Gods and Governments - The Twin Perils

The Fear of Freedom

The Illusion of  "Universal Good", "Universal Evil" and "Morality"

 Gods and Governments - The Twin Perils

Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England

Lest my commentary on this issue lead someone to jump to the wrong conclusion, let me set the record straight from the outset. I am not in any way, shape, or form instigating, advocating, or even suggesting the "violent overthrow of government". Namely because it can't be done. Government is an idea and an idea can't be undone with a gun. If peace, harmony, and prosperity is the end desired, the idea, government, is a very bad idea. The purpose here is to displace the fallacy-based idea, government, with the reality-based idea of individualism and freedom. Where the mind goes, the body will follow. 

There is such a widely held belief in the absolute necessity of government that it seems that the only issue to be considered is what kind of government; meaning what form of implementation. It is as if government is an objective discovery rather than a subjective mental invention. The idea of government is no less enmeshed in absolutism than the idea of an omni god in formal religion. Indeed, that is how most emotionally regard it. This fact is daily evidenced in the language and attitude of millions as they call on "government" to fulfill their wants and needs. In this mental atmosphere, to raise and discuss the question of government vs non government is nearly impossible. Since the concept, government, is held in most minds as an absolute, they can hold no differentiating reference. If they can envision no alternative, they are without choice. They are mentally locked in and completely unable to grasp an idea that opposes what they hold as absolute. They may play with words and imagine that they grasp non-government, but they simply yield to the absolutism and delude themselves. 

The term anarchism is the word generally believed to denote a non-governmental social existence. However, Webster's alleged common usage definition is non-differentiating and non-defining. It says that "Anarchy is a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable, and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups." Then, in confused contradiction, Webster's defines "political" as "... and of or pertaining to government." Thus, the term, anarchy, is implicitly "defined" as a theory of government holding all governmental authority as unnecessary, etc. This is not the worst of it. 

Notice that the conscious declaration is voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation is free individuals making free choices. There is not even a suggestion of initiation of force or coercion. So, how does one equate voluntary cooperation, the denotation of the term, anarchy, with violent conflict and chaos? By the denotation declared by conscious mind, one doesn't. It is connotation, the subconscious and emotional valuation of the term, that leaps to the conclusion, violent conflict. Why? In spite of the fact that the term, government, denotes the relationship, initiation of force and coercion, for several psychological purposes, including the purpose of preferred self image, the actual definition of the term government is denied. In spite of the fact that government is, by definition, by logical theory, and verified by all of history, accompanied by violent conflict and chaos, nearly all still believe (feel) that government is the means of peace and order. Given the dominant belief (feeling) that government is the means to peace and order, although false, any verbal designation of non-government is emotionally regarded as the opposite, that is, emotionally evaluated as conflict and disorder regardless of the actual definition and all relevant facts. In other words, while they speak words about voluntary cooperation and freedom, emotionally it is regarded as impossible. With rule held as an absolute, they cannot envision the alternative, individualism and freedom. 

This thinking doesn't provide many options, does it? If government is the initiation of force and coercion, producing violent conflict and chaos, and the term anarchy connotes to nearly all the initiation of force and violent conflict, where is the word that denotes voluntary cooperation and connotes its corollary, peace? Isn't it amazing that no such word exists in the language? Why is this word and a lot of companion words needed to express individualism and freedom missing from the language of "common usage"? The only logical explanation is that most not only believe that no such thing exists, but also believe individualism and freedom cannot exist; in fact, cannot even believe that an idea of freedom can exist. This psychological lock out is derived from the god concept and the logically derived concept of rule as absolute in nature itself. How does one communicate ideas of individualism and freedom when nearly all are mentally directed by dominant beliefs that declare that rule is the absolute and freedom cannot exist? 

