Chandri MacLeod (chandri) wrote,
Chandri MacLeod

  • Mood:

This OUGHT to strike everyone as fairly obvious, but...

(I know some of you probably voted Republican and had good reasons. This is directed only at those who... didn't. And everyone else to whom it might conceivably apply.)

...many, many Americans voted for Bush not because they agreed with his policies, or thought he was a particularly good President, but because they liked his morals and his asshattery and thought he was doing "the right thing". Allow me to rebut this argument with the following, simple question:

ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL HIGH? Or did you all just miss that class in elementary school where they explained "separation of church and state"? Isn't that phrase one of *your* cliches?

One does not vote because the candidate's morals are "right" or "wrong". One does not vote for "right" or "wrong". And yes, most laws in the world are based on moral imperatives, but morality is a product of social necessity and society? Guess what: founded on Reason. At least, supposed to be. "Morality" is what we started calling it once it had become so ingrained that we no longer remembered where the rules came from, and couldn't imagine it any other way. That's where "right" comes from. Not the sky. "Moral" is another word for "we came up with it a few thousand years ago but that was before we had writing".

That notwithstanding? "Moral" in our society is taken to mean "acceptable without need of justification."

Does "without need of justification" sound like a good precept for ANY society you can imagine, especially one with the nuclear capability of several dozen super novas?

My gods, people, THINK. I know it's a new concept for some of you, or most of you, assuming you were raised in religious households before learning the basic structure of an argument, in which case, okay, you couldn't help it, then, but you bloody well can, now. You are all, ostensibly, thinking, reasoning, responsible adults. "Because God said so" is *not* a valid argument for an action that affects other people, especially when the authenticity of your source matter is (yes, I'm sorry, but live with it) dubious. "Because it says so in a umpteen-times mistranslated book" is *also* not a valid argument. See above.

The thing about government? Or *any* action you take that affects *anyone* other than your own self? Is that it must be justifiable. Preferably empirically, definitely reasonably. If it doesn't make *sense*, if you can't support it with actual thinking, rather than repeating someone else's pseudo-arguments, then you definitely shouldn't do it, and you probably shouldn't say it, but how you look to other people is, after all, your deal. If you want a moralistic, unreasoning system that blindly follows rules set down thousands of years ago without questioning them, despite blatant material evidence of their illogic, that's your deal. But I expect that a large portion of your current countrymen would rather you did it elsewhere. I know I sure as hell would. And I'm pretty sure the rest of the purportedly-democratic world would, too. Because as you were instructed in your earliest youth, what you do affects other people, places, and things, and as long as you lay claim to that swirly grey stuff between your ears, you have a responsibility to consider that, AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER WHAT.

Remember: thinking is good, and good for you.

Thank you, and please have a nice day.

I know I will. It's Friday and only one more class 'til Freedom! :D

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded