Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,203 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 19366

Posts: 281

My Comments: 1142

User Comments: 1850

Photos: 3

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 4

Points: 5397

Last Online: 2 days ago




Why we Choose

Added: Monday, October 21st 2019 at 10:23am by tjdonegan
Related Tags: morality, justice, truth, choice

Note: The following is written as a propaedeutic, lemma i.e., a predicate for other commentaries; particularly - at this time - commentaries regarding things political e.g., impeachment of POTUS Trump...


Absent duress, an individual's principle's/beliefs circumscribe/limit their actions/choices.

 An individual avowing objective morality* is consistent with his/her principles when they seek truth, justice and the good i.e., right-order (Note: such conceptions, viz: truth, justice, good/right-order, too connote God) – and when such an individual subverts truth, acts unjustly, and opposes right-order (i.e., the good) they contradict his/her avowed principles; if they are not under duress (i.e., if there is not something forcing the individuals hand/choice) then is likely that the individual is not a staunch (serious sober) supporter of the principles which they claim to avow. 

            * Note that objective morality connotes God, as do concepts such as objective truth, justice, and good/right-order.


  An individual disavowing anything like objective morality hasn't any restraining principles when it comes time to choose/act; such an individual is not encumbered with the concerns of what is true, what action is just, and how the good (or right order) may be realized; such an individual - absent duress, and any informing/limiting principles - is a creature sentiment/whim/self.

Now just as principles - sans (absent) duress - precipitate act/choice, so too do actions/choices - absent any determining influences - indicate what an individual holds to be true, just, and good. Thus, if one wants to understand what another values-in-general, one may get a pretty good indication of the individual in question principle's from observing their choices/actions... For an example: If an individual advocates abortion, they certainly do not hold innocent human life to be sacrosanct.

We note that a continuum exists - in the human soul (regarding moral dispositions) - between the extremes of the utterly wicked and those which seek the good; such a claim necessitates definitions of 'wickedness' and "good," but such concepts - too - connote God, a word which itself requires definition; hence:

            God may be defined as: "that upon which everything depends," or: "the transcendent intelligent creative ordering principle of all that is contingent, or again: "the condition of all contingencies, or as: "I Am, Who Am."

            Wickedness may be defined as: "opposed to right-order" note that this does not require conscious action; generally, uninformed actions are selfish actions and thus, opposed to right-order; humans - as social-creatures - are ordered to the common good...

            Good i.e., right-order, may be defined as the realization, or completion of the intentioned end toward which a thing's essence points e.g., human essence is rational, albeit in potency (capacity); when the human becomes rational the human has realized their good i.e., their raison d'être (i.e., their reason-for-existence).



            A few remarks are necessary to secure our argument:



1.) Morality - as a science - has been wrongly been supplanted by behavioral-sciences, which are adroit at precipitating hedonism given their inability to provide anything but practical reasons for practicing appetitional restraint... Sidebar: the scientific-method employed by the behavioral-sciences manufactures clients by the millions; we do not claim that the creation of sociopathic behavior (i.e., sociopathy) is a conscious intent of the garden variety practitioner of these disciplines, rather we argue such to be a logically necessary consequence of these sciences a priori 1 denial of objective morality...

                1 A priori : before and without reference to the subject in question i.e., these disciplines reduce humans to their unrestrained appetites, any restraint is mere social-construct and thus, is disregarded vis-à-vis the question of "ought" - as in: "What ought ahumando?",and"What must a human avoid?"

2.) Science may - most generally - be defined as Knowledge derived from a method.

3.) Modern science - constrained by its method - cannot competently address human/moral choice; such is beyond its criteria which are limited to 4-space.

4.) Those which claim science to be their guide - vis-à-vis moral-choice - necessarily argue (albeit very likely, unconsciously) as materialists (ironically the materialism cannot render an account of consciousness...) i.e., nihilists i.e., sentimentalists i.e., creatures driven ultimately by their sensibilities...

5.) As we have argued elsewhere, God is a presupposition of all reasoned argument; the act of arguing "There is no God!" presupposes an intelligent correlation between the subjective mind, and that which is other (i.e., objective reality); similar assumptions (consciously - or otherwise) are the predicate of arguing: "There is a God!" as well as arguing: "Space subsequent to the General Theory of Relativity is understood to be curved in accordance with gravitational and electromagnetic fields," or arguing that: "One may not simultaneously know the position and momentum of a single sub-atomic particle..."

Thomas J. Donegan


User Comments

Which-all, in laymen's terms, means...?

Hi, FedUpToHere!

In plain English, those which require themselves to defer to an objective moral code are more likely trustworthy (these individuals are striving to realize their rational nature/essence) than those which disregard any such principles as absurd, meaningless and/or anachronisms from a by-gone era; such people are - generally dispositionally incapable of having their "minds" (actually sentiments, since their minds, and principles/values reflect their sentiments, and arein fact reflections of their sentimental/egoistical miens...) changed by rational argument; their sentiments negate reasoned argument, no matter how intellectually compelling... Thus, the former individuals (rational) are those anticipated by the Founding Fathers in drafting the Founding documents; whereas the latter are those which the Founder's understood could be seduced by 'silver-tongued devils' to deliver the Republic over to a despot, or Party of despots, e.g., the Democratic Party... Note that the method by which the Democratic Party, the Press and the bureaucracy are attempting to remove POTUS Trump for a 'cross-walk' violations (policy differences; not violations of law...), conflating such into acts of treachery; each of those entities are themselves involved in treason, but because the dominant worldview informing We The People has left most of us uninformed, the coup has, and can be, sustained...

Take care, FedUp!

Cordially, tjd


{#apploud.gif} {#apploud.gif} {#apploud.gif} {#apploud.gif}

Regarding #3 above.

They may be incompetent but they know enough for pretty shrewd guesswork and are willing to cheat, lie, deny, obfuscate, etc., etc. when in error.  


Hello, Anonymous!

I'm not arguing that scientists lack competency - as humans - to ascertain the moral law; I am claiming that morality may not be subsumed under scientific criteria, and that morality is scientifically meaningless; the best that the scientist may do, as a scientist, is comment upon the efficacy of an act, but no scientific claim may be made as to the moral right, or wrong regarding any act whatsoever... Now when a Nancy Pelosi claims that the Democratic Party is the Party of "science" she is tacitly claiming that the Democratic Party is the Party of despotism, since neither moral, nor positive, rights have any scientific meaning; thus, if the Democrat Party should obtain enough levers-of-power for long enough period of time, they and their propaganda arm - in the Press - they may be able to convince enough Americans that "freedom is slavery," ignorance is strength," and "war is peace" and subsequently surrender the remnants of their Liberties, and Constitutional Government to the caring, kind and concerned Democrat Party of science...

Cordially, tjd

{#basic-laugh.gif} A fine start..

Post A Comment