Thinking from the identity, human individual as a volitional entity that pursues subjective values, is there any doubt that initiation of force or coercion will create a condition of hostility? Is there any doubt that government is the initiation of force and coercion? Is there any doubt that every historical record and contemporary fact bear out the logical conclusion that government is certain to cause hostility, violent conflict, and chaos? The conscious mind says no. Logical theory and centuries of practice support the conclusion without equivocation and with 100% consistency. Yet, in spite of this simple theory and centuries of facts validating it a trillion times over, at least 99.9% of the world population still believe that government is the means to peace and order. This is the power of the sacred idea. This is resistance to the max. This is a condition of perpetual conflict and chaos that will not change unless and until the directive thinking changes. This is the choice that each individual faces. 

By denying the principles of epistemology and the principles of language, they manage to hold onto their sacred god concept and perpetuate it and its destructive directives by distorted language usage. Classic example: A phrase one often hears is democracy and freedom. However, those uttering the phrase never stop to explain how two imposing their will upon the third constitutes freedom for the victim. Nevertheless, democracy is thought by many to be a "government of freedom and protector of individual rights". In addressing this popular illusion, perhaps it would be of some benefit to backtrack a bit and take a look at the psychological evolution that led up to the idea of "democracy and freedom".

In the days of the "divine right of a king" where a lone monarch's word was law and his every wish a command, no one spoke of freedom and individual rights. No one doubted that the concept, rule, was in practice. To the believers, this was the natural order of things and there could be nothing else. However, the everpresent and ever-busy oppressive might of the "state" is proof enough that psychological subjugation was never quite complete. Although the concept, divinity, was never questioned, the monarch's connection to it more and more came under suspicion. Somewhere along the line, "earthly divinities" fell from grace and there began talk about freedom and rights that belonged to all. The old way was declared "immoral" and the new idea was heralded as the universal good. While the conscious mind desired and claimed the "morality" of freedom, the subconscious and emotions remained stuck in the old concept, rule. Subconscious was (and is) running the show. After the godhead, king, was banished, another was needed to accommodate the concept, rule, but invisible so as not to disturb self image by contradicting the claimed "morality" of freedom. 

The mental groundwork was already laid for the transition. They had long been accustomed to believing mental creations to be objective discovery. In a new system called democracy, government, nation, society, the people, and other abstracts became the new godheads. Each individual became "the chosen" and instead of one monarch, the number of rulers were equal to the number of believers. Thus by way of the maximum number of rulers, each got to exercise their will to power and called it "freedom". Again, the individual was left out of their thinking and social equation. 

One of the more popular illusions to come along with democracy after the "divine right of the king" was denounced is the idea of separation of church and state. "Church and State" are fundamentally the same philosophy, and the same psychology derived from the same backward epistemology of "infinite entities". The changing of form and a few arbitrary labels does nothing to disturb the common content of anti-individualism and anti-freedom. The identifying characteristic of religion is the subordination of the individual to an alleged infinite entity superior being. As stated above, it is definitively immaterial whether the alleged infinite entity superior being is called "God", "State", "Society", whatever. The individual is no less subordinated. This fact may be obscured by arbitrary self-deluding labels and denying rhetoric, but when it comes down to actual definition and reality, State, i.e., government, is no less religion than Protestantism or Catholicism. Subjective arbitrary labels are objectively meaningless. The end result is determined by objective content and objective reality. The end result of subordinating the individual is exactly the same in gods and governments. So, argument about separation of church and state is no more than an exercise in the all-to-familiar emotional conflict of the undefined.

Throughout all of known history, literally every governmental system under any and every label has met the same fate: Failure. None produced and sustained the peace and prosperity promised. Indeed, the end result has been and is the exact opposite. Each and every one has either been taken over by an outside superior force or collapsed within due to declining economic conditions or increasing internal dissention and eventually violent revolution. Current systems, if not already in disarray, are in the same pattern of decline. Still, the ever-faithful pursue. They believe that this time things will be different. They will "control government". They will "limit government", and when these fail, they will "reduce government".

There are those who look upon the burgeoning bureaucracy and ever- increasing "welfare state" and pine for the good old days when the U.S. governmental system was in its infancy; when the rules and regulations were fewer in number and less offensive with more left to individual decision. They propose to wend their way back to that cherished bygone era by the same road that brought them here: Government and politics. I see no indication that they have studied the problem and understand how and why "minimal state" became maximum nightmare of rule. They mention neither a different psychology nor different means. They appear to assume that will and intent alone will bring fruition to their quest to "reduce government".

