The Modern Ethical Vacuum

How do you tell right from wrong?

50 years ago, when I was a boy, Christianity supplied the answers to those sorts of questions. Since that time, Christianity has been getting increasingly marginalised. The Archbishop of Canterbury was complaining recently that it was being ‘denormalised’. It seems to be part of a long, slow process. Already 50 years ago Christianity was not the power it once had been a few centuries earlier.

What brought about the long, slow decline? Any number of things. Christianity disintegrated into rival denominations. Christians fought Christians, and Christians persecuted Christians. And then there was the rise of science and scientific thinking, and the theory of evolution. This new way of thinking didn’t marry easily with the Christian cosmos. And then there was just increased prosperity: rather than concentrate their minds on the next life, people started to want a good time in this life.

Whatever the reasons, the retreat of Christianity has meant the marginalisation of the ethical codes of Christianity. And yet at the same time, the new sciences which have told us so much about the workings of the natural world have told us nothing at all about ethics. Scientists declare that they study what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Any attempt to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ is dismissed as a logical impossibility. It’s often called the Naturalistic Fallacy. So the new science doesn’t offer any ethical advice either.

The result is a sort of moral vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum. And so all sorts of other creeds come rushing in.

Some of these are existing creeds, of course, like Islam or Buddhism. Some are new cults, usually from India. Somehow or other, India seems to have almost a complete monopoly on new cults.

But, as befits a scientific age, the most influential new creeds are of a scientific character. They don’t come with candles and incense. They come with peer-reviewed papers full of statistics and graphs and tables.

Modern doctor-driven healthism, a new variant of eugenics, is one particularly powerful new creed. The summum bonum of this new creed is longevity of life. It’s a hardly surprising creed to come from the medical profession, which is, after all, primarily in the business of prolonging life. It seems that, as the Christian clergy retreated into the shadows, doctors felt that it was their right, and perhaps even their duty, to mount the pulpits they had vacated, and deliver new sermons on right healthy living. It was not upon fraud and theft and rape and murder that they directed their ire: it was upon smoking and drinking and eating and lack of exercise. An army of finger-wagging lifestyle pundits has been launched upon the world, banning smoking, alcohol, fat, sugar, salt.

Another new creed that has scientific pretensions is the Green environmental movement. This is a form of nature worship. Its central doctrine is that greedy humans are despoiling the Earth (which they call Gaia) with the dark, satanic mills of its industry, and that there are too many greedy humans living increasingly unsustainable lives, and filling the atmosphere with CO2 and acid rain and ozone holes. Their solution is one of de-industrialisation and a return to a simpler, more sustainable, and fairer human existence with the planet’s 6 billion + population reduced to 100 million. So if the healthist doctors are determined to make us live as long as possible, it seems that the Greens want to kill most of us off.

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Even governments have joined in, with a great many politicians showing signs that they believe that it is not their job to heed the will of their constituents, but on the contrary for their constituents to heed their will. This is called ‘leadership’, or being ‘pro-active’. And the mass media are increasingly co-opted to act as a sort of surrogate bully pulpit by which to ‘nudge’ people towards healthier or greener lifestyles.

Yet neither medicine nor ecology are really fitted to provide moral guidance for humanity. It is as if, in place of the departed clergy, a number of barber-surgeons and gardeners have been promoted into their place. (Both, oddly enough, might be said to have been satirised by Peter Sellers, firstly as the central character in Dr Strangelove, and secondly as Chauncey Gardiner in Being There.) Both offer a wan, dwindled, blinkered morality. Anyway, why pick on doctors and gardeners? Why not airline pilots and chefs? (Ooops, forgot about Jamie Oliver there).

And one may foresee an inherent conflict growing between the human-life-prolonging healthists and the human-life-shortening Greens. Their goals are entirely incompatible. It can’t both be a sterilised cotton-wool environment and a return to the Stone Age.

