The War On Bullshit

I was recently told by a Christian that I, being an atheist, am intrinsically immoral, having nothing on which to base my morality. I think with the Pope’s recent visit to our fair shores, this is a great statement for me to sink my teeth into. For all you Christians who think atheists lack a moral compass, I’ve got the real good news: belief in an imaginary father-figure is not necessary to define your morals, and, in fact, religious moral authority often prevents tolerance of other systems of morality.

This theory hinges on a few concepts I’ll discuss: moral relativism, the subjective nature of human life, and the flawed philosophy of Plato.

The Problem with Plato
Let’s start with the groundwork. For those of you unfamiliar with Platonic idealism, here’s the real short version: Plato believed that there was an objective reality out there, and truth is an accurate representation of this objective reality. Now, this sounds good – it’s easy to digest, and wraps everything up in a happy black and white picture. If reality is objective, then good is good, bad is bad, and ugly is ugly.

There are, however, some serious problems with Plato. Richard Rorty, a postmodern philosopher, argues in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity that big-T Truth is a problem because man interprets everything through language. Don’t buy it? How are your thoughts organized? BINGO! Language. Language is seen by Rorty as nothing but a series of metaphors; the word tree is not, in fact, a tree, but merely a verbal image representing a tree. He thus comes to the conclusion that language must be subjective, since we all have slightly differing interpretations of these metaphors. You may see an oak tree, while I envision a pine tree, for instance. Rorty and other postmodernists believe, rather than in Truth, in truths. To the postmodern philosophers, there is no objective reality – or, rather, mankind can never find objective reality because we are limited by the subjectivity of the language with which we interpret the world. This leads to some interesting concepts regarding morality…

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is a concept espoused by existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed a human being’s morals are subjective and based on cultural and societal norms rather than some objective morality given to us by God. This hinges on the above-expressed idea that reality itself is subjective, of course. Moral relativists often argue that someone’s morality is only applicable within their own culture, and can’t be applied to other, conflicting cultures. There are some problems with this theory as well; moral relativism implies that we can each create our own morals, and since we each create our own moral code, no one is immoral. I tend to subscribe to a more practical view: morals are socially constructed. Individual cultures come to a consensus of what is considered immoral.

Conclusion
“So what the heck is your point, Riley?” you might be asking. My point is, atheists are perfectly able to be moral, righteous individuals. If morals are relative to the culture, my morality is based on the same Western ideals as the morality of any Christian. The idea that an atheist cannot be moral is based on a concept I just don’t buy into: that we have some Truth handed down to us by a nonexistent God.

Kavan pointed out in an earlier article that the Ten Commandments are missing some very important rules; for instance, rape is wrong, despite not being in the Ten Commandments. I think we can all agree that a rapist is not a moral individual; where does this come from, if the Bible does not command it as part of your moral foundation? It’s because rape is damaging to society, and thus goes against our collective, cultural moral foundation.

Now here’s the leap: atheism and moral relativism actually breed more tolerance than mainstream, Christian ideology. Christians’ belief that morals and Truth are handed down by God (not any god, but their God), has led many (not all) Christians to believe those of other belief systems are wrong, going to hell, and generally bad and immoral people. Because I do not follow the Word of God, I must be an immoral person. Worse than individual persecution, religious morality breeds systemic intolerance.

Ex.:The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13, “And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” There are vast armies of Christians who argue that this is the way we actually ought to treat homosexuality. Because their religion is a system of rules given to them by a divine, infallible Creator, His words make it okay to persecute and even put to death those who go against His divine morality.

Moral relativism and a belief that the world itself is subjective allows one to gain a better appreciation for why other cultures do the things they do, and allows for a more tolerant view of them. That being said, this problem is not unique to Christianity – this kind of superiority complex is pervasive in almost all organized religions. Each one thinks they have the Ultimate Truth, and the others are all wrong.

Not to sound too much like a Beatles song, but imagine if people worldwide accepted the notion that morality is a societal invention. Since it is no longer something given to us by some infallible source, and is, in fact, a creation of mankind, the other religions of the world are no longer immoral and wrong. They’ve just got a different view of the truth. After all, they’re all shooting for the same target, right? “Do unto others…”

I am not often caught going after the left, guns blazing, but as someone with some experience as a radio host, I have to voice opposition to possibly the biggest idiocy in radio broadcasting: the Fairness Doctrine. Never heard of it? Let’s define this bit of garbage, first.