Just exactly what is it that they propose to control, limit, or reduce? What is government? This is the question that they perpetually refuse to definitively answer. Is government a thing of quantity that one may bind in chains to control it? Is it a growing physical something that one may enclose in a container to limit its growth? Is it a fat or some substance that one may render or compress to make it smaller? No, it is none of these things. Government is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. To be sure, official government is organized, politicized, centralized, canonized, and revered initiation of force, but it is no less initiation of force and coercion than any unofficial singular act of the same offensive content. So, let us be clear from the outset. When someone seeks to control, limit, or reduce government, what they are clearly saying is that they wish to direct the centralized coercive force to compel all others to conform to their personal values, to act for their personal benefit, i.e., to claim ownership of all other individuals. 

Although each governmentalist volunteers for the system of coercion and tacitly agrees to the outcome, each is still resentful and hostile when they are on the receiving end of the compulsion. Will each not attempt to escape the imposition even as they respond in like kind unto exhausting their personal values they wish to impose? Can anything come of this except escalating incidents of oppression and violent conflict? By what rationale do they expect anything other than what they voluntarily create? It is truly incredible that those who label the idea of non-government as a utopian pipe dream presume to perform the miracle of creating peace by means of war. 

To speak of a governmental system is to speak of a specific segment of earth wherein the inhabitants are controlled by a certain person or persons. The segment, always established by physical force, is usually called a country or nation. The primary philosophy is physical dominance. The will to power is an insatiable appetite and those controlling each segment are forever fearful for their "security". Every alliance of two or more segments is seen as a threat. Counter alliances and weapons buildup are necessary precautions that instills fear and insecurity in others. This fuse is always burning, sometimes slowly, sometimes swiftly, but always the psychological condition of escalation is present and operating. 

When King George's subjects known as the Colonies estimated that they had sufficient manpower and firepower, they concluded that George's rules and regulations were no longer tolerable. After dispatching "George and Company", they had a most excellent opportunity to set up a community of individualism and freedom. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Minds locked into the concept of rule talked much about individualism and freedom, but were incapable of envisioning and living it. After lopping off the branches of British grown tyranny, they proceeded to build upon the same root. They brought forth a governmental system of representative democracy with a Constitution, division of powers, and all sorts of checks and balances to "limit" their governmental system, to "control" it. A couple of hundred years later, we know just how successful this attempt was. What is not widely known is that the monstrous growth was inevitable, inherent in the system itself. 

In conjunction with the "need" to control "evil man", the underlying rationale of the original U.S. government (and all others) is that each individual left to his own non-invasive personal preferences and devices is incapable of doing what is right for himself and others, and most importantly, would most certainly be derelict in doing what is "good for the country". By some mystery, yet to be explained, they concluded that if certain individuals were selected to manage the affairs of all, these selected individuals, by virtue of being selected suddenly took on superior intellectual and "moral powers" not found in the individuals prior to the election. No documents explain this magical transformation and one is left to wonder if the divine spell cast fell a bit short. That the "national interest" and the interest of the elected just happened to coincide did not go unnoticed, but the believers never lost faith in the system. 

It is this total and totally blind faith that is at the center of the matter. Few see government as it is, simply as initiation of force and coercion. Rather, they regard and speak of government as an omni god endowed with no fewer divine attributes than the god of formal religion. In formal religion, "God" is the omnipotent force, i.e., omni force and omni being are the same. The transposition of this psychology to the omni force called government is an easy one. This is the sacred idea that dominates the mind of every governmentalist. 

Amusing, though tragic, is the idea that the governmental system of the United States could do anything else but expand. The revered "founding fathers" did not set up a few protective rules and regulations and then go home. They set up a system where lawmaking was the occupation of hundreds, then thousands. In pursuit of this occupation, what else could happen except the continual increase in the number of laws and lawyers. Sure, now and then a law or two was repealed. This only temporarily shifted the favoritism from some to others. It did not deter them from their divinely appointed task to more and more bring all under the advisement and control of the "enlightened". 