Perhaps a further feature of the deepening ethical vacuum is that, in the absence of any moral principles, morality becomes something free-floating, and whatever people agree it to be. It becomes something to be negotiated. It requires a consensus. In reaching this consensus, there is no real moral debate, because invariably ‘the debate is over’ and ‘everybody knows’ what needs to be done.

Do we need a coherent and comprehensive morality? Perhaps everybody sort of always knows what’s right and wrong. But there is reason to suspect that this is not the case. Smoking bans which eject smokers from pubs and cafes are quite manifestly neither fair nor even-handed. It’s not in the least bit “Do unto others as you would be done by.” Nor is there any trace of compassion or forgiveness shown to smokers. Complete smoking bans are quite manifestly obscene laws. Yet almost nobody will stand up and say so. Nobody seems to notice. What better evidence is there of some profound ethical deficit? It seems that a great many people no longer know right from wrong. And what is being done to smokers therefore looks set to be done to drinkers and fat people and anyone who offends against the idol of health or the great bitch goddess Gaia.

Morality of any sort, like law, would seem to be something which treats everybody equally, and does not discriminate or exclude. Yet precisely such discrimination and exclusion is now being practised with the full sanction of the government and the media and the courts and the medical establishment. And it looks set to just get worse and worse.

The response to this deepening ethical vacuum, and to the appearance of manifest injustice, will almost certainly bring calls for a renewed and inclusive moral sensibility. In many cases this will mean calls for a return to Christian morality. Either that, or it will generate new attempts to discover some hitherto-undiscovered moral rationality.

For most certainly our modern righteous are utterly morally bankrupt. All these healthists and greens, parading their certainties, have no real morality at all.

For myself, I cling onto my original Christian morality, or the battered remains of it. But I think that the way forward will have to be through discovering some new ethical rationality, rather than through Mosaic revelation. Yesterday I was trying to piece together the outlines of one such rational ethics. For I suspect that, as time goes on, it’s soon going to become more and more urgent to undertake such a task. And that more and more people will see the necessity of it.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Modern Ethical Vacuum

  1. Anonymous says:

    Don’t Forget…
    …”Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
    Anti-tobacco has thrown that commandment to the wind.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Don’t Forget…
    …”Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
    Anti-tobacco has thrown that commandment to the wind.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I fear the barber-surgeons and Gaia worshippers may find a way to mesh their ambitions. In a deindustrialised world there will, of course, be no tobacco, alcohol, processed food, or sugar, and everyone will have to be very physically active just to survive. So a population of thin, fit, drug-free ubermenschen will inhabit a leafy green paradise, where they will frolic by crystal clear waters, clean in body and mind.
    Why am I thinking of the Third Reich now?
    PT Barnum

  4. Anonymous says:

    I fear the barber-surgeons and Gaia worshippers may find a way to mesh their ambitions. In a deindustrialised world there will, of course, be no tobacco, alcohol, processed food, or sugar, and everyone will have to be very physically active just to survive. So a population of thin, fit, drug-free ubermenschen will inhabit a leafy green paradise, where they will frolic by crystal clear waters, clean in body and mind.
    Why am I thinking of the Third Reich now?
    PT Barnum

  5. Frank Davis says:

    mesh their ambitions
    In Germany I read recently that the Greens had got together a successful petition to re-impose a previously overtuned smoking ban. What’s ‘green’ about smoking bans? Or is it the CO2 from lit cigarettes they’re worried about?
    Frank

  6. Frank Davis says:

    mesh their ambitions
    In Germany I read recently that the Greens had got together a successful petition to re-impose a previously overtuned smoking ban. What’s ‘green’ about smoking bans? Or is it the CO2 from lit cigarettes they’re worried about?
    Frank

