RULES, STANDARDS, AND THEORIES MES 3/21
Mar. 16th, 2021 05:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
degringolade
Symbolism / Paul Gauguin/ The Vision after the Sermon (Jacob wrestling with the Angel)
Didn’t post yesterday as I had cheerfully forgotten that it was daylight saving time and when I did realize it I rushed around to be not that late to work.
Michael sent this one off yesterday and I was quite taken with it. That and the idea that the theory of Natural Selection is a piece of reverse engineering (a little brain bomb that he dropped that I am working my way through after I post this)
Not all that much to report here. Portland is starting to act out again. I am wondering where and when I should get out of Dodge. The Younglings are doing fine and all is well.
RULES, STANDARDS, AND THEORIES MES 3/21
A universal understanding for humans, is that life is not fair. The expression “That’s life”, does not mean that something fair has occurred.
Based on two common definitions of “fair”, the statement “life is not fair” means:
One should not expect life to occur in accordance with rules and standards.
One should not expect life to be marked by impartiality and honesty, or be free of self-interest, prejudice, and favoritism.
These definitions can be combined if rules and standards can negate dishonesty, self-interest, prejudice, and favoritism; but the possibility remains for human life to occur in accordance rules and standards, and still be unfair - in which case: one should not expect that rules and standards will make life fair, possibly because they are not intended to do so.
So far, the concept of fairness has been applied only to how humans interact within Nature; but the concept also applies when someone is born with a handicap, or is stricken with a disease, or hit by lightning – when Nature itself seems unfair.
To go further, Nature is known to favor the “fittest” individuals of a species, which might make life unfair for those who are not offspring of the fittest – and besides this, there is no law against violence anywhere along Nature’s food chain.
Thus, “life is not fair” might still have two meanings. It might mean that one should not expect fairness to occur naturally, and it might mean that one should not expect fairness to be produced by rules and standards – such as laws and morals. Regarding the latter possibility, the question remains as to why.
*******
Profit is a uniquely human contribution to what species extract from Nature. Any interaction with Nature intended to produce a profit, is a human contribution to the workings of Nature.
One who is told, “life is not fair”, can understand that the concept of fairness does not apply to Nature, but they can also understand that it could apply within Nature, to cases where humans use other humans (and animals) as means to profit.
Imagine the human population within Nature divided into two groups … and imagine that Group 1 regards the life of any individual in Group 2 as no more than a means of generating profit - all of which goes to Group 1.
If Nature itself were to be as unfair to Group 1, as they are to group 2, then everybody in Group 1 would be hit by lightning or eliminated by some seemingly unfair natural occurrence.
*******
The following is a short, one-act play about a seemingly unfair natural occurrence.
REVOLUTION
Group 1 (explaining to Group 2): “Unfortunately, life is not fair”.
Group 2: “Who says?”
Group 1: “God says - look at Nature. Nature is not fair. Nature does not operate by rules and standards; Nature rewards the fittest, and humans are part of Nature.”
Group 2: “If there are no rules and standards, how about we hang you from that lamppost and take all your stuff?”
Group 1: “No, because there are rules against such immoral behavior.”
Group 2: “Who says?”
Group 1: “God.”
*******
Nature itself is not fair because the concept of fairness has no application to the concept of Nature. The essence of Nature is that it never tries to be fair; thus, Nature itself cannot be, as it happens, sometimes fair.
Animals might apply the concept of fairness to life, only if they expect others to live in accordance with rules and standards added to regulate life within Nature. Minus such rules and standards, there is nothing natural to be evaluated for fairness – there is no “life”, if a life is something that might be judged for fairness.
Man is part of Nature; but being part of Nature does not mean being like anything else in Nature. God affects Nature through the imagination of man, wherein man is granted free will – which means full authority to regulate the workings of Nature according to God’s plan, which is a plan that man draws up for God. This authority that man assumes may be imaginary, but it is as good as real when it has an effect that nothing else could produce.
*******
In addition to providing the materials for profit, Nature itself operates outside the realm of fairness in a manner that encourages humans to believe that they are supposed to use Nature, even other humans, as means to profit, in accordance with theories of Natural Selection and Manifest Destiny. The idea that religion and science are incompatible misses the point that they might produce compatible theories.
The ideal “all men are created equal” could be moved from the realm of idealism into reality, by rephrasing it: “all men are exempt from categorization”, which means: “all men are exempt from a theory of Natural Selection or Manifest Destiny”. This result might be imaginable, but it begs the question as to how humans will learn to function without categorizing what they perceive.
*******
Rules and standards regulate life within Nature; but when everybody knows that life is not fair, rules and standards must have a purpose other than fairness. The fact that everybody knows life is not fair, does not mean that life is unfair for everybody; it means that if life is unfair, everybody knows why.
