mysticism at best, madness at heart, and pure criminal bloodlust at worst.

The self should ultimately resign itself to being basically a disinterested bystander to reality and existence. It should seek moral good, yet understand that moral good is found in the rejection of the efficacy of will and an acceptance that one’s conscious existence is ultimately an illusion, and thus of no real  purpose. There is no reason to assert one’s will upon the world, nor upon one’s fellow man, since doing so can only lead to chaos, and thus unnecessary misery for one’s self and others. The limiting and/or elimination of unnecessary suffering by rejecting the idea that one’s self is entitled to anything from existence is the greatest, and only, moral good achievable for the conscious self. To have compassion on one’s fellow man is to recognize that the violation of him to one’s own subjective will doesn’t do anything for one’s self in the end, and only invites unnecessary suffering. One should seek to make the subjective experience of conscious existence as painless and comfortable as possible.

The practical ways in which this shall be achieved vary widely, of course, since no objective moral behavior can be prescribed from a purely subjective conscious existence. Morality, which is only of any use to the conscious self, has no relevance thus to objective reality outside. Morality then, constitutes the subjective, or hypothetical “ought” to the “is” of objective reality.  All moral codes and strictures, then, are relative, and attempts to mitigate unnecessary human misery should be interpreted contextually only, and no attempts should be made to categorically condemn any person, or group, based on some kind of impossible objective moral value system. This means that proponents of the metaphysical primary of existence (of “objective reality outside one’s self”) can be found in all manner of social systems in the world and world history, from national socialism, to representative democracy, to anarchism, to communism, to oligarchy, tribalism, theocracy, etc. etc. Since existence is objective, and consciousness is subjective, then differences in how men choose to organize themselves politically and socially ultimately boil down to subjective arguments over which system reduces unnecessary human misery more, or less. There is evidence that liberal democratic systems are temporarily more comfortable, but comfort is, itself, simply a relative assertion. All debates about the supremacy of one political system over another are really debates over “how much” suffering is too much; and this because humanity, being conscious and thus purely subjective and transient, is always giving way to the unrelenting encroachment of objective reality. In other words, suffering is endemic to consciousness. Death is inevitable for the self, and so the nature of one’s life, morally speaking, is fundamentally irrelevant. Disagreements over the “proper” social and political systems then, are ultimately unresolvable, and thus will inevitably lead to violent conflict.

There is no objective moral or political argument to make if we accept that existence implies the fundamental subjectivity of human consciousness. We understand that everyone eventually dies, and by this we mean that the consciousness fades into oblivion, and leaves a legacy with no objective meaning, and humanity is utterly at the mercy of the objective reality outside itself, and has no real substance, and no real place in the grand scheme of things. All ethical and sociopolitical debates are little more than killing time until we return to the anomalous abyss from which we mysteriously sprung.


The problem with this interpretation of consciousness is that not only does it preclude the possibility of any objective morality, which is scary enough in itself, but it precludes the possibility of any real ethic whatsoever (please see parts three and four of this series for a comprehensive explication of this). With the rejection of consciousness as anything but a complete anomaly to reality and existence, its categorical subjectivity making it completely insufficient to the application of truth, one finds an empty hole where ethics should be. Since the conscious observer acts from a completely subjective frame of reference, he is ultimately unable to apply truth in any objective way, since he is always inexorably acting from his own consciousness.

Without the applicational of truth to a purpose outside of truth, the truth can never be verified as actually true. Truth then becomes a merely tautological proposal—truth is verified by the mere fact that it is true (it’s truth because it’s true; its true because it’s truth). Objective reality which is fundamentally outside of man—outside of the conscious self—is a reality which finds him completely irrelevant. His will is of no ultimate value; his thoughts unnecessary.

And despite arguments from objectivists, scientific determinists, and other adherents of pseudo-rationalist philosophies, there are only two types of experiential outcome from  this kind of epistemology. And they are…

Since man is fundamentally unable to apply truth, he is ultimately unfit for existence. Man proceeds from his singular conscious frame of reference, but because this frame of reference is purely subjective, and irrelevant to the objective reality outside himself, his will is incompetent; his thoughts are irrational; nothing he does can have any real value or meaning to anything which objectively is. There are only two possibilities then for man as far as his existential experience are concerned: totalitarians or chaos. It’s either complete authoritarian control, or the complete lack thereof. If man is left to himself, his innate and inexorable existential insufficiency demands that he implode into a thoughtless, hopeless, helpless, chasm of complete and violent existential failure, each man taking all other men with him.

The other alternative is to appeal to some transcendent authority…a collection of rulers who can appeal to some kind of divine or extra-ordinary enlightenment. A priest class, if you will. Maybe actual priests, or maybe representatives of a self-deluded liberal democracy, or the commissars of some nominally atheistic communist state. Whatever. In any case, the totalitarian manifestation of the rational failure of primacy of existence metaphysics and epistemology leads to the very chaos that that totalitarianism is intended to prevent.

And the irony cascades.

END part SIX

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part FIVE): Formula and Explanation of Objective Universal Moral Ethics

In this installments of the series, I will elaborate upon my theory of objective and universal moral ethics. In part one I made the claim that this was a relatively straightforward and simple proposition, and I still maintain this to be the case, though my approach is perhaps unexpected.

My theory of objective moral ethics is based upon a number of basic and uncomplicated, yet fundamental, logical proofs:

1.Truth, in order to be validated as true, and thus meaningful, and thus relevant, and thus not a tautological fallacy, must have purpose…purpose, that is, to something other than itself.

2. Purpose implies volitional application of truth by that which observes truth from an immutable and singular conscious/conceptualizing frame of reference. This frame of reference is known as “the Observer”.

3. Conscious, volitional application of truth cannot occur if the truth being applied (or, more specifically, attempting to be applied) is presupposed to be both IS and IS NOT at precisely the same time from precisely the same observational and/or conscious-conceptualizing frame of reference. This constitutes a contradiction.

4. Failure to apply truth consistently (attempting to apply a contradiction) renders truth necessarily meaningless, and thus of no use to the observer. The observer is therefore unable to validate any sense data, idea, thought, suggestion, supposition, assertion, etc. etc. and thus can make no actual, relevant observation of any kind. Thus, his very metaphysical essence and purpose is nullified and he is consequently anathema to reality. Yet this also constitutes a nullification of reality, since a reality absent the conscious-conceptualizing observer is one that cannot be fathomed. An unfathomed reality is a reality which cannot be defined, and thus cannot be said to exist at all. That is, a reality which does not exist to the observer is, in every relevant and meaningful way, a reality which does not exist, period.

5. Failure to apply truth consistently (attempting to apply a contradiction) undermines all that IS at the fundamental, irreducible metaphysical level. This failure must be considered an objective ethical violation—an objective evil—given its categorical nullification of ALL. The opposite then must necessarily be considered an objective ethical affirmation—an objective good; to apply X where X is X, and only X, and only ever X, and cannot be considered simultaneously NOT X, is an objective, universal moral action.