  7. Anonymous says:

    I don’t doubt for one moment that the Greens wish to reduce population drastically. They are normally shy about saying so directly, but they’re happy to admit that we are the cause of all pollution. We are the ones with carbon footprints and “unsustainable” lifestyles. If you are a (political) Green, then you may not be willing to say so, but you know that most of us have to go.
    That’s another consequence of the removal of morality. To a Christian the idea of “reducing the population” is abhorrent, because how will you do it? War? Mass genocide? Mass starvation? The ethics of the Christian are rooted in absolute principles; the ethics of the Green are rooted in “the greater good”.
    Socialist ethics seem to boil down to the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which on the surface is a fairly Christian principle. Think of sacrifice and martyrdom, for example. However, those operate by choice. You’re not a martyr unless you can opt out and choose not to die. It’s not a sacrifice if you’re forced to do it. In socialism, you have no choice. It is imposed upon you.
    This permits mass killing if that killing serves the greater good. How would one reduce 6 billion to 100 million? It’s not without historical precedent. If you can kill one ecocidal climate criminal with an “unsustainable” lifestyle, why not 10? A million? A billion? Aren’t those deaths worth it to save the world? The 20th century socialist dictators were happy to see millions die in the service of their “greater good”. No reason to expect the 21st century versions to be any different.
    I think this is an enormously useful fact about the Greens. It should be highlighted, because they cannot get away from it. How can we all live “sustainable” lifestyles? Particularly when we are denied nuclear power, advanced farming methods and a globalised infrastructure, other things that the Greens want. We can’t use an efficient market system to allocate resources, because that would be capitalism; instead, resources must be rationed by government. How did that work out in the USSR? Ah yes, not very well.
    Incidentally I tracked down the source of that Dave Foreman quote. Apparently it is “Swanson, Holly, Set up & Sold Out, (C.I.N Publishing, White City, OR., 1998), p., 181,”. Unfortunately this is the sort of book that socialists will simply dismiss out of hand. “A partisan book,” they will say. “Corporate astroturfing that quotes us out of context, taking the views of a few Greens and applying them to us all.” That is what the Greens will say if we quote Dave Foreman at them. But still, it’s a universal concept. We are pollution. We are the problem. Privately, they will admit that Foreman is right.
    – Vladimir

  8. Anonymous says:

    I don’t doubt for one moment that the Greens wish to reduce population drastically. They are normally shy about saying so directly, but they’re happy to admit that we are the cause of all pollution. We are the ones with carbon footprints and “unsustainable” lifestyles. If you are a (political) Green, then you may not be willing to say so, but you know that most of us have to go.
    That’s another consequence of the removal of morality. To a Christian the idea of “reducing the population” is abhorrent, because how will you do it? War? Mass genocide? Mass starvation? The ethics of the Christian are rooted in absolute principles; the ethics of the Green are rooted in “the greater good”.
    Socialist ethics seem to boil down to the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which on the surface is a fairly Christian principle. Think of sacrifice and martyrdom, for example. However, those operate by choice. You’re not a martyr unless you can opt out and choose not to die. It’s not a sacrifice if you’re forced to do it. In socialism, you have no choice. It is imposed upon you.
    This permits mass killing if that killing serves the greater good. How would one reduce 6 billion to 100 million? It’s not without historical precedent. If you can kill one ecocidal climate criminal with an “unsustainable” lifestyle, why not 10? A million? A billion? Aren’t those deaths worth it to save the world? The 20th century socialist dictators were happy to see millions die in the service of their “greater good”. No reason to expect the 21st century versions to be any different.
    I think this is an enormously useful fact about the Greens. It should be highlighted, because they cannot get away from it. How can we all live “sustainable” lifestyles? Particularly when we are denied nuclear power, advanced farming methods and a globalised infrastructure, other things that the Greens want. We can’t use an efficient market system to allocate resources, because that would be capitalism; instead, resources must be rationed by government. How did that work out in the USSR? Ah yes, not very well.
    Incidentally I tracked down the source of that Dave Foreman quote. Apparently it is “Swanson, Holly, Set up & Sold Out, (C.I.N Publishing, White City, OR., 1998), p., 181,”. Unfortunately this is the sort of book that socialists will simply dismiss out of hand. “A partisan book,” they will say. “Corporate astroturfing that quotes us out of context, taking the views of a few Greens and applying them to us all.” That is what the Greens will say if we quote Dave Foreman at them. But still, it’s a universal concept. We are pollution. We are the problem. Privately, they will admit that Foreman is right.
    – Vladimir

