I just read a nice little book, Morality Without God? by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Ostensibly, he argues that we don’t need God to have an absolute moral code. But more important, he argues against divine command morality. This is the idea that morality comes from something like the Ten Commandments. It is only wrong to murder because God told us not to. See: it’s right there in the book! Sinnott-Armstrong argues that without having an independent (or intuitive) idea of morality, there would be no way to know that the Ten Commandments were really God’s rules and not, say, Satan’s.

Consider the serial killer Albert Fish. According to Wikipedia, “Fish, suffering from religious psychosis, felt that God was commanding him to torture and sexually mutilate children.” How are we he to know that it wasn’t God telling him that? Most Christians would say that they just know that kind of thing is wrong. And that pretty much proves the point. As far as I know, there is no specific admonition in the Bible against torturing and sexually mutilating children. But I wanted to know.

So I set out to find if the Bible mentioned that it was wrong to have sex with dead bodies. I went over to Yahoo! Answers and found a page that seemed appropriate, Does the Bible Prohibit Necrophilia? Here is the whole question:

As usual on such pages, the answers were not very helpful. Most of them were like fifimsp3’s answer, “Uh, even if the Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, your mind should. If it doesn’t, go see a therapist.” That doesn’t really answer the question. In fact, it seems to imply that person asking the question wants to do this. It doesn’t sound like that to me. It sounds to me like he thinks he’s found an interesting loophole in the Bible. Whatever.

The best answers noted that the Bible does say you can’t have sex out of wedlock. Also: marriage only lasts until death. So having sex in this way would violent the Bible. Fair enough. But it would not be a sin for the reasons that most of us find it objectionable. It would just be wrong for the same reasons as masturbation. That’s some weak tea there!

What this all shows is that you really can’t depend upon a set of rules for your morality. You have to depend upon a system of ideas. There are always going to be questions that are not dealt with in the rules. Just look at the Ten Commandments. There are lots of immoral acts that are not dealt with in that document. (There are also a lot of immoral acts that are implicitly condoned like slavery and female subjugation.)

Often, when I think about such ethical issues, I am struck by just how limited the thinking is of those who follow dogmatic religious systems. (Note: I have lots of religious friends but they aren’t fundamentalists, which is what I have problems with.) Isn’t it obvious that everyone knew that murder was wrong before the Ten Commandments and that was why murder was included on the list? Isn’t it obvious that slavery was taken for granted in the Old Testament because it was socially acceptable at that time? Isn’t it obvious that religions reflect their societies rather than define them? That’s why Christians don’t avoid shellfish and mixed fiber clothing! Believers take from the Bible what works for them in their time and place. There is nothing absolute or eternal about it.

And that gets to my fundamental problem with Morality Without God? I don’t accept that there is an absolute morality. I do accept Sinnott-Armstrong’s ethical system that is based upon harm and empathy. But I don’t think there is anything absolute or eternal about it. Hopefully, if the species survives long into the future, it will look back on us with the same horror that we now look back on the “Godly” slaveholders. There are loads of things we all do everyday that strike me as being morally repugnant. I will give you just one example: killing an annoying house fly.

What I do think is that the harm and empathy system for morality works very well for this time and place. It provides for a decent society with a fairly limited amount of pain for our fellow humans. But I very much hope that we will become better over time.

Afterword

Check out Sinnott-Armstrong’s faculty page. It’s very funny!

On this day back in 1870, one of the best arguments against the divine commands argument of morality, serial killer Albert Fish was born. Shockingly, Malcolm X and Pol Pot were born on the same day back in 1925. Pol Pot, being one of the great evil men of the 20th century, managed to live 33 years longer than Malcolm X. And of natural causes. Screenwriter Nora Ephron was born in 1941.

And the great Joey Ramone (Jeffry Ross Hyman) was born in 1951, dying just shy of 50 years later of lymphoma. Here he is doing “What a Wonderful World”:

Actor James Fox is 64 today. Grace Jones is 65, so we won’t hear anymore from her. And actor Polly Walker is 47.

The day belongs to one of my favorite songwriters, Pete Townshend who is 68 today. Although he’s best known for his work with The Who, I’ve always found his solo work far more compelling. The Who is too much rock music BS; his solo work is more personal and thus more truthful. Here he is doing “Give Blood” with David Gilmour, which is good because Townshend really isn’t much of a guitarist:

Happy birthday Pete Townshend!