From the outset, the intent was made clear. Nothing was hidden. Official documents stipulated without equivocation that the "government" would regulate trade and commerce, coin and mint money, provide for the "common defense", etc., etc., etc. There is not a single line in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any governmental document that says that an individual will be left alone as long as he does not impose upon another or others. By commission and omission, all official decrees make clear that human individual is regarded as property of the god called "State". Do you think that the phrase, "America's children" and other such announcements are meaningless? An abstract, an "infinite entity" as a possessive noun? If this does not designate a god and ownership by the god, what does it mean? 

So, is it any surprise that the manipulation and control of "State property" is an ongoing and forever escalating process? How did or does anyone conclude otherwise? Oh yes, the Constitution and "constitutional rights". To be quite blunt, the Constitution is a mish mosh of self-contradictory gibberish that says whatever anyone feels it says. Questions of "constitutional rights" are not settled by the conscious mind and intellect, but by emotions, and eventually by the gun. Since "constitutional rights" are a matter of feelings, by what does anyone propose to control and "delimit"?

In spite of all this, I am sure that there are many who still believe that the massive bureaucracy and the millions of strangling regulations may be brought under control and reduced. Don't I wish - but afraid not. As long as the psychology of rule prevails the same actions will follow and that which brought us here will takes us further down the same destructive path. To grasp this unpleasant fact, it is necessary to hold focus upon two related and determining facts. As previously stated, government is psychologically regarded as an infallible god, the omni protector and provider. Illusory as the whole idea is, it is much believed and therein lies deadly dependence. As you may have noticed, this dependence is a downward spiral as less dependence on self results in more dependence on "government", which naturally fails, but does not shake the feeling of dependence and the persistent cry, "Government do something for me." Was any politician ever elected who did not yield to this cry and make this promise? Second, all these illusory concepts oppose the real human individual. This means that every governmental action, economic or otherwise, will meet with resistance requiring further control. The god, government, is regarded as infallible. So, every adverse effect is not attributed to coercive intervention, but to other causes. This means that further coercive intervention will be sent as cure only to compound the problem in perpetuity unto collapse. 

Every law proposed has its proponents and opponents. Hence the need for the initiation of force and coercion. Currently, every governmentalist has a list of laws they wish to see made and a list of laws they wish to see repealed. The latter is construed as "reducing government". Always keep in mind that the operational premise of a governmental system is the initiation of force and coercion. Ergo, every instance of law making or law repeal is merely a shift of advantage via "the force".

Can one perhaps argue against a particular proposed offensive legislation and maybe defeat it by argument? Certainly, but on what grounds do you argue it? There is no argument on the grounds of individualism because in the governmental system, the individual doesn't exist. Each is regarded only as a means to an alleged universal purpose. Must you not endorse the idea of collective interest in your arguments and thereby support the very concept that gives rise to all oppression? Although you may stop or retard one oppressive proposal, how do you deal with the underlying directive of external ownership and the inevitable ongoing increase in regulations that is inherent in the idea of gods and governments? If a governmentalist seeks to impose one value upon others, is there any reason to believe that the same governmentalist doesn't desire to impose all of his or her values? Given the number of governmentalists engaged in the insanity of "reciprocal slavery", can you see an end to the impositions? 

The ultimate question is why anyone would want a governmental system. Obviously, it has much value to believers, so what is the basis of the valuation? What can an individual do or gain via the governmental system that he can't without it? Without initiation of force and coercion, one can act in any way that does not impose upon another individual. One can produce and deal with the production by voluntary exchange, or give it away if one so chooses. If these are the options without a governmental system and are not valued whereas the options in the governmental system are, we must logically conclude that value lies not in controlling one's own life and one's own production, but controlling the lives of others. It is controlling the lives of others that requires coercive force and this is its sole value. If we take away the illusory god concept and the accompanying language distortion and insist on identity and language conforming to reality, a believer's purpose and intent is exposed for all to see. Although there are millions that make demands in the name of god, country, community, or other abstracts, I dare say that precious few, if any, would stand up and demand that all cater to their personal preferences. Take away the word games and the hiding place is gone. The individual stands alone, recognized and responsible. It's a whole new ball game. 