  9. Anonymous says:

    Frank, very useful observations. Materialist “philosophies” such as eugenics run on moral relativism or situational ethics. Honesty and integrity of conduct do not figure in humanity-reduced-to-biology. It is a morally destitute philosophy. (In materialism there is no mind, no soul, no spirit, no God, no freedom. There is only a self-installed elite as overseers of a biological human herd). For example, pathological lying, propaganda, and social division can be seen as useful means to ideo-political goals – the end justifies the means. Even the “longevity ideal” used to denormalize smokers can quickly be turned on its head. Having accomplished the antismoking goal, very-old-age can then be manufactured into a burden on society and requiring a “solution”. It is all made up as they go along: It is based on shifting sands. Having dispensed with actual morality, i.e., depth of character, eugenics substitutes its own “morality” – thou shalt not smoke, thou shalt eat only X, Y, Z…., thou shalt exercise, etc. Many now call themselves “good” (i.e., they are being “good”) because they stuck to a diet or they don’t smoke, etc. They have no grasp of honesty and integrity of conduct as moral ideals. This is dangerous shallowness. In fact, when we hear people calling themselves “good” en masse in eugenic terms, the underlying society endorsing this “morality” (substitution) is already in moral destitution.
    And in the UK the situation is set to worsen given its hosting of the Olympic Games in two years time. The Olympic Games (circus) is the zenith of the cult of the body. Eugenics reveres athleticism. Athletes are “good stock” (see also the Nazi use of the Olympic Games). If you consider the Godber Blueprint, a submission at one of the world conferences in the 1980s was that the Olympic village should be smoke/tobacco-free in reverence for the “superior creatures” – the excellent exemplars – that athletes are viewed as. At another world conference on smoking and health, there was a group of athletes engaged in calisthenics performing in the foyer of one of the venues, indicating, again, examples of good stock and health. Yet nowhere in the materialist view do psychological, emotional, intellectual, social, and [actual] moral health figure. When the Olympic circus comes to town, the demand for more smoking restrictions as reverence to the “superior stock” is now a “given”.
    The Godber Blueprint – see http://www.rampant-antismoking.com
    For some further thoughts on Christianity and materialism, see final chapter of the book Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger (available free at the same website).

  10. Anonymous says:

    Frank, very useful observations. Materialist “philosophies” such as eugenics run on moral relativism or situational ethics. Honesty and integrity of conduct do not figure in humanity-reduced-to-biology. It is a morally destitute philosophy. (In materialism there is no mind, no soul, no spirit, no God, no freedom. There is only a self-installed elite as overseers of a biological human herd). For example, pathological lying, propaganda, and social division can be seen as useful means to ideo-political goals – the end justifies the means. Even the “longevity ideal” used to denormalize smokers can quickly be turned on its head. Having accomplished the antismoking goal, very-old-age can then be manufactured into a burden on society and requiring a “solution”. It is all made up as they go along: It is based on shifting sands. Having dispensed with actual morality, i.e., depth of character, eugenics substitutes its own “morality” – thou shalt not smoke, thou shalt eat only X, Y, Z…., thou shalt exercise, etc. Many now call themselves “good” (i.e., they are being “good”) because they stuck to a diet or they don’t smoke, etc. They have no grasp of honesty and integrity of conduct as moral ideals. This is dangerous shallowness. In fact, when we hear people calling themselves “good” en masse in eugenic terms, the underlying society endorsing this “morality” (substitution) is already in moral destitution.
    And in the UK the situation is set to worsen given its hosting of the Olympic Games in two years time. The Olympic Games (circus) is the zenith of the cult of the body. Eugenics reveres athleticism. Athletes are “good stock” (see also the Nazi use of the Olympic Games). If you consider the Godber Blueprint, a submission at one of the world conferences in the 1980s was that the Olympic village should be smoke/tobacco-free in reverence for the “superior creatures” – the excellent exemplars – that athletes are viewed as. At another world conference on smoking and health, there was a group of athletes engaged in calisthenics performing in the foyer of one of the venues, indicating, again, examples of good stock and health. Yet nowhere in the materialist view do psychological, emotional, intellectual, social, and [actual] moral health figure. When the Olympic circus comes to town, the demand for more smoking restrictions as reverence to the “superior stock” is now a “given”.
    The Godber Blueprint – see http://www.rampant-antismoking.com
    For some further thoughts on Christianity and materialism, see final chapter of the book Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger (available free at the same website).