In the past, I’ve given George W. Bush a pass on the 6 August 2001 President’s Daily Briefing (PDB) Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US (pdf). My thinking revolved around two issues. First, fighting terrorism is like house cleaning: no one notices what isn’t there. There will always be failures and only a jerk looks at them alone and claims that you are incompetent. Second, the PDB did not have actionable information. After reading the document, I’ve rethought it.

In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke notes that a major terrorist attack was probably inevitable because the American people were not going to pay attention to the issue until there was one. Now, it didn’t have to be nearly as bad as 9/11, but something had to happen. I think there is much to this argument. However, I think it has also clouded my thinking regarding Bush’s reaction to the PDB. There is a big difference between the people of American paying attention to the terrorist threat and the White House paying attention. The Clinton White House paid close attention to this threat. But when Bush took over there was almost complete apathy.

In fact, the purpose of the 6 August 2001 PDB was to get Bush to take terrorism seriously. And it didn’t work at all. After the briefing, Bush said, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” And then he went fishing. This shows that before the PDB Bush didn’t care and after it he didn’t care. That’s a real problem and speaks extremely badly for Bush.

On the second issue it doesn’t look much better. I’m not sure what the apologists for the Bush administration are getting at here. Did they think that the PDB should have mentioned flight numbers? Here is what it says:

I understand that this sounds very different after 9/11 than it did before. But it is actionable. If I was given that memo, I would want to know what this suspicious activity was. I would want options. It is clear from Bush’s reaction that he understands that the intelligence and law enforcement parts of the government are concerned. But he is not moved.

The question is really not whether this memo would have stopped 9/11. It almost certainly would not have. But it should have made the Bush White House less complacent about terrorism. It shouldn’t have taken the deaths of over 3,000 people to get them interested in the subject. This is particularly sad when you consider the fact that Bush got a 40 percentage point bounce in his approval rating for ignoring the PDB. As a result of being apathetic about the threat of terrorism, Bush’s approval rating jumped up to 90%. And it went down constantly for the next eight years.

So yes, Bush should be judged very harshly for ignoring the 6 August 2001 President’s Daily Briefing.

According to the Washington Post, the administration thinks that the “war on terror” will go on and on. “Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.” And on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether we should continue the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. Spencer Ackerman reported, “Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, ‘At least 10 to 20 years.'” As Glenn Greenwald noted yesterday, “That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the ‘war on terror’ will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week’s big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined.”

I don’t get any of this. Since we started the “war on terror” there have been almost no terror attacks on the United States. The vast majority of the deaths from what can credibly be call “terrorism” have been US armed forces in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, in the decade since 2001, 392,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents. There were very roughly 300,000 Americans killed with guns. Hell, roughly 400 Americans have been killed by lightning strikes and that’s more than the number of civilian terrorist casualties in the same period of time. So why exactly do we have to let the president have unlimited war powers in the name of this relatively minor threat to Americans?

It’s worse than that. The Florida Times-Union reported Tuesday, Tipping Law Enforcement to Possible Terrorist Activity Is Purpose of 13-County Program. It is very much like those old Neighborhood Crime Watch signs that read, “We immediately report all SUSPICIOUS PERSONS and activities to our Police Dept.” Note that clearly suspicious persons are much more important than suspicious actions. Translation: “Darkies stay away!”

The article refers to the iWATCH program that has a curious list of things to report. Much of it is silly. We are supposed to report “chemical smells or fumes.” I think that’s probably a good idea, but mostly because you don’t want your house to burn down or to die from poisoning. The idea that this is something we ought to look out for because of “terrorism” is ridiculous. There is also a certain obsession with “important buildings.” Report a car illegal parked in from of important buildings but not, apparently, in front of non-important buildings. I’m not sure what qualifies as an important building in Jacksonville, and the site doesn’t say. They also want people to look out for the nefarious model builder and uniform purchaser. It sounds very much like the people who made the list had watched Die Hard one too many times.

The main thing is the way that the government (and much of the media) want people to be frightened of terrorism all out of proportion to the actual threat. After all, this year, far more Americans have died because of workplace accidents—much of it criminally negligent. Far more Americans have died in shooting sprees. I don’t have the data, but it is certainly the case that more Americans have died this year because of lightning strikes than terror attacks. But we are doing nothing about workplace safety, guns, or the shocking lack of lightning rods in rural America. We are, however, turning the whole country into one big spying organization and allowing our government to practice endless war.