 The Fear of Freedom

Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England

Categorical identity is an illusion easily exposed. Do you know anyone who would argue that persons of the same hair color, skin color, gender, or any other similarity are merely duplicate units without individual identity? The concept of "infinite entities" upon which the official socio-economic system is dependent is a fallacy that is also easily exposed. Yet nearly all subscribe to these anti-reality beliefs and cling to them with total dedication. Indeed, we must conclude that such dedication to contradiction must necessarily be derived from a powerful and controlling emotion. What is it? What is excluded by the beliefs? Answer. Individualism and freedom. Herein lies the answer. Fear of freedom is the dominant emotion. 

If one listens to the claims, one is led to the conclusion that freedom is the most cherished value of all individuals. However, if one listens to the words that are alleged to express this "freedom" and looks to the actions as well, one is led to a far different conclusion. Rather than freedom being the highest value sought by most, it is their deepest and most abiding fear. So much so that they can't even envision it. 

Where and when the fear of freedom began is lost in historical antiquity. There is no known record of any group of individuals living in a social circumstance of freedom. Perhaps it all began with the origin of the thinking individual whose desires and fears far outweighed capacities to satisfactorily handle them. The individual invented a god to compensate for inadequacies. Ironically, the psychological "savior" was self-defeating in that it decreased the necessary reliance on self and set a condition of rule; a condition of inevitable intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts certain to exacerbate the very fears and problems that initially prompted the mental invention. Whatever the time and reason for the abandonment of self to a "ruling mental invention", the psychology was passed from generation to generation. In this day, it is clearly evidenced in formal religion and in every present anti-social governmental structure. We are all born into this anti-freedom environment. In this circumstance, it is a matter of individual choice whether to blindly and passively accept the anti-freedom philosophy and anti-self psychology or to consider the "unthinkable". It is highly unlikely that there will be any mass movement into the realm of freedom. Most will go on pretending as they have been programmed to do. The pretense is a substantial barrier, for there is no greater deterrent to freedom than an illusion of it. 

The programmed and accepted mode of thought itself tends to discourage inquiry and understanding. If one attempts to grasp the whole and find instant and total solution for all the violent behavior throughout the world, one is overwhelmed by the vastness of it. When the mind seeks sense of order, it is thrown into disorder by trying to envision an instant and universal solution. Solution lies in self. Self-recognition and self-determination via the conscious mind and reality. Although one may not "save the world", neither does one have to accept the self-condemning and debilitating beliefs that are the accepted "norm". As stressed throughout this book, the real is self and self is the focus of reality. Universal plan and individualism are diametrically opposed and can neither be merged in the mind nor practiced outside of the mind. Looking for and demanding a universal plan before advocating freedom is a contradiction. The goal to be achieved is the psychology of freedom. The rewards of a free mind will follow. 

As shown above, the truth is highly visible and extremely simple. Indeed, the whole thing can be stated in one sentence. It all comes down to entity identity via limitation and difference and recognition of the individual as the real. That's it. When this elementary criteria is ignored and the mind presumes to conclude upon "infinite entities", the mind is divided against itself and everything is mentally turned from front to back and violent chaos ensues. 

It is unpleasant to be encompassed by the psychological and physical manifestations of this insanity, but it is a thousand times worse to be mentally a part of it; to have one's own mind divided against itself and unknowingly manipulated by emotional dictates of the god concept and illusory objective standards of judgment of self and others. It doesn't have to be. Its your choice. Its your life. Who's living it?

 The Illusion of "Universal Good" And "Universal Evil"
The Myth Of "Morality"

Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England

Has there ever been two terms that have occupied more thoughts, discussions, writings, and speeches than the concepts of good and evil? Certainly, there is an ongoing debate of the issue in every area of our socio-economic environment. This phenomenon is hardly new. Historical records that go back for centuries show the same general concerns about good and evil. Since these concepts are obviously important to all, wouldn't it be of much value to actually define these terms so that one would know where one stands in respect to the many ideas about good and evil? Let's briefly go back in history and observe Socrates as he sought the answer to the same question that all face today. The term virtue is often used as interchangeable with the term good. Virtue is the term that Socrates uses. 