Here again is my formula for moral ethics (and I use a formula because this is the best way to distill a universal, immutable axiom down to its simplest description. A formula is also good a way to demystify a claim; to declare its universal rational, practical, utilitarian, and egalitarian essence. This empowers the axiom…it does not, as some might claim, render it merely a cold, academic proposition. It makes it infinitely and wonderfully relevant; it does not relegated it to the ethereal esotericism of religion and spiritualism, or any other such psycho-emotional bromide which seeks to ostracize the intellect):

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously NOT X)

This ethical formula makes it possible to objectively validate the moral value of any actual or theoretical action taken in service to any idea, based upon the rational consistency of that idea. That is, should one attempt to apply a truth claim which either is, or is interpreted or manipulated to be, a contradiction in whole or in part, we can know that that application is necessarily immoral in that the attempted application of a contradiction is the attempted application of false truth, which leads to conclusions which must necessarily deny the observer by making efficacious integration and interaction with reality impossible by him, which undermines both reality and the observer.

Assume X (a given truth) is “apple”. That’s is, we can declare that the fruit in our hand is an apple. And from that truth, we can do  virtually an endless number of things with the apple. But there is one fundamental thing which, if we choose to attempt it, nullifies the truth and leads to conclusions which contradict our very selves and reality (and everything and everyone in it). And because of this, this choice must be considered an objective evil.

if one chooses to define the apple as being both “apple” and “NOT apple”, then “apple” can never truly be applied; any application thus shall be infinitely inefficacious, and the consequences shall be metaphysically and physically destructive. If I claim, directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly, that apple is simultaneously NOT apple, then both the physical and metaphysical universe are inexorably damaged. “Apple” here is a concept which can have no meaning to me, thus that particular truth is utterly stripped from me, and indicates a fundamental failure of my conceptualizing powers, which has profoundly negative  metaphysical implications. I am no longer able to apply the concept “apple”; any attempt to do so must lead to chaos. There is no such thing as an IS which simultaneously IS NOT; any attempted application of such is the very definition of chaos. To attempt to apply “IS which IS NOT” inevitably leads to both physical and metaphysical death for the observer, and along with him, reality itself, by removing the means by which reality can be declared real. This must therefore be considered objectively immoral.

Complicated contradictions like those found often in science (e.g. determinism) and religion (e.g. divine omnipotence) are sometimes difficult to see (or people are unwilling to see them) and thus in response to the necessary resultant chaos from their attempted application, more and more contradictions are offered as solutions. Oftentimes, these “truths” are punted into some ethereal, pseudo-intelligentsia limbo, where they are said to be so profound and so mysterious and so infinitely paradoxical that they are beyond man’s apprehension, and therefore must be taken on faith alone.

In summary, the attempted application of contradiction results in a chaos which implies physical and metaphysical death to the conscious and volitional observer, and therefore to reality, itself. Thus, the attempt to apply contradiction is universally and objectively immoral.

Certainly, these ethics have an inexorable part to play in declaring the objective immorality of the most overt and atrocious of human behaviors, such as murder and theft and rape, etc. However, broaching this issue here is both unwise and unnecessary. Unwise because it involves a detour and distraction in the form of a complicated and perhaps abstruse (for a specifically ethical discussion) examination of the metaphysics of the observer (of the Self); unnecessary because the task here was to dismantle Hume’s is-ought dichotomy as it pertains to the denial of objective and universal morality, which has been accomplished.

“One shall apply truth consistently.”

Or the obverse:

”One shall not attempt to apply a contradiction.”

There is no “ought” to these categorical moral imperatives, though I suppose one could render a kind of ought:

“One ought not attempt to apply a contradiction.”

But this ultimately misses the real issue, which is that the is-ought dichotomy Hume asserts with respect to moral ethics is a non-sequitur. It isn’t that Hume is entirely wrong about deriving an “is” from an “ought”, it’s just that this is entirely irrelevant.

Objective moral ethics (or ethics at all) aren’t about how one ought act in service to truth, but how one will act—this is why they are objective and universal. Truth cannot be a contradiction—all contradictions are fundamentally null; all attempts to synthesize IS and IS NOT, or One and Zero, are void. So the objective moral ethic isn’t that one ought not apply a contradiction, but that one cannot apply a contradiction. And this is the heart of why attempts to apply contradiction are metaphysically and physically destructive. They  cannot be applied, because they are a categorical lie, and so the consequences of attempts to do so result in, ultimately, the death of the Self and the death of Reality.

As I have stated, application of truth is necessarily volitional, so we need to be clear: the truth is not dictating its own application to the observer who applies it. Truth must be willfully enacted, and this to validate its truthfulness to the conscious/conceptualizing observer. The fact that one must inexorably apply truth consistently—that one has no choice but to do so—does not make truth’s application any less volitional. It is merely an ethical fact that one shall apply truth consistently or one shall not apply truth at all. Should one attempt to apply a contradiction, he shall reap the inevitable negative existential consequences. And this is why attempting to apply contradiction is universally and objectively immoral.

“One shall apply truth consistently.”

This is your categorical moral imperative. There is no hypothetical scenario possible. There is no “if”. Since contradictions are epistemologically impossible, the consistent application of truth is a categorical ethical imperative. A hypothetical imperative, should we attempt one, could only be fallaciously rendered as follows:

“One ought apply truth consistently IF one wishes for truth to be in fact true, reality to be in fact real, and one’s self to in fact exist.”

And here you can see the madness of the hypothetical. Truth and one’s existence are immutable premises, not subjective conclusions.



Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part FOUR): The implicit epistemological contradiction of Hume’s Law—an epistemology both with and without ethics

As we continue our deconstruction and dismantling of Hume’s Law, it is important to examine the intrinsic contradiction found in the relationship between ethics and epistemology as implied by the philosophical assumptions underwriting Hume’s claim. What Hume’s Law does is create an implicit mutual exclusivity between epistemology and ethics. This is a violation of the basic principles of philosophy and philosophical thinking, and is a large part of why Hume’s law is a rational disaster.

I went into the relationship between philosophical categories in part three of this series in some detail, so I will only summarize it here. The five major categories of philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics—-do not exist in a vacuum of themselves. They all share a corollary relationship with one another, and the sum of the categories serves to reinforce the metaphysical primary (the nature of reality, itself…the root IS of all that is). However, it can be helpful to simplify the relationship between the categories by arranging them linearly, as follows: Metaphysics implies epistemology, epistemology implies ethics, ethics implies politics, politics implies aesthetics. This fact has profound and inescapable implications for any ethical claim, and certainly for Hume’s Law. What the inseparable and corollary relationship between the philosophical categories demands is that if any one category is deemed objective—and by “objective” we mean fundamental, irreducible, universal, absolute, and infinitely consistent—then all categories must be equally so. If one makes a claim to “objective truth”, which is an assertion that one’s epistemological premise naturally promotes axiomatic distinctions between correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge, then one is necessarily, though perhaps implicitly, making a claim to an objective ethic. This fact is an immutable philosophical attribute. One cannot claim objective philosophical category X and then from that conclude that philosophical category Y is therefore subjective. This is impossible. But this logical failure is completely endemic to Hume’s Law.

