Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
What is Ethics?
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. We can only speculate about the origins of ethics but the most plausible hypothesis is that social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society. Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to demonstrate analytically that ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. According to Kant, in order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." To do otherwise would be self-defeating and universally harmful. Kant’s argument was still open to the technical objection that even if we can achieve better societal outcomes by acting ethically as a collective, an individual is not obliged to value this collective good if he can benefit personally at the expense of society. I have formally refuted this objection, by showing that ethical conduct is indispensable to maintaining a psychologically integrated Self: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO
In essence, we must act ethically, in the minimalist Kantian sense, to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
My approach to medical ethics has two levels: a) at the lower level I consider the most fundamental moral/ethical norms that our society already accepts (for example, the right to life) and analyse whether a specific policy is consistent with those norms; b) at the higher level I attempt to demonstrate a priori that certain moral principles are objective in the sense that the associated moral wrongs have negative existential consequences for society and for the person who commits them. As an additional feature, I stress the importance of being able to substantiate a) in terms of b), which is presupposed by my commitment to ethical realism.
I have written more on Kantian ethics and its relationship to religious ethics here: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTGR (this paper is currently under peer review)
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. We can only speculate about the origins of ethics but the most plausible hypothesis is that social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society. Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to demonstrate analytically that ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. According to Kant, in order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." To do otherwise would be self-defeating and universally harmful. Kant’s argument was still open to the technical objection that even if we can achieve better societal outcomes by acting ethically as a collective, an individual is not obliged to value this collective good if he can benefit personally at the expense of society. I have formally refuted this objection, by showing that ethical conduct is indispensable to maintaining a psychologically integrated Self: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO
In essence, we must act ethically, in the minimalist Kantian sense, to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
My approach to medical ethics has two levels: a) at the lower level I consider the most fundamental moral/ethical norms that our society already accepts (for example, the right to life) and analyse whether a specific policy is consistent with those norms; b) at the higher level I attempt to demonstrate a priori that certain moral principles are objective in the sense that the associated moral wrongs have negative existential consequences for society and for the person who commits them. As an additional feature, I stress the importance of being able to substantiate a) in terms of b), which is presupposed by my commitment to ethical realism.
I have written more on Kantian ethics and its relationship to religious ethics here: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTGR (this paper is currently under peer review)
philpapers.org
Michael Kowalik, Ontological-Transcendental Defence of Metanormative Realism - PhilPapers
If there is something (P) that every possible agent is committed to value, and certain actions or attitudes either enhance or diminish P, then normative claims about a range of intentional ...
Agreeing with revolutionary slogans is not an awakening, but a renewal of the strategy of deception. Every revolution, including the October Revolution and the Cultural Revolution, believed they were the awakened ones, that they were wholly on the side of the good, and look where we still are. Nothing has changed in the general capacity for moral discernment. The only genuine progress is accomplished by a handful of people, perhaps one per century, and takes a century to gain an inch.
Science does not matter to those who are denied the right to free medical consent. All you need to know to refuse a medical intervention is that your human rights will be denied if you refuse it, and if you do not know that this is ‘all you need to know’ then medical risks are not the primary threat you are facing.
What do you call someone who is acting intentionally incompetent?
This tells us that apart from those people who are voluntarily wearing masks (literal fascists, capable of committing crimes against humanity when ordered to do so) only about 0.05% of victorians would rather follow their moral conscience then betray it to avoid a $100 fine. 1 person per 1810. This also proves that moral conscience and democracy are two diametrical opposites.
Another scientist claims to have found “self-assembling nano structures” in Covid vaccines. We are only presented with a video of microscopic images, and only the scientist’s assertions for what they are of, so I had questions and suggestions. I got the impression that by not automatically believing the assertions makes me a bad sport.
Irrational governments need irrational resistance to make themselves seem rational and normal.
The majority is no doubt expected to react to this, lament the loss of morals and sanity, your emotional spring loaded to the breaking point, ready for rupture when a solution is finally presented by your rulers. Or maybe all this is done to teach us how to think, how to reason to defend ourselves from insanity, not just rely on traditional conventions.
The UK government creates hundreds of fake “freedom movement” and “anti-vaxxer” social media accounts: https://reclaimthenet.org/germany-creates-fake-extremist-social-media-accounts/
Reclaim The Net
German government creates hundreds of fake “right-wing extremist” social media accounts
Sockpuppets.
The following in vitro (test tube) study shows that Pfizer vaccine mRNA can be converted to DNA (from mRNA) inside human cells. This is of course very concerning, but does not mean that the mRNA becomes part of human DNA (is absorbed into the human genome); it is only converted (transcribed) to a free floating DNA sequence that is not part of the human genome. The authors of the study explain: “At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm
“With mountains of documentation, mostly from government and corporate sources, Sutton shows that Soviet military technology is heavily dependent on U.S. and allied gifts, "peaceful trade" and exchange programs. We've built for, sold or traded, or given outright to the Communists everything from copper wiring and military trucks to tank technology, missile guidance technology, computers - even the Space Shuttle.” In short, the Soviet superpower was built with American money and technology transfers, where Cold War soviet espionage was perhaps only the public face given to intentional intelligence sharing. Incompetence was always the best cover for treason and conspiracy. It would be naive to assume that the Russian state is now an independent player, fighting for their own people. The theatre of war is indeed just theatre, with millions of unwitting extras who end up real dead. https://www.amazon.com.au/Best-Enemy-Money-Can-Buy/dp/1939438543/
Amazon
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
A publicly owned bank, proposed by Malcolm Roberts https://news.1rj.ru/str/senatorroberts/738, is a great idea. In fact, all credit issuing institutions should be publicly owned since credit inflates the money supply and thus functions as an indirect