According to Plato, Menon asked Socrates, "What is virtue?" Socrates answered that he didn't know, and furthermore, did not know anyone who did know. So, in turn, Socrates asked Menon, "What do you think virtue is?" Menon named thrift, honesty, kindness, and a few other things. Socrates admonished him not to give him virtue in bits and pieces like change, but the whole. To paraphrase only slightly, Socrates asked, "How do you know that each of these things is a virtue unless you know what virtue is in itself?" 

Socrates recognized the logical necessity of validating the claim of a virtue by reference to the whole, to virtue itself. What he was looking for was a definition of the term virtue, its identity. Socrates and Menon began arguments in search of the meaning of the term virtue. The arguments went on and on without success. Finally, Socrates admitted failure and concluded that whatever virtue is, it must come to us by "divine dispensation".

About 20 centuries later, G.E. Moore took up the chase in a book entitled Principa Ethica. He sought to understand the term good, which is virtually interchangeable with the term virtue, within the idea of "moral good". Moore quickly concluded that good is indefinable. Indefinable is the same as unknowable. So Moore, in effect, said that he doesn't know what good is. He then offered thousands of words to prove the point. In the end, he concluded that "good" is some quality in things that remains constant. In other words, he wound up at the same dead end as Socrates. What's the problem? Answer: Reality cut off by the god concept. 

They assumed that good is something inherent in nature itself; that it is totally objective, and therefore, constant. What it is, they didn't know, but felt it was something "out there". The variable left out of the equation is the actual referent, human individual. Upon this reference, the term good can be easily defined. Seven words of definition will dismiss trillions of words of undefined rhetoric on the subject: Good is the means suited to the purpose. It's as simple as that. 

Entities are neither good nor bad. They exist independently of any value judgment. The terms good and bad refer to actions (or reactions). If a large bucket of water is dumped on a small wood fire, is the act good, or is it bad? Same entities. Same action. Same end results. What determines the answer to the question of good or bad? If you want the fire to go out because it is threatening to burn your house down, the act is good. On the other hand, if you want and need the fire to cook food, the act is bad. In the final analysis of down to earth meaning, the determination of good or bad is by the objective evaluation of means in respect to a subjectively chosen end. You can easily verify this definitive truth by your own observation and experiences. Do you not call good that which is suited to your purpose? Do you not call bad that which is not? Isn't this true of everyone? So, what's the problem? Why so much disagreement on "good and evil"? Obviously, there is a disagreement on means because there is a disagreement about ends desired. What disagreement, and why?

The story and illustration via the Socrates - Menon dialogue of 20 centuries ago may seem far removed from present time and have no bearing on currently held philosophies and the issue of good and evil. To the contrary, it is as relevant today as it was 20 centuries ago, for there has been no change and the same question remains at the center of each individual's philosophical existence. Socrates and Moore (and most others) could not find the answer and definition because they had no objective referent, and therefore, no definitive end by which to determine good or bad. They imagined an omni god and a universal purpose, but the imagined universal purpose has no objective identity. Their reference existed only as a feeling and this was their only means of considering something as good or bad. This condition still exists to a near universal degree. What is the significance of this fact in relation to your life and the values you hold and pursue? 

First, notice the god concept that literally dominated Socrates's thinking. Although Socrates's analytical abilities were much in evidence, the parameters of inquiry were limited by the god concept that he held. A conclusion is a reflection of the premises integrated, and no matter how logical and accurate the conclusion in respect to these premises, validation of the premises integrated is a pre-requisite of accurate conclusions. Socrates arrived at the conclusion that any claim of a virtue could be validated only by the reference, virtue itself. This conclusion is quite logical and quite true. Socrates clearly realized this and put forth much effort to find the definition of virtue as a basis for judgment of a claim of a virtue. He failed to do so. He knew that he failed, but never understood why. 