For example, “Objectivism”,  as far as I understand, is a label derived primarily from the assumption of the objective nature of “Existence”…Existence being the Objectivist metaphysical primary. This being the case, then any objectivist is bound by intellectual integrity in the form of rational consistency and non-contradictory truth to assume that their ethics are likewise objective. Again, it is a rational impossibility to achieve a subjective from an objective. And interestingly, and ironically, this point is the exact point Hume’s Law makes. This being the case, it is then impossible to obtain a subjective ethic from an objective epistemology (a subjective right and wrong from an objective truth and falsehood). But this is what advocates of Hume’s Law inexorably do, and their intellectual and philosophical failure in this is insuperable. What they claim is “no objective and universal morality”, but what they mean is “no objective and universal ethic” (please refer to the distinction between ethics and morality I spoke of in the last article of this series).

Advocates of Hume’s Law do not seem to understand how profoundly undermining this is to their arguments. Those that do will argue that they are not in fact making a claim that ethics, itself (the category), is completely subjective, but only that moral ethics are. But the fact is that one cannot rationally argue for any objective ethic if one presumes that volitional behavior (conscious behavior, as a function of consciousness) is irrelevant with respect to objective truth (objective epistemology). Meaning that whatever one chooses to do is irreducibly subjective, making volitional behavior completely absent any real and true foundation, which means it can have nothing fundamental to to with the “objective truth” from which that behavior is given meaning.

Remember, one MUST assert an ethic if one is asserting an epistemology. And if one is asserting that the epistemology (fundamental truth)  is objective then that which necessarily follows—the ethic—must likewise be objective. And what is the ethic? The ethic is the application of truth to purpose which validates truth. Correct application of truth validates that truth is in fact true, thus this application is “good”. Incorrect application contradicts and thus does not affirm truth, and thus this application is “evil”. Application of truth is necessarily and inexorably willful…that is, it is the volitional application of truth. A non-volitional application of truth is impossible, because such application cannot be said to have purpose, and without purpose truth is irrelevant. And irrelevant truth is meaningless truth, and this is a contradiction in terms.

What are the ethical options for one who proclaims that truth is objective but volitional behavior in the application of truth is not? There are only two, and each one is as invalid and rationally bankrupt as the other. The fist option is to declare that ethics simply do not exist at root; that their fundamental subjectively gives them no foundation and thus no fundamental connection to objective truth and thus no fundamental connection to objective reality…they are severed from the “Real”, as it were. This fails the rational integrity test because epistemology without ethics is impossible—without ethics, truth cannot be validated as true. The second is to appeal to some non-voluntary ethical system, like legality. But in order for a legal ethic to manifest one must assume and then establish an authority which has the power to compel ethical behavior. Yet only two such authorities can be claimed: human and divine (and make no mistake, Determinism, which is the metaphysical trope of many atheists and agnostics, to which they appeal as a get-out-of-god-free card, is merely an iteration of Divine Mysticism…it appeals to an omnipotent force which infinitely eludes man’s understanding because it infinitely determines all that he does, all that he is, and all that he knows, and thus thinks). The first authority fails because it is comprised of men…men must choose to establish such authority; men in authority then must choose to compel by force other men into the legal ethic. )Without force, law is not law, it is suggestion). So to claim non-volitional ethical behavior in service to one’s “objective” epistemology by relying upon the choices of men to establish coercive authorities and the choices of rulers to enforce legal ethics is a contradiction, and thus fails at being an involuntary ethic, and thus is an invalid alternative to moral ethics. The reason legality is an ethical disaster and inevitably leads to totalitarian misery is due to the inherent contraction which says that ethical behavior shall be compelled in the masses by the ethical choices of the few who rule. Legality is an attempt to ethically synthesize free will and force. It will never work, and for obvious reasons. Thus, legality cannot be considered a valid ethic, let alone an objective one. Thus, to assert a legal ethic is to assert no ethic at all.

The second fails because divine coercion of men’s behavior is a root undermining of men themselves. A man unable to act in service to truth of his own conscious volition is a man for whom truth is utterly irrelevant, thus such a man can never apprehend truth in first place. Truth absent the ability to apply it is truth absent purpose. And purposeless truth is irrelevant truth, and irrelevant truth is meaningless truth—a contradiction in terms. Thus, one cannot simultaneously claim such a thing as objective truth but no objective means to apply that truth via one’s conscious volition. To remove volition from understanding is to undermine understanding entirely, and therefore no objective truths can ever be claimed because they cannot be validated. The appeal to the divine authority (like Determinism) to force ethical action is in reality the assertion that no ethic exists. This violates the philosophical axiom which says that epistemology MUST imply ethics.

The point I am making with all of this is that one either concedes objective moral ethics—volitional behavior in service to truth—or one cannot concede that any ethics exist at all. And without ethics, there is no objective truth. Without ethics, there is no epistemology. What is true and false must be volitionally applied (morality) in order that he who apprehends truth can validate it according to observable outcomes from his own existential frame of reference. A truth which cannot be volitionally applied is irrelevant to the observer, and thus the observer has no way of knowing that truth is in fact true.

In short, epistemology demands ethics; and not just any ethics, but specifically moral ethics.


The idea that truth can be known, but never applied, is really the heart of Hume’s Guillotine, and this is both a great irony worth pointing out (because it mirrors the irrational ethical implications of Christianity’s description of man’s fallen nature), and a fundamental failure of logic which collapses the whole idea. One can know truth, but never act in service to it. Truth, absent the ability to apply it in service to a purpose, makes truth infinitely irrelevant to he who apprehends it. In other words, Hume’s Law apologists want their cake and to eat it, too. They want to proclaim the existence and fact of objective truth—the ability to apprehend it and declare it—yet they want to deny any objective application of truth in order to practically, empirically, and efficaciously validate that the truth is in fact true. They would argue that truth is self-evident, but absent any objective application of truth, truth is only really “evident” to itself.  This is circular, redundant truth, which is a logical fallacy in the form of tautology (it’s true because it’s truth; it’s truth because it’s true), not to mention an infinite reduction to zero. Any truth without validation via the objective volitional application of truth by the conscious observer of truth (he who apprehends and declares that truth is in fact true) can never, ever, by any means be known to be true. Truth without application to purpose by the observer is irrelevant truth, which makes it meaningless truth, which is a contradiction in terms.

And the great irony here is that what the advocates of Hume’s Law do is the exact same thing the evangelical Christians they so vociferously deride as irrational fairy tale—worshipping harpies do. These “doctrinally pure” Christians, particularly of the Calvinist pedigree, proclaim that man, though he is capable of apprehending truth from falsehood, is, due to his fallen and depraved nature, utterly incapable of applying this knowledge to any good end, making all his actions evil by default. And thus, it is not that man commits sin and is thereby condemned, it is that he IS sin—meaning that his very will is banished from ethical behavior altogether. Man is death incarnate not because he chooses to act in evil ways, but because his nature precludes him from ANY moral compass whatsoever. He has knowledge, but his will is infinitely irrelevant to that knowledge, making that knowledge useless to him. And thus, he is essentially born dead. And this is why he needs saving…and in comes the opportunistic priest class to rescue him from his existential dilemma. For a price, of course. It will cost him his freedom, his individuality, his dignity, his property, his mammon, his labor, his truth, his self-will, his mind, his family, his future, and his life in general. But hey, at least he is right with God.