  11. Anonymous says:

    (cont’d)
    Just some thoughts on science. The scientific method is concerned with objective, replicable measurements – usually quantifications of some sort. It is obviously well-suited to the material world. The human, however, is a multi-dimensional being and does not lend itself well at all to scientific enquiry, i.e., this is a limitation of scientific enquiry. Other views, methods and avenues have been used in attempting to understand the human condition, e.g., introspection, literature, metaphysics. But these do not sit well with the materialist thinker – reflecting the most shallow level of thought. The materialist needs numbers and equations. The materialist then plays a trick on himself. He convinces himself that only what can be scientifically investigated (i.e., objectively quantified) exists. This is not a scientific proposition, but an entirely questionable philosophical one. This debate on multi-dimensionality has been going on for millennia. What we are experiencing at the moment is when materialism dominates all proceedings: Debate is essentially non-existent – and it is not coincidental. And it is a dangerous time. The materialist thinker has very poor (if at all) psychological/moral insight. In chasing questionable ideological goals via questionable means, the darker propensities of the human mind (which do not even register in materialist reckoning) are unleashed and reinforced, e.g., fear, dishonesty, hatred, cultism, greed, avarice, haughtiness, vanity, cruelty, bigotry, violence, tyranny. In other words, we are not working on what we should be working on over out lifetimes, i.e., clearing/healing contorted thought – fear, hatred, unforgiveness, indifference, etc. – by the Grace of God. As constraints on resources in this world intensify, all of the destructive contortions that we haven’t been working on will come very much to the fore.

  12. Anonymous says:

    (cont’d)
    Just some thoughts on science. The scientific method is concerned with objective, replicable measurements – usually quantifications of some sort. It is obviously well-suited to the material world. The human, however, is a multi-dimensional being and does not lend itself well at all to scientific enquiry, i.e., this is a limitation of scientific enquiry. Other views, methods and avenues have been used in attempting to understand the human condition, e.g., introspection, literature, metaphysics. But these do not sit well with the materialist thinker – reflecting the most shallow level of thought. The materialist needs numbers and equations. The materialist then plays a trick on himself. He convinces himself that only what can be scientifically investigated (i.e., objectively quantified) exists. This is not a scientific proposition, but an entirely questionable philosophical one. This debate on multi-dimensionality has been going on for millennia. What we are experiencing at the moment is when materialism dominates all proceedings: Debate is essentially non-existent – and it is not coincidental. And it is a dangerous time. The materialist thinker has very poor (if at all) psychological/moral insight. In chasing questionable ideological goals via questionable means, the darker propensities of the human mind (which do not even register in materialist reckoning) are unleashed and reinforced, e.g., fear, dishonesty, hatred, cultism, greed, avarice, haughtiness, vanity, cruelty, bigotry, violence, tyranny. In other words, we are not working on what we should be working on over out lifetimes, i.e., clearing/healing contorted thought – fear, hatred, unforgiveness, indifference, etc. – by the Grace of God. As constraints on resources in this world intensify, all of the destructive contortions that we haven’t been working on will come very much to the fore.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Thankyou for that explanation of materialism. I found it very informative. Hope you keep contributing.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Thankyou for that explanation of materialism. I found it very informative. Hope you keep contributing.