As explained earlier, the god concept psychologically negates the human individual. That which has been psychologically negated does not exist in the mind, and therefore, cannot be referenced. This leaves the good - bad issue in the realm of the god concept. Since the alleged god exists only as a feeling without finite characteristics and objective identity, "god's purpose", i.e., the "objective universal goal" is likewise without definitive identity. Although one may not always be consciously aware of it, the mind principle always makes a connection between ends and means with emotional evaluation as part of the process. Socrates was not consciously thinking of a specific "divine purpose", but definitely felt that it did exist. Although vague, the feeling dominated and controlled his thinking. Naturally, in his mind, his god was totally equated with total "good". Thus he arrived at the inconclusive conclusion that virtue (whatever it is) comes via "divine dispensation".

There is little or no disagreement on the fact that the terms good and bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a specific end. However, many disagreements and conflicts arise in a situation where nearly all hold some god concept and the belief in a universal goal. In this circumstance, instead of means being evaluated in respect to an individually subjectively chosen goal, the emotional evaluation of good or evil is in respect to an imagined universal (objectively existing) goal. This means that the individual is not seen as an individual with personal goals, but rather is regarded as a means to the alleged universal goal. Needless to say, with billions of believers each trying to force everyone else into the role of the means to the "universal goal", violent chaos is a virtual certainty. 

The terms morality and immorality are often connected with the good-evil issue in an interchangeable manner. Notice that what a believer calls moral, he also calls good, the "moral good". The concept of morality comes from the infinite entity, universal goal realm of beliefs, which leaves the terms moral and immoral meaning the same thing. It just depends on whom you're talking to. "Moral" is a circumstance wherein the actions of an individual are means suited to the "universal goal". Since there are as many "universal goals" as there are believers, what is "moral" to one believer is "immoral" to another because the individual's actions do not suit his "universal goal". In other words, morality is a myth. 

Surely, every believer finds such an idea frighteningly appalling. With beliefs and emotions determined by the god concept and the "evil nature of man", the idea of an individual making decisions on a personal basis is a terrifying prospect. "Everybody knows" that if an individual ("evil man") has no "moral guidance" apart from his "natural evil self", then he is certain to do all sorts of horrible things. This is, of course, exactly backwards. The psychology of the god concept is a prerequisite to "justifying" and carrying out oppressive and destructive atrocities. Does not the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and all of history confirm this? Can you name a genocide or other atrocity that was not carried out in the name of the "moral good"? To be sure, there is constant disagreement as to what is or is not the "moral good", but in all cases, do not all such arguments rest on the idea of universal values rather than individual personal preferences?

An individual who sees himself as a fallible self-responsible being whose values are personal, not objective mandates, can not reach the psychological state necessary to impose by force those values upon another individual. Acts of aggression and oppression always require the sanction of a "superior being". There is not a known single fact that refutes this argument, yet nearly all still hold to the idea of the "need" for the "universal values" and regard these illusions as the bases for the "good", i.e., morality. Motivated and driven by these confused values, they presume to force all into the "moral mold" and thereby create the very "immoral horrors" that they consciously seek to prevent. 

They do not recognize the individual as the real, so are incapable of grasping a society based upon the reality of this identity. If an individual prefers to live in peace and harmony and knows that initiation of force and coercion are means contrary to his purpose, would he not refrain from taking such offensive action? If he knows that the benefits that he enjoys come not only from his own mind, but from the mind of others as well, would he not refrain from trying to have all minds conform to his and lose these benefits? What guidelines of behavior are needed for peace and productivity except the god-free mind of the human individual? (Since the actual individual is psychologically negated by the god concept, there is no single word in the language to represent the individual attitude and actions described above.) Given the mental reversal of reality by the god concept, it is hardly surprising to find that while the concept of morality is held out as the means of peace and harmony, in logical theory and centuries of practice, it is precisely the idea of objective value and objective morality that "justifies" cruelty and oppression and underlies wars and atrocities that makes one shudder just to describe.

 

 

Copyright © 1988- Leading Edge International Research Group