The Humean ethical apologists are no different.  They make grand claims to objective truth and existence, but then declare that ethics is dead and morality with it. Via some  impossible and essentially mystical contradiction—like objective epistemology without objective ethics—they bind man to an intellectually bankrupt determinist fate and offer him the bromide of nihilistic scientific practicality, with implicit nods to the psychopathic priesthood of the State; and offer draconian legal controls with State violence and the seizure of body and property (as incentive and punishment) as some kind of ethical answer to their empty metaphysics. The deride morality as a merely the shiny obsession of a fool and offer you the madness of the of infinite separation between thought and action as an answer to their ethical failure. They replace the soul with death and the light with darkness.

But hey, at least you are right with god. Not that the Humean apologists will call him that.


Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part THREE): The difference between ethics and morality, why ethics and morality cannot be avoided, and why this is an insurmountable problem for advocates of Hume’s Law

Before we go any future on the specifics of the “is-ought” dichotomy, it is crucial that we understand the distinction between ethics and morality. Anyone not able to clearly articulate the differences between these two philosophical ideas and how they specifically relate has no business discussing Hume’s law, or any other ethical or moral question, for that matter…because they can have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Understanding Hume’s is-ought dilemma and, more importantly, its complete rational, not to mention ethical, failure is predicated upon knowing the difference and the relationship between morality and ethics. Thankfully, it is quite simple.

“Ethics” is the broad philosophical category. Morality is a type of ethics—an ethical system based upon a specific epistemology, and this rooted in a specific metaphysical description of realty…a metaphysical primary. Moral behavior can be ethical behavior, but only if the ethics being implied are rooted in an epistemology which implies morality, and that rooted in a metaphysics which implies the epistemology which implies the moral ethics.

Not all ethics, therefore, are moral. Legality, for example, is a completely different type of ethics, because legality is rooted in fundamentally different epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, there is for example no such thing as a “moral law”…this is a complete fallacy. “Moral law” is a contradiction in terms, because morality and legality presume completely different epistemology and metaphysics (a comprehensive discussion of this can be found in many previous articles on this blog). Speaking of “moral law”, a third example of ethics might be a hybrid of legality-morality that one might find in western liberal democracies, where the law is said to exist in service to moral truths. This hybrid is fundamentally irrational and observably false, because governments dictate, they do not suggest, and you cannot dictate morality. Morality is rooted in choice. One only acts morally IF they are able to exercise choice. Legality is rooted in authority, and authority is force. And forced behavior is by definition behavior which is compelled, and thus is irrespective of choice.

So, whenever morality is discussed, such as in Hume’s Law, it is important to remember that we are dealing with a specific kind of ethics—morality—and these are rooted in specific epistemology and specific metaphysics. Hume’s Law would be anathema to legality, other than perhaps a tangential affirmation of it, because legality cannot accommodate any “ought”—categorical, hypothetical, or otherwise. Legality tells us what ethical behavior one WILL DO—or else suffer punishment from the external authority in charge—not what one ought do—or else suffer consequences that one has brought on himself.

Hume’s Law only addresses morality, and specifically, it is the explicit assertion that morality is an irrational type of ethics, and thus is not objective, and thus does not actually exist, and thus is utterly inefficacious and irrelevant to reality and truth. Proponents of Hume’s Law are NOT—and this is crucial to understand—denying that objective ethics exist even if they think they are (and I submit that likely most of them do). They are merely denying that objective moral ethics exist.

But the declaration of the utter spuriousness of morality MUST be based upon preconceived epistemological and metaphysical assumptions. In other words, ethical conclusions are an unavoidable outcome and consequence of epistemological and metaphysical foundations and assumptions, and are derived directly from them. That is, those foundations inexorably and inevitably lead to ethical conclusions, and thus cannot lead to NO ethics. They may not lead to no MORAL ethics, but they will lead to some type of ethics.

Therefore, the question which should be routinely posed to proponents of Hume’s Law and advocates of the is-ought contraction is: What are your ethics? What is your definition good and the evil if not in terms of morality? And if they have no answer, or their answer is incomplete, then they can have no real argument against morality. Because it means that their metaphysics and epistemology have lead them either to NO ethical conclusions, which means that they have NO understanding of nature of reality (metaphysics) and NO understanding of what constitutes truth (epistemology), OR their metaphysics and epistemology are false and/or insufficient. In either case, they can make no rational claim against morality, since one can only disprove a given ethics—in this case morality— by providing more logical and consistent ethics, and this by holding a more logical and consistent epistemology and metaphysics.

And this, I submit, is impossible…moral ethics are in fact the MOST rational ethics possible. In my experience, without moral ethics one is left inevitably defending either the idea of “no ethics”, which is impossible because any ethical assertion, even the conclusion that there are no ethics, is based upon metaphysical and epistemological conclusions that MUST and NECESSARILY lead to specific ethics (the conclusion that there is no ethics implies that there is no epistemology and no metaphysics, which means that they cannot assert anything about ethics including that they do not exist; in fact, they cannot assert anything about anything at all), OR they are left defending legal ethics, which are rooted in rationally bankrupt metaphysics.

Just quick word on that:

The metaphysics of legality are unavoidably determinist, which makes them inexorably a zero sum proposition. The assertion of determinism is the assertion of nothing at all. Any determining force must itself be determined, since all of its outcomes, according to the very nature and definition of determinism, could at no time, ever, have been theoretical, hypothetical, unknown, or non-existent—in other words, the determinist force at no time could NOT have determined the outcomes it determined, making the outcomes of determinism as infinite and absolute as determinism itself. This leaves no distinction between the determinist force and the outcomes it has determined. This makes determinism an infinite regression to itself, concluding at nothing but itself, and proceeding from nowhere but itself. Determinism—determinist metaphysics, the metaphysics of legal ethics—is a self nullifying proposition

But enough of that. On to part four.

END part Three

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part TWO): What is Hume’s Law as it relates to reality?

In the last article I laid out the basic equation for resolving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma. Here it is again, slightly modified:

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously IS NOT X)

The objective ought, then, is the non-contrary application of truth.


Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma in brief:

Hume asserts that when dealing with the question of morality—what one ought do—there is an inexorable disconnect between the non-hypothetical, objective IS of reality, and the hypothetical, subjective OUGHT of moral imperatives. For example, if God tells us that “Thou shalt not kill”, then, as a moral commandment (as opposed to a legal one, which it technically is, but for this example we will assume it’s moral), it can be more specifically rendered “Thou ought not kill”. The reason that Hume declares the ought statement fundamentally subjective is because what one chooses to do—choice being intrinsic to morality and thus “ought”—can never alter the fact that what IS absolutely and necessarily IS. The IS, you see, of anything observed and declared so, is  rooted in the irreducible and absolute reality which informs choice, and thus the ought implied by choice—or more specifically, implied by volition—must inevitably affirm objective reality, regardless of what it is; and thus whatever one chooses, and whatever one recommends others choose (ought to do), will equally affirm objective reality, making the choices and the oughts themselves purely subjective. IS IS, and always will be, and therefore it is entirely objective. OUGHT is always subjective, on the other hand, because it is predicated on a fundamentally stable and unchanging reality (as said, the objective IS). What one chooses to do may alter how one observes reality, but it does not change reality at its root, because reality is absolute and immutable. It exists outside of one’s wishes and choices and therefore one’s particular morality…one’s  “oughts”. Therefore morality, being rooted in volition and thus on “ought”, is always fundamentally subjective. It has no fundamental meaning beyond the capriciousness of cognition, and the the non-substantive nature of the abstract.