  15. Think I will just dig my bunker bigger……….btw its smoking everywhere.I see a big big war in the makings,prohibition,worldwide depression,eugenics,,,,,,,,Greens/hitler. Sorta sounds like 1900-1933 all over again and its what Ive been seeing for the last 4 years since 2006.
    Thanks frank you always have the perspective.

  16. Think I will just dig my bunker bigger……….btw its smoking everywhere.I see a big big war in the makings,prohibition,worldwide depression,eugenics,,,,,,,,Greens/hitler. Sorta sounds like 1900-1933 all over again and its what Ive been seeing for the last 4 years since 2006.
    Thanks frank you always have the perspective.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Having just spoken of the Olympic Games, there is now an official partnership between the World Health[ist] Organization (Eugenics Central) and the International Olympic Committee (I think there was an unofficial partnership long beforehand):
    The World Health Organization and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are teaming up to promote what they see as healthy lifestyle choices.
    According to an Afriquenligne story quoting a WHO statement, the organizations want to encourage everybody to take part in sports, prevent childhood obesity and promote tobacco-free Olympic Games.
    A memorandum of understanding signed last Wednesday in Lausanne, Switzerland, commits the WHO and IOC to work at international and state levels to promote activities and policy choices that help people reduce their risk of non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancers and diabetes.
    “This agreement with the IOC will help increase our ability and reach in addressing the diseases which are the leading causes of death around the world,” said the WHO director-general, Dr.
    Margaret Chan.

    http://tobaccoreporter.com/home.php?id=498&art=3605

  18. Anonymous says:

    Having just spoken of the Olympic Games, there is now an official partnership between the World Health[ist] Organization (Eugenics Central) and the International Olympic Committee (I think there was an unofficial partnership long beforehand):
    The World Health Organization and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are teaming up to promote what they see as healthy lifestyle choices.
    According to an Afriquenligne story quoting a WHO statement, the organizations want to encourage everybody to take part in sports, prevent childhood obesity and promote tobacco-free Olympic Games.
    A memorandum of understanding signed last Wednesday in Lausanne, Switzerland, commits the WHO and IOC to work at international and state levels to promote activities and policy choices that help people reduce their risk of non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancers and diabetes.
    “This agreement with the IOC will help increase our ability and reach in addressing the diseases which are the leading causes of death around the world,” said the WHO director-general, Dr.
    Margaret Chan.

    http://tobaccoreporter.com/home.php?id=498&art=3605

  19. Frank Davis says:

    Honesty and integrity of conduct do not figure in humanity-reduced-to-biology. It is a morally destitute philosophy. (In materialism there is no mind, no soul, no spirit, no God, no freedom.
    Certainly this is true of their biology. I’ve yet to see any ethics come out of beyond a Darwinian dog-eat-dog struggle for survival. In my view, Hitler’s views were thoroughly Darwinian. I’ve written about it elsewhere.
    But in my quite different approach to biology (in Idle Theory), I discern a morality inherent in life which these Darwinians and biologists do not. Living things are trying to maximise ‘idleness’ – where idleness is a measure of how hard they don’t have to work to survive. This is the least action principle to which I refer.
    I’ve tried, from time to time, to reconcile the abstract concept of ‘idleness’ with the Christian idea of ‘soul’. Because I believe that a very similar picture of the world emerges, with God corresponding to perfect idleness – a deus otiosus -, and the Devil to complete busyness, and humanity somewhere in between.
    In addition, I’m very consciously comparing the ethics of Idle Theory with Christian ethics – with the latter being the touchstone or senior partner.
    But that’s just my view. What does seem to me most important of all is that people address these moral questions.
    Frank
    P.S. I loathe the Olympics too, for the reasons you give.