But at least Jacksonville, Florida will be terrorism free. Well, against white people anyway.

At the Washington Post, two writers I admire, Greg Sargent and Jonathan Bernstein, are excited about the prospect of filibuster reform. First, Sargent broke the news that Harry Reid plans to go for the “nuclear option” in July if the Republicans filibuster three upcoming nominees: “Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Thomas Perez as secretary of labor; and Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency.” And then Bernstein argued that Reid was playing this just right by giving the Republicans a warning and an opportunity to reform themselves.

The problem, of course, is: really?! Are we really supposed to believe that (1) Republicans will respond to what they should rightly assume is an empty threat? And is it at all credible that (2) Reid will in fact do anything this time other than shake hands with Mitch McConnell? However, it is possible that I’m being unfair to the Majority Leader. According to Bernstein, Reid is constrained because (he doesn’t put it this way) he is the leader of a bunch of wimps who wouldn’t go to the bathroom without asking permission from the Republicans. And there is likely something to that. But if it is the case that Reid doesn’t have the support of his caucus, then why is he saying anything at all?

Another problem is that we really don’t know what Reid means by his test case of three nominations. The truth is that the Republicans filibuster every nominee. I know that some nominees do get through, but that is only because some Republicans vote for cloture. Let’s be really clear here: Senate Republicans require 60 votes for every nominee. Requiring 60 senators before a vote can be cast is a filibuster. If they get the 60 senators, it was an unsuccessful filibuster; but it was still a filibuster.

So the question is, will Harry Reid launch the “nuclear option” if Republicans unsuccessfully filibuster these three nominees? Because they will filibuster them. And even worse, what if only one or two of the nominees are successfully filibustered? We don’t know. But I have a hunch: Reid will declare victory and slink away. I would love to be proven wrong.

Our only hope is to put pressure on our senators. I did so myself last night, writing to both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I’m not sure about Boxer, but Feinstein has often been mentioned as someone who didn’t want filibuster reform. Remember: writing to your senator is really easy. Just use the Senate’s Contacting the Senate form. Or just enter your senator’s name and “contact” into Google. If not for yourself or your country, do it for me! This stuff is really important. All you need to do is to say that you would like to see a stop to Republican abuse of the filibuster regarding nominations and that the senator should support Harry Reid’s filibuster reform using the “nuclear option.” It’s easy! And most of all: it’s effective.

One thing is for sure. If Harry Reid is ever going to do something about the filibuster, he’s going to need all of our help.

Birthdays are not created equal. Yesterday, I almost gave up having a winner. Today, I have four easy winners who did not win. On this day in 1048, the great Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam was born. He’s winner number one. Another great mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell was born in 1872. Unlike his colleague Wittgenstein, Russell was a decent human being. And he’s winner number two. Bauhaus founder and architect who I really don’t much like, Walter Gropius was born in 1883. Flutist, Music Man composer, and so much more, Meredith Willson was born in 1902. He’s winner number three. Singer Perry Como who underwhelms me, and director Richard Brooks who whelms me, were both born in 1912. The last dead pope, John Paul II was born in 1920. And insane cartoonist Don Martin was born in 1931. He’s winner number four.

Keyboardist Rick Wakeman is 64 today.

But let me tell you about one of my very favorite movies. It Happened One Night is the perfect Depression era film. It has a working class hero who teaches a silly rich girl important life lessons. It has good rich people (father) and bad rich people (King Westley). And it is funny as hell. This is my favorite scene, “Do you love my daughter?”

“Yes! But don’t hold that against me, I’m a little screwy myself!” I just love that.

The film was written by Robert Riskin, who I really like, and somehow missed on his birthday back on 30 March. But that was also van Gogh and Goya’s birthdays, so I think I can be forgiven. Today is the birthday of longtime Riskin collaborator, director Frank Capra who was born in 1897. And he wins the day. It is not without some reserve that I do this. Although Capra made It Happened One Night, his excesses caused him to make other films that although I don’t hate, bug me: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It’s a Wonderful Life. But one thing is for sure, Capra had a good heart. The less said about his parochial views of sex and religion, the better. He was still a liberal by any definition. And by today’s standards a communist.

Happy birthday Frank Capra!