Further, by definition, choice is uncompelled, and thus it isn’t possible to declare what one MUST CHOOSE—or, what one objectively ought to do—because MUST CHOOSE implies “compelled choice”, which is a contradiction in terms (in the strictest sense, I mean…while it is true that one can be forced to choose this or that, if there is no option to not make the choice at all, then the choice itself is a false one). And this is why morality is about what one ought to do, not what one WILL or MUST do, further supporting the argument that morality is subjective.

So the Humean is-ought moral distinction means that one can never presume that one ever objectively ought to do this or that, as though what one ought to do is as objective as the frame of reference—the objective existential “IS”, of reality—to which all oughts are inexorably and naturally obligated. The assumption that oughts can be as objective as the IS of truth—as objective as the reality which is objective irrespective of man’s volition—is, according to Humean moral understanding, a substantial error of logic. What one ought to do must always be entirely subjective, since reality remains reality regardless of the ought-choice. What one ought to do is always hypothetical, and thus any categorical imperative—that one always ought make a specific choice as though it has any objective, immutable, bearing on reality—is impossible. Morality thus is always subjective.

And all of this is fine except for one thing:

It is completely wrong.

Hume’s assertions about morality and the separation between the is of reality and the ought of how the conscious observer shall engage his will in response to reality is, in all honesty, the most egregious relational error with respect to morality that I have ever had the displeasure of examining. And the fact that so many intellectuals—and atheists in particular, who are the most ironic “intellectuals” on earth, and whose apologetics are the most spurious and convoluted you will ever have the misfortune of examining—hang their ethics on such folderol leaves one wondering just where to find the “intellect” in the “intellectual”.

END (Part TWO)

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade: Solving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma is relatively simple and straightforward (Part ONE)

I’ve been sitting on this article series for a couple of weeks, ever since I listened to a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Stephen Woodford, who runs a channel on YouTube called “Rationality Rules”, on Stefan’s theory of objective universal morality, which he calls “universally preferable behavior (UPB)”. This is an interesting debate, and I encourage everyone to look it up and watch it…it was educational, though it failed to ultimately resolve anything, and leaves them both pretty much holding the same ground as when they started. This is because both are a little right and a little wrong. Stefan is right in that objective universal morality exists, but he is wrong because he doesn’t know why or how, and his UPB theory is entirely insufficient; Stephen is wrong because he attempts, through the application of “Hume’s Law”, or the “is-ought” dichotomy, to create a mutual exclusivity between epistemology and ethics (though I’m not sure he fully recognizes how exactly he does this), and he rejects the notion of universal morality; but Stephen is right in that Stefan blatantly violates the is-ought dichotomy in UPB without first resolving it, then Stefan proceeds to ignore that fact. Which is pretty bad form. Further, Steven explains that Stefan creates a circular argument for UPB by putting his conclusion (all arguments against UPB are necessarily invalid) in his premise (that to argue against UPB is to concede it). Stefan seems genuinely flummoxed by this, and doesn’t understand that this completely nullifies UPB before it reaches the runway. Which is not a great look on someone boasting his philosophical and intellectual pedigree by publishing an entire book on universal secular ethics.

At any rate, I have desired to post my resolution to the is-ought dichotomy for while now, but I didn’t know where to insert it…other matters, like the coronavirus panic and political and financial opportunism and profiteering being passed off as “public health” seemed more urgent matters to address. However, since I’ve come to realize that public and government responses to the coronavirus panic seemed to have collapsed the American State entirely, I figured that this crisis wasn’t going to end anytime soon. So…my point is, for lack of a better place or time, here it is the relatively straightforward and simple solution to the is-ought morality question:

I will start with the basic equation for a necessary and rationally consistent objective universal morality, with a little bit of description, and then I will expand on it in subsequent articles.

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X, where X shall not be applied as though X were simultaneously both X and NOT X, for this shall contradict X (contradict Truth))

The contradiction of truth by failure to accept the necessary application of truth—and this as a function of the corollary purpose of truth (for truth absent purpose is “irrelevant truth”, which is an obvious contradiction, because “irrelevant truth” is otherwise rendered “meaningless truth”)—in a way which does not contradict truth (contradiction being the implicit or explicit assertion that X simultaneously is and is NOT X) results, necessarily, in the nullification of truth, which of course nullifies any arguments criticizing universal morality as being, itself, an intrinsic contradiction.

The “objective ought”, as it were, is imbedded within and implied by “application”, which is necessarily volitional, as “non-volitional application” is merely the effect of a given cause.  Cause indeed implies effect, but this is an entirely separate issue from that of truth, which necessarily implies purpose. Like cause and effect, truth and purpose are corollary, but a cause need not necessarily have a purpose, which makes it a “purposeless cause” with a thus corresponding “purposeless effect”. And, again, this has nothing to do with truth, because “purposelessness” has fundamentally nothing to do with meaning, where truth has everything to do with it. Truth necessarily needs a purpose in order for it to be known that the truth is, in fact, truthful. As mentioned, “purposeless truth” is a contradiction because “purposeless truth” is “irrelevant truth”, or “meaningless truth”. In which case, if a truth is meaningless, then by what standards or means shall we claim that it is true?
There are none.
Therefore, to remove purpose from truth is to declare a truth only true to itself, which is a circular argument and thus a logical fallacy. In other words, “objective truth” without “objective purpose” is a circular, self-nullifying definition of truth. The objective moral ought, then, is a direct function of a truth’s corresponding purpose, and is imbedded and implied in the application of truth, which as I said must be volitional—that is, a function of will—in order for it to be application, and not merely effect.

The “New Normal” is a Euphemism for Indefinite Lockdown: Why the lockdown will never end

If you have spent any time reading this blog, it is likely that you have an understanding of the nature of government, and by that I mean: the metaphysical foundations upon which government is built. If you are new to this blog, you may not yet grasp these foundations, so I will summarize them for you now. This will not be a detailed examination of the metaphysics of the State, but for the purposes of this post, it will give you a basic framework as context:

There are basically two kinds of metaphysical archetypes, Individualist and Collectivist. Individualist metaphysics allow for few if any variations of political iterations beyond the type which is pretty well obviously implied by the archetype itself. Almost exclusively Individualist metaphysics imply categorical voluntarism as the political iteration. Individualist metaphysics presume that man is ultimately a function of Himself…that is, His own ability to exist as Self, which implies Self-ownership (one’s body is owned by one’s Self, and therefore so is one’s labor), thus individualist metaphysics simply do not and cannot accommodate the existence of Coercive Authority as a means to organize humanity sociopolitically. There is no such thing as Government or the State within the politics which proceed from individualist metaphysics. All interaction and all value exchange are done ONLY at the level of the individual, and thus categorically voluntary value exchange is the only possible means of ANY value exchange of ANY kind whatsoever. The use of coercive violence to compel behavior does not exist in Individualist philosophy…at least, not a rationally consistent individualist philosophy. Coercive violence IS permitted in the case of preventing or mediating direct violations of individuals, but due to the nature of individualist ethics, this does not constitute a violation of the Self of the one violating his fellow man, and thus it is not a violation of voluntarism. I will not describe the full complexities of individualist ethics here, for obvious reasons.