  20. Frank Davis says:

    Honesty and integrity of conduct do not figure in humanity-reduced-to-biology. It is a morally destitute philosophy. (In materialism there is no mind, no soul, no spirit, no God, no freedom.
    Certainly this is true of their biology. I’ve yet to see any ethics come out of beyond a Darwinian dog-eat-dog struggle for survival. In my view, Hitler’s views were thoroughly Darwinian. I’ve written about it elsewhere.
    But in my quite different approach to biology (in Idle Theory), I discern a morality inherent in life which these Darwinians and biologists do not. Living things are trying to maximise ‘idleness’ – where idleness is a measure of how hard they don’t have to work to survive. This is the least action principle to which I refer.
    I’ve tried, from time to time, to reconcile the abstract concept of ‘idleness’ with the Christian idea of ‘soul’. Because I believe that a very similar picture of the world emerges, with God corresponding to perfect idleness – a deus otiosus -, and the Devil to complete busyness, and humanity somewhere in between.
    In addition, I’m very consciously comparing the ethics of Idle Theory with Christian ethics – with the latter being the touchstone or senior partner.
    But that’s just my view. What does seem to me most important of all is that people address these moral questions.
    Frank
    P.S. I loathe the Olympics too, for the reasons you give.

  21. Anonymous says:

    “Even the “longevity ideal” used to denormalize smokers can quickly be turned on its head. Having accomplished the antismoking goal, very-old-age can then be manufactured into a burden on society and requiring a “solution”.”
    I was thinking about that very thing when Frank talked about the incompatibility of healthist goals (preserve life for as long as possible) and Green ones (depopulation).
    The only difference from how you have stated it is that both things are happening simultaneously! You can look at a newspaper and see an article quoting some medical expert justifying the next round of bullying by saying “We want people to live long healthy lives”; you can then turn a couple of pages and find an article warning of the greying population and the “pensions time bomb”. There is never any attempt in the media or the government to try to link the these two viewpoints, even though they are mutually contradictory.
    We are apparently meant to have the memory of goldfish, while the “Great and the Good” happily hold both opposing views at once. It’s all looking disturbingly familiar.
    Rick S

  22. Anonymous says:

    “Even the “longevity ideal” used to denormalize smokers can quickly be turned on its head. Having accomplished the antismoking goal, very-old-age can then be manufactured into a burden on society and requiring a “solution”.”
    I was thinking about that very thing when Frank talked about the incompatibility of healthist goals (preserve life for as long as possible) and Green ones (depopulation).
    The only difference from how you have stated it is that both things are happening simultaneously! You can look at a newspaper and see an article quoting some medical expert justifying the next round of bullying by saying “We want people to live long healthy lives”; you can then turn a couple of pages and find an article warning of the greying population and the “pensions time bomb”. There is never any attempt in the media or the government to try to link the these two viewpoints, even though they are mutually contradictory.
    We are apparently meant to have the memory of goldfish, while the “Great and the Good” happily hold both opposing views at once. It’s all looking disturbingly familiar.
    Rick S

  23. Frank Davis says:

    The Greens really must be confronted with the murderous implications of their doctrines all day every day.
    And I hope that, as it becomes clear to everybody that they are the enemies of humanity, that they are treated accordingly.
    Frank

  24. Frank Davis says:

    The Greens really must be confronted with the murderous implications of their doctrines all day every day.
    And I hope that, as it becomes clear to everybody that they are the enemies of humanity, that they are treated accordingly.
    Frank

  25. Anonymous says:

    For myself, I cling onto my original Christian morality, or the battered remains of it.
    After much thought and research, as I feel a simmering hatred growing in my soul, this is where I end up as well, Frank. Well written.
    Mesmer