Rules and standards could serve the purpose of aligning the results produced by a theory of Natural Selection, with the results produced by a theory of Manifest destiny. Human effort is required to keep science and religion in a desired alignment – to make the fittest defined by God equate with the fittest defined by a definition from evolutionary biology.
Rules and standards can serve this purpose by introducing the possibility of something worse than an unfair life. The expression “life is not fair” therefore does not mean that life does not occur in accordance with rules and standards; it means the opposite. It means that it is against the law to sleep under the bridges, or steal a loaf of bread, for rich and poor alike.
*******
Theories are used to explain why things happen the way they do, and according to theories of Natural Selection and Manifest Destiny, if Group 2 wants to know why life is not fair, they need to ask God.
But God already explained. According to a widely accepted history, God interacted with man by playing the role of a Group 2 individual named Jesus, who said that the plan man designed in God’s name, was self-interested, prejudiced and lacking in empathy.
Group 2 therefore already knows why life is unfair, and they know about the effects of rules and standards.
This recognition is depressing, but not as depressing as something worse; so, to end with an uplifting thought, the fact that something worse did not happen, can be pointed out.
The good news for Group 2 is that Jesus did not become the most successful businessman on earth, which he could have. Only a kind and wise God would lose on purpose to a group of greedy humans.
With regard to wisdom, there seems to be one sure answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” He would not become “successful”. In fact, as it happened, he was less successful than all Group 2 humans alive at the time.
This uplifting thought brings up the question of how humans define “successful”. What is the meaning of successful? This would be a complex question were it not for rules and standards, but with rules and standards, successful means profitable. Thus: life is not fair, because success means profit, according to God; like the man said.
Regarding Fairness and Manifest Destiny
Date: 2021-03-16 06:42 pm (UTC)The essay says that rules and standards introduce the possibility of something worse than an unfair life - which makes an unfair life look better. But what about the positive aspects of laws and morals? What might seem to be missing from consideration, is that almost nobody would want to eliminate rules and standards. People prefer to have the rules and standards, even if they do overcompensate the wealthy/privledged.
Yes. But.
It is immoral and illegal to steal someone’s belongings.
But is it immoral to use a slave and give them less than a subsistence ‘wage”? The “owner” gets profit from the slave’s labor, but the slave will be severely punished if they steal a loaf of bread from the owner. What about corporations using workers in unpredictable cycles where they are laid off whenever things change to make them temporarily unprofitable? The slave example is extreme; but the point is that a comparison to modern reality is a matter of extremes, not a problem with the model.
Who would not want a law against stealing? The slave. That some in the US want to defund the police is no mystery, even if the idea is incomprehensible in the suburbs.
So why does someone not want to defund the police?
Because they have something to steal.
Thus, a law against stealing makes life fairer for them. So, everything seems fine – morally and logically. The wealthy get a security detail to protect billions of dollars of property, and for the same price, the poor get a security detail to protect their less vast holdings. A law says that sleeping under the bridges is prohibited for rich and poor alike.
A potential thief has a business decision to make. There is a cost to consider and a profit. The question is whether they will, in essence, take somebody else’s labor - as profit, or possibly go to jail.
Consider a wealthy CEO who has a business decision to make regarding the outsourcing of jobs. Why is life not fair? Because the CEO does not have to consider the possibility of going to jail. So maybe the CEO lets the jobs stay if the workers move to a right-to-work state and take a 25% pay cut. The reason why workers are allowed to strike, is to keep them from acting like an animal who is having their food stolen by another animal.
But there is still a missing link regarding fairness. The link is that the law against stealing exists only because what the CEO does CANNOT CANNOT be stealing. This is the mind-bending part, and it is really the crux of the matter it seems to me. People want a law against stealing, because they would not have the belongings to steal if the law against stealing were to be fair and apply to the CEO. The slave does not get to steal a loaf of bread, so that there can be a penalty for taking our stuff.
In summary: We are all deep into this “situation” after hundreds of years of capitalism. Not that there is anything wrong with capitalism.
MANIFEST DESTINY
What is meant these days by “entitlement”? It seems to me that when someone feels “entitled”, they have in mind some version of a theory of Manifest Destiny – starring them.
The question is whether they are “entitled” due to hard work, or due a natural superiority. Entitlement might be valid if it is due to the former, and it must be admitted that it might be valid for the latter reason too. The problem is that it can be due to neither because it comes from a theory, not reality.
Thus, when somebody is said to act “entitled”, the person is being recognized for possessing a non-existent natural superiority.
Going back in history a few hundred years, Manifest Destiny at the national level stretched the “natural” part of superiority to cover the effects of having guns when nobody else did. In other words, the humans that God granted the ability to make a gun, were obviously the ones he wanted to control things.