Collectivist metaphysics on the other hand not only allow for the existence of governments and states but necessitate them, because the politics implied by collectivist metaphysics are rooted in violence (force) in order to compel behavior. In collectivist metaphysics a human being is not a function of himself—his own ability to exist as Self—but is instead a function of some essentially ethereal, fundamentally indescribable, inscrutable determinative force, which ultimately defies human understanding, because its infinite nature is is perfect and absolute whilst man’s is vulgar in comparison…graceless, rudimentary, and starkly finite. This determinative force can come in many iterations, an almost infinite variety or combination of them, really, from a deity, to deities, to mathematical or natural law, to evolutionary forces, biological forces, cosmological forces, ideals based on race, or culture, or national identity, tribalism, social class, economic class, mystical caste systems, etc., etc. It can even come in the guise of individualism, such as the Ideal of The People we see in the United States, where “People” is ostensibly meant to be the collection of INDIVIDUAL citizens, but, due to the a-priori presence of the State, really amounts to nothing more than another collective ideal into which individuals must be compelled by State violence.

Collectivist metaphysics, because they reject the efficacious existence of the individual, necessarily reject the efficacious existence of individual consciousness, and thus they reject the idea that the individual is fundamentally capable of making efficacious use of his volition and choice. Therefore has no ability to behave ethically as ethics are defined according to collectivist metaphysics, and thus he must be compelled by law—where the law is merely the sublimation of State violence…that is, the law gives ethical legitimacy to the State as it commits violations of individuals in the interest of the collective Ideal. Now, in the same way, the collective Ideal is the sublimation of the State, meaning that the Ideal, such as “The People” here in the U.S., doesn’t exist in any real way except as manifest by the State, itself. So the State IS the very tangible existence of the Ideal on earth. Thus, politically, the real point is to SACRIFICE the individual to the State, in service to the collective Ideal (the ideal being the determinative force which created all people and all things in the first place). And this is NEVER seen as some kind of ethical violation on the part of the State against the individual because in collectivist metaphysics, the individual doesn’t actually exist at all, remember? Consciousness, the Self, Will, Choice…these are all illusions at best, products of the unenlightened barbarian who is simply unable to grasp the truth that he is not actually HIMSELF at all. The “sinful nature” of the individual which is his fundamental existential core is his insistence that he EXISTS. Law and the State violence which accompanies and is corollary to Law is used as a means to ultimately eradicate the Self and bring the physical body into line with the Truth, which is the collective Ideal. Once a State is established, the State is all that matters because, metaphysically, the State is all that can be said to actually MEAN anything, BE anything, or DO anything of any practical value because the State is the ONLY legitimate incarnation/representation of the collective Ideal which is a function of the Determinative Force which created everything in the first place.

So what in the hell does any of this have to do with the current lockdown?

I’m glad you asked.

First, let me say that the reason I expend so much blog real estate on discussing the metaphysical roots of the State—the nature of the State—when discussing the coronavirus situation and the lockdown is that these roots of the State are where one shall find a truly meaningful explanation for what is going on in this ostensibly irrational lockdown situation. IF you understand the philosophical fundamentals upon which the State is established, then you can see that what is happening is not merely insanity run amok, or western narcissism and societal fracturing manifesting itself in response to some perceived global existential threat, or even simple political corruption perpetrated by the large number of “bad seeds” we’ve unfortunately elected to represent us. In short, if you understand the true and irreducible WHY, which is the philosophical WHY, then you can truly understand not merely what is happening now, but what will happen next—at least generally. Though what specifically will come next may reveal itself in an unforeseen way, you will readily perceive it as a necessary effect of what came before. And furthermore you will understand what is happening now in the overall context of not only the existence of the State under whose authority you find yourself at present, but the existence of the State since its inception, and indeed, the existence of ALL States. You may not be happy with what is happening, but at least you need not be confounded and frustrated at what seems like rank madness. You will see that all the “madness” actually makes sense, and you will understand that what is happening is really the only thing that could have ever happened.

Now, referring back to the metaphysical roots of government, we now know that based upon how the State defines individuals (as not fundamentally being themSelves and having no legitimate individual existence), that the State cannot actually do anything FOR people, but only TO them. The purpose of the People—the individual people that make up a given nation’s citizenry—is to be subordinated to the collective Ideal, and this means, in practicality, to the State. This is the whole point of law. Individual choice and volition is bypassed and obedience instead is the means by which the ethics of society shall be ultimately realized. What you want is irrelevant; that you OBEY is what matters to government. We can distract ourselves from the truth of our place and purpose with the bromide of rights and liberty and representative government and free elections, but since an option in any election is NEVER “no government”, then all elections are merely a reinforcement of the right of the State to exist. And the right of the State to exist implies the right of the State to pursue its purpose. And its purpose is to COMPEL individual behavior into collective action by force. Period. As a philosopher named John Immel once put it, “government is force”, and that is all you really need to know to understand government in its entirety. Thus, the only thing we are ever really voting for is the right of the State to rule us. Which makes voting itself an arrant rejection of our own volition and the efficacy of our own choices, and thus our own existence, making voting an exercise in abject Self-nullification. And we wonder why we have a deep State. Voting, ironically, implies the existence of a deep state (an unelected group of rulers who govern absolutely and indefinitely). The deep state does not exist to subvert voting; it exists as voting’s most perfect and rational conclusion.

This brings us to the salient question of this article: Why will the lockdown never end?

At this point, I’m sure you, being astute, have already discovered the answer, but I will give it here in the interest of rounding out my thoughts. The lockdown was instituted in service to the one thing that ultimately matters to the State, and represents its most basic and salient purpose:


The lockdown was applied as a means to exercise State control over the masses, which makes the fundamental reason for it the same as the reason for every other regulation. Control. Certainly the ostensible rationale was to protect public health, but this is merely a superficial apologetic for the underlying tyrannical interests of government. All State regulations have a veneer of “public interest” which is meant to imply that they are FOR the citizen, but when we remember that the term “public” is always in reference to the collective Ideal and that the State IS that Ideal incarnate, whatever is done for the public is really done FOR the State, and thus is done TO the citizen…that is, at the citizen’s expense.

Why could citizens not be left alone to deal with pandemic in their own way? Why was it assumed that the State MUST intervene with rule, regulation, and decree? Well, the reason is fundamentally found in the metaphysics. The reason man NEEDS government in the first place is that he is entirely insufficient to his own existence. The individual functions from a frame of reference of Self, of I, and instantiates this via volition and choice. But the Self is an imposter to reality according to collectivist metaphysics. Choice and Will and Self are sinful and wrong in that they contradict the State, and the State is rooted in the collective Ideal, and the collective Ideal is the Determinative Force, and THAT is what is the essence of reality is. Not the Self…not the individual. The citizens, left to themselves, will always fail, because they cannot understand reality, because they see if from an infinitely flawed frame of reference.