Definition
This is an ancient law that was in effect from the late 40s until well into the 80s, the goal of which was to ensure that the airwaves were fair and balanced. Though the law didn’t require radio hosts to offer both sides of the political spectrum within a single program, it required stations to ‘fairly’ divide their programming schedules to address both the leftist and right-wing views. Possibly the smartest thing Ronald Reagan ever did was get rid of this garbage.

Support from the left
Unfortunately, there are a number of folks on the left who have pushed to have this deceased doctrine brought back to life. One-time presidential candidate John Kerry supports passing this legislation; Dennis Kucinich would also like to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back to life; even California Dems Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are strong supporters of this load of bullshit.

The theory is that there are a limited number of airwaves, but an infinite amount of people who would like their voice expressed on those airwaves – thus, we must regulate radio stations to ensure that they express both sides of the fence equally. There are a few reasons this is bullshit – in particular in today’s multimedia world.

Why This is B.S.
First off, it’s terrifying to me for the government to control political expression. It seems counter to the political dogma of the left, who, using the American Civil Liberties Union, fight so hard to protect people’s right to freedom of expression. Why should the government be able to tell the owners of a radio station (or stations) what their programming schedule must look like? I’m not exactly a conservative in favor of complete free market, but I certainly don’t like the regulation of what is said in the media.

I bet these guys support the Fairness Doctrine.

Besides, this kind of regulation is based on a bullshit concept to begin with: complete objectivity in media. Students of writing and journalism used to learn all about hiding their bias and trying to objectively present both sides of an argument, without favoring one or the other. Unfortunately, that never really worked. It just leads to media outlets covering their bias up while using clever, sometimes subconscious, rhetorical tactics to favor one side over the other. It probably makes a little more sense to expose one’s bias as a media outlet; just be up front, and let people know which side of the political fence an agency leans toward.

Second, the Fairness Doctrine in its original incarnation was a tool for leftist politicians to attack their adversaries. Bill Ruder, Kennedy’s Secretary of Commerce, has openly said that the political strategy of the Dems in the 60s was to use the Fairness Doctrine to attack right-wing radio hosts in the hope that the attacks would cost the right-wingers so much they would decide the show was too expensive to continue airing.

Now, I’m not exactly a big conservative, but I don’t like to see anyone attacked for expressing their political views. This doctrine was used to force small radio stations to drop right-wing programming when station owners realized they would have to give free time to liberals to balance the programming. That is the most under-handed, sly and terrifying form of political censorship.

Most importantly, though, why is this nonsense about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine absolutely idiotic? Because it serves no purpose today. We live in a multimedia world, and the idea that radio is the place most people develop their political opinions is simply not true anymore. While it is true that radio programs are unquestionably right-biased, liberals now have outlets they did not have under the original Fairness Doctrine. This very blog is a good example of why the Fairness Doctrine is no longer necessary – if, in fact, it was ever necessary in the first place. Television is now filled with a host of liberal-biased shows to counter the conservative voices, and it’s now easier than ever to self-publish political ‘zines to get the liberal word out on paper.

Even traditional radio is on the verge of dying, giving way to satellite radio and Internet broadcasts, which are fairly easy to set up for those wishing to get their liberal voice heard.

We should all let this nonsense serve as a warning: there are no politicians not worth watching. Left or right, they will still spread the manure to get re-elected - or to silence Rush Limbaugh, apparently. This is just a dirty tactic to silence the free expression of opposing ideas, and I think conservative and liberal alike can see that this is dirty politickin’ in its purest form.

So, in closing, way to go, Pelosi & Co. Orwell would be proud. Or Hitler. Or Stalin…

In a previous post, I identified a dialectic reasoning pattern I call the “new stupid” pattern. Here is another example.

Old stupid argument: violent video games make children more dangerous and lead to fighting, gang violence, school shootings, etc.

New stupid argument: its absurd that atomizing monsters with the BFG and sniping aliens would translate too are more violent temperament. This is just fear mongering by out of touch senior citizens.

What’s actually going on: in The Republic, Plato emphasized the importance of the stories told children and how people’s minds are affected by the stories to which they are exposed. Our culture glorifies violence. The ubiquitous exaltation of violence is prominent in video games, board games, movies, television, advertisements, news, the wars being fought, medals given to soldiers, classic and contemporary literature, and religious texts.

Are violent video games contributing to violence in society? Certainly, but no more so than any other medium.

Should society limit children’s access to violent games? Perhaps, but only if we’re willing to limit access to other violent media, including the Bible.