  26. Anonymous says:

    For myself, I cling onto my original Christian morality, or the battered remains of it.
    After much thought and research, as I feel a simmering hatred growing in my soul, this is where I end up as well, Frank. Well written.
    Mesmer

  27. Anonymous says:

    Great post, Frank!
    Frank — How do you manage writing such consistently excellent posts? Superb work with much to think about!
    Am glad to see that you wish to hold onto your original Christian morality. Christians are free from Mosaic law, outside of the 10 Commandments as a moral framework. St Paul tells us in Romans 13:9: ‘The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”‘
    The Greens, Socialists and similar groups (healthists, climate changists) want to create a utopia (for themselves) on earth. It will never happen. We are fallen people (Original Sin) in a fallen world.
    I have a post on a similar topic coming up this week, which I think you and your readers will enjoy. I’ll drop by with the link.
    Churchmouse

  28. Anonymous says:

    Great post, Frank!
    Frank — How do you manage writing such consistently excellent posts? Superb work with much to think about!
    Am glad to see that you wish to hold onto your original Christian morality. Christians are free from Mosaic law, outside of the 10 Commandments as a moral framework. St Paul tells us in Romans 13:9: ‘The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”‘
    The Greens, Socialists and similar groups (healthists, climate changists) want to create a utopia (for themselves) on earth. It will never happen. We are fallen people (Original Sin) in a fallen world.
    I have a post on a similar topic coming up this week, which I think you and your readers will enjoy. I’ll drop by with the link.
    Churchmouse

  29. Anonymous says:

    I think it won’t be long before we see assisted suicide ‘legalised’, followed closely by euthanasia and that this is an inevitable consequence of the decline of an ethics based on Christianity. As other posters have remarked, “Thou shalt not kill” will be reduced to “Killing is permissible if it’s for the good of that individual” (or for the good of society) with permissibility being decided by self-appointed medical/political moralists.
    We are already heading for the nightmare of an ageing, non-productive but financially demanding population outnumbering the tax-producing population, with the added burden of the economic mess we’re in. My theory is that the politicos want us to optimize our health and fitness so that we’ll return to the traditional pattern of dying fairly shortly after retirement. Their obsession with health otherwise makes no sense to me.
    Jay

  30. Anonymous says:

    I think it won’t be long before we see assisted suicide ‘legalised’, followed closely by euthanasia and that this is an inevitable consequence of the decline of an ethics based on Christianity. As other posters have remarked, “Thou shalt not kill” will be reduced to “Killing is permissible if it’s for the good of that individual” (or for the good of society) with permissibility being decided by self-appointed medical/political moralists.
    We are already heading for the nightmare of an ageing, non-productive but financially demanding population outnumbering the tax-producing population, with the added burden of the economic mess we’re in. My theory is that the politicos want us to optimize our health and fitness so that we’ll return to the traditional pattern of dying fairly shortly after retirement. Their obsession with health otherwise makes no sense to me.
    Jay

  31. Anonymous says:

    Frank – you’ve probably seen this already as it was linked from Simon Clark’s place, but anyway…
    http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/can-you-take-tobacco-and-receive-communion/
    I especially like the poem’s refrain: Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
    Karen

  32. Anonymous says:

    Frank – you’ve probably seen this already as it was linked from Simon Clark’s place, but anyway…
    http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/can-you-take-tobacco-and-receive-communion/
    I especially like the poem’s refrain: Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
    Karen

  33. Frank Davis says:

    Yes, I’ve read it. Churchmouse posted the link here a few days ago.
    I was going to write something about it, but ended up doing something about Small Potatoes. I never know what I’m going to write.
    Frank

  34. Frank Davis says:

    Yes, I’ve read it. Churchmouse posted the link here a few days ago.
    I was going to write something about it, but ended up doing something about Small Potatoes. I never know what I’m going to write.
    Frank

  35. Pingback: A Deepening Moral Vacuum | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.