The reason for the lockdown, again, is control, as control is the reason for everything the State does TO the people it rules. Thus, if we ask the question “When will the lockdown end”, the answer is that it will only end when the end represents a greater measure of control. The government cannot relinquish control any more than the viper can stop slithering on the ground and begin to fly. It simply isn’t its nature. You will notice that every seeming compromise of the State with the people is merely an expression of government power…it is in the interest of power that the State makes any concessions, which makes “concession” merely a manifestation of power. Whenever the State relents here, it inevitably doubles down over there. The State never relinquishes control because control is what it IS, and it cannot BY itself DENY itself. Even if the lockdown were to be ended, what has happened? Wrecked economy, shattered societal cohesion, health crisis in every medical arena in addition to the coronavirus, explosions of alcoholism, drug use, suicide, domestic abuse, gutted lower classes, atomized populace, inner city chaos, all of which the government will predictably move in to manage, thus exponentially raising the level of State control to atmospheric heights. Add to that, we have set an irreversible precedent of plenary government control of everything and everyone in response to a crisis, which will be defined by the State, of course. Our government, in response to situations IT decides are sufficiently threatening, now openly presumes the right to dictate religion, social interaction, association, travel, commerce, business, and property ownership.

So when will the lockdown end?

At this point we can see that this question is entirely meaningless, and was always going to be meaningless. We could answer “never”, but that simply doesn’t do the profound backdrop of such a question any justice. It’s a facile answer…it’s dust. The lockdown is control, and control is the State. The lockdown is simply a necessary manifestation of existence as it is defined by collectivist metaphysics.

In other words, lockdown isn’t a lockdown, per se…

The lockdown simply is.


Lockdown Hell: Altruism Instantiated (Part ONE)

One of the many interesting aspects of the unprecedented and disturbingly open, unabashed, and undisguised unconstitutionality being foisted upon the American public during the fabricated coronavirus crisis, is the novel iteration of the western sociopolitical zeitgeist, altruism. Altruism, in a nutshell, in its sociopolitical context, is the State-forced sacrifice of those deemed “privileged” to those who are deemed “under…or un-privileged”. This of course contradicts the very notion of “privilege” in that it by definition makes the “unprivileged” the greatest beneficiaries of the State’s coercive power, and the “privileged” the greatest victims…which renders the categories quite ironic, in that they are, in actuality, opposite. The ‘unprivileged” are significantly luckier than their privileged counterparts. But don’t strain your mind or credulity by attempting to square that circle. It cannot be done. The ethics of altruism are based on collectivist and determinist metaphysics which are by nature utterly irrational, and therefore in actuality inscrutable, which is why under the authority of the government agents of altruism you are not called to understand anything they say, but to simply obey. They are the enlightened philosopher kings, you are the unwashed barbarian masses. Comply or die. That’s the sum and substance of your usefulness to them and the total value of your existence, period.

When interpreting the categories of “privileged” and “unprivileged” according to our State overlords, we must understand that these, again, are ideas which are rooted in the inscrutable metaphysics of determinist collectivism, and consequently are interpreted according to mystical and thus fundamentally obscure notions, yet paradoxically they are quite  hyper-specific when physically dictated. At any rate, the general description is that being “privileged” or “underprivileged” has absolutely nothing to do with the “why” but only the “what” of human existence. In other words, WHY someone is categorized as “privileged” or “unprivileged” is simply “because they are”.  And by this I mean that it has nothing at all to do with the volitional choices and subsequent actions of the individuals so classified, or those related to the individuals so classified, such as parents or friends, with whom the “privileged” or “unprivileged” individuals may have been in some manner meaningfully related and thus so influenced. It has everything to do with one’s root existential state. That is, if you are “unprivileged” it is because you were born that way, and vice versa. “Privileged” and “unprivileged” is a product of your nature. That’s it. Thus, there isn’t anything you can do to manifest or could have done to prevent or ensure this natural condition. This is precisely why the State must implement equality and equity by force (legalized violence), and cannot rely upon citizens to work out their differences by their own choices and actions. No action or choice can change one’s very nature, for all actions and choices are a product of that nature, and thus all actions necessarily affirm and reinforce one’s “privileged” or “unprivileged” status. At the same time, ironically, or perhaps contradictorily, there is a sense of absolutist ethics which are secondary to the ethical primary of altruism, and these ethics are known as “social justice”, which is imbued and implied by one’s existential status as either “privileged” or “unprivileged”. The “unprivileged” are victims of some great and terrible injustice which though could not have been avoided as it is a function of their nature and not of any volitional action or consequence on the part of themselves or others nevertheless entitles them to ALL the legal benefits the State has the violent power to grant them in the interest of “social justice”, which again is the notion of existential and universal equality, which of course can never be achieved because the distinction between “privileged” and “unprivileged” is ALREADY, a-priori, itself existential and universal. Now, concordantly, the “privileged” are the evil perpetrators of all the injustice to which the “unprivileged” are so tragically subjected, and thus must be “held-accountable” and forced at State-gunpoint to “pay their fair share” in the interests of universal equality, despite the fact that there is no choice nor action which could have prevented the “privileged” from exploiting those who are “unprivileged”, or which could have prevented the “unprivileged” from actually becoming “unprivileged”, or themselves from becoming “privileged” in the first place…because, again, both groups are simply born that way.

And here again we see the inscrutable nature of collectivist metaphysics roaring to the forefront today with predictably disastrous consequences…those disastrous consequences being the complete undermining of the American Republic and the plenary and indefinite suspension of constitutional law, not to mention the irreversible and alarmingly substantial diminishing of the economy and faith in the nation on the whole in service to the “protection” of the public from the latest contrived boogeyman, but this one a phantom, which is supposed to be even more scary, called coronavirus. Once again do not try to apprehend the reasons, do not try to interpret or discern the meaning behind the actions of your government overlords, for it is not yours to know, because it is not you who has been given the “grace to perceive”. For that is reserved for those who have been called to rule. For you, on the other hand, it is forever a cloud of steam in your fist. The metaphysics of collectivism and the concordant ethics of altruism require only your submission. The “unprivileged” are required only to receive, the “privileged”, to sacrifice.

But which one are you?

Now that is a very interesting question. And the answer is predictably enigmatic, as I’m sure you understand: it depends. In the meta, you are both and neither…it is subjective, it is fluid. In context however it is terrifyingly empirical, objective, and corporeal.  And as we are talking about the manufactured coronavirus crisis, here I can provide a much more specific answer. Which I will do in part two.

END part ONE

Coronavirus Conundrum: The futility of ethics by means of mathematics

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a scene where Spock tells Kirk, who is struggling with an ethical dilemma, that “Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”.

For many years this never sat well with me, for reasons that I could not quite articulate. I was unsettled. I had a suspicion that the claim was not logical at all. I mean, I suppose it was logical mathematically, but still something seemed off.

Years later I realized the specific problem. Spock is confusing ethical consistency with mathematical logic. Ethics are not mathematics, and the logic which governs the premises and conclusions of the two isn’t necessarily interchangeable. Philosophical logic, or what is better termed “rational consistency”, or “reason”, does not assert mathematical logic as axiomatic. This is because mathematics is wholly abstract, where philosophy is meta, incorporating both the abstract and the concrete. Philosophy, of which ethics is a major category, concerns the nature of existence, itself, not merely the abstract measurement and categorization of it.

Since the dilemma facing Kirk is an ethical one, and ethics are not mathematics, Spock’s claim that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one” is entirely meaningless with respect to the problem at hand. It was a pointless and decidedly ILLOGICAL waste of time and breath. Ethically, the needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This is because there is no rational ethical comparison between “many” and “one” when considering individual human beings. Each person is an utterly singular observer. There is no such thing as deriving an objective “us” or “we” or “many” from an absolutely singular conscious agent. There is SELF, and there is OTHER, where both are singular agents, fundamentally, but the combination of SElf and OTHER into “we” or “us” or “many” is an entirely abstract notion. “We” does not exist, fundamentally, at all. “We” is an abstract concept which combines individuals for purely practical, mutable purposes, never for root ETHICAL ones. Therefore, it is a failure of reason to claim that it is somehow better for, say, one to die than one million. The individual, at the level of SELF, is absolute…he or she IS THE OBSERVER, and he or she is CONSTANT. This is why the individual is so ineluctably necessary to existence and reality. Axiomatically, absent the frame of reference of one’s singular and constant absolute SELF, no claim can be made about anything…nothing known, nothing claimed, nothing verified, and thus nothing can exist, because an existence which cannot be known and thus cannot be valued and thus serve no purpose is a categorically IRRELEVANT existence. And irrelevant existence cannot actually exist, because it can never meaningfully DO anything, including EXIST.

So, that in mind, Spock is really attempting to assert that the needs of the many ABSOLUTES outweigh the needs of a few or one ABSOLUTE. Do you see the paucity of logic here? Spock implies that the death of one person is better than the death of a million, but there is no such thing as a comparison between a single Absolute, and a million Absolutes. “A million absolutes” is no more a quantity of absolutes than a single absolute. There is no AMOUNT of absolute SELF. There is ONLY SELF. Any quantification of individuals then is purely abstract. It is of practical use, but NOT of ethical use. When God says “thou shalt not kill” he doesn’t qualify that command by quantifying it. One death is as equally tragic as a million.

Moving on to the cornonvirus. Today I saw a Vox headline from April 1 which read “The Coronavirus is NOT the FLu. It’s Worse.” I didn’t read the article, because I didn’t have to. The title alone told me that reading the article would be a waste of time, because as far as I was concerned, this isn’t and never has been the issue. Comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu are not the fundamental point anyone should be making.

First of all, the title itself is massively subjective, as “worse” can be defined in multiple ways, and easily manipulated to bolster one’s own personal opinion, no matter what that opinion is. And even if we go with the ostensible meaning of the word—that by “worse” we mean “more dangerous, and with a higher mortality rate”—a month later from when the article was written, incidence testing around the world has proved that the coronavirus is NOT worse than the flu, and may in fact be LESS dangerous.

But who cares about this…this is incidental to anything involving the coronavirus insofar as society and public health is concerned. It’s not about how dangerous the coronavirus is or is not relative to the flu, or any other virus. We live in a context where, under the auspices of State Authority, we exist first and foremost as members of a collective. This makes any crisis, even a pandemic, not an ethical problem, but an examination of probability, and this implies the enumeration of the people. The people become numbers, and these numbers are then plugged into a much larger and more fundamental equation, which is this: What course of action best promotes and preserves the position and power of the State? And this is why government can react so differently to similar crises (eg swine flu vs coronavirus), and why its methods and actions are often so incongruent with emprical data (eg the ongoing lockdown despite evidence that the coronavirus is not a significant threat to the nation). The crises are similar, but the policies which best promote State power can widely vary from situation to situation.

And it is here were we get to the root of it all.

The biggest mistake we who are suspicious and critical of government interference make with respect to interpreting government response to crisis is that we confuse government, which is an institution of object violence, with an ethical entity…and more precisely, a MORALLY ethical entity. It is not. Its only purpose is to compel the collective masses into a particular abstract ideological standard that it alone legitimizes, no matter what appeals are made to individual rights or freedom, etc. Government, itself, not you or me or our neighbors, our businesses, our money, our health, our jobs…nothing matters besides that which affirms the State, and promotes the collective Ideal which legitimizes it (in the case of the US, where I am, this Ideal is the very nebulous “the People”). The government IS the nation…to save the government IS to save YOU and ME, so the “logic” goes. We are the State, the State is us. There is no individual to consider in the equation, and THIS is why the coronavirus is not a true ethical dilemma.

Those who are decrying the government’s draconian measures to control the virus are citing the numbers in an attempt to win the ethical debate. They are claiming that many, many more people will die in the long run from the severe economic catastrophe that the unconstitutional lockdown orders are inflicting. I, myself, have asserted this, and will continue to do so. After all the truth is the truth—if you look at the data gathered by highly competent and established epidemiologists and virologists there is simply no way a rational person can conclude that this virus is paticularly dangerous for the VAST majority of human beings, And if you look at the economic data, there is no way a rational person can deny that the measures taken to control the pandemic will kill many more people than the virus ever will. However, as this is not a specifically ethical argument, it will fail thus when employed as one. ETHICALLY, those who would rather doom a billion people via the government’s orders to lockdown society in order to save a few thousand people who might otherwise die from the virus are NOT wrong. It is NOT ETHICALLY (specifically, it is not not morally) wrong to suggest that the smaller number of lives saved by government are EQUALLY and possibly MORE important than the billions who will be destroyed by the ongoing lockdown. Why? Because, as I said, this is NOT an ethical dillema. You cannot make an ethical comparison of the importance of one life over another, so to persist in the fallacious idea that you can possess moral and rational superiority by simply appealing to the math is ludicrous. IF the government wants to kill a billion in order to save a few thousand, an ethical argument about the value of this many lives versus that many is NOT an effective argument because the situational context has nothing to do with the value of individual life.

But, you might say, why not then simply appeal to the mathematical logic? You might say that it doesn’t make sense, numerically, for the governemnt to doom a billion to save a few thousand. Surely it is in the best interest of the State to rule over many than a few, right?

The answer, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, is: not necessarily. It might, but it might not. The bottom line is that IF the State feels that it is in its best interest to destroy the many in order to save the few then this is the course of action it WILL pursue. If you think that the power and position of those in goverment are not the supreme consideration in dealing with any and all issues related to a nation, be it a pandemic or any other thing, then you simply do not understand the true and root nature of the State and the nature of your position under its authority. And there is no ethical argument you can bring to bear which will alter the course of government action. You can quote numbers all day long, and conflate mathematics with ethics all day long, but it will do you no good. It is an exercise in futility and will only serve to exasperate, frustrate, and disappoint you. The only way you will ever get the State to change its course is to somehow convince it, or hope that it will at some point be convinced, that it is in ITS, not YOUR, best interest to choose a different direction.

And here we DO actually get a glimps of the ethics of government. What is “good” for the State is technically an ethical question. Yet we must make a distinction between MORAL ethics and LEGAL ethics. In this article, for semantic’s sake, I used “ethical” as a synonym for “moral”, which I’m sure you understood. After all, any discussion of ethics as it involves human beings may typically be seen as a discussion of morality. But moral ethics are not the same as legal ethics, and I have several articles on this blog where I deal specifically with the difference, so I will not do that here. The point I want to make is that in order to convince the government to change its course, one must convince it that such a change is first and foremost GOOD for the STATE. What is good for the person, for you and me, for the individual, for the human being, is entirely irrelevant, and will never prove efficacious in persuading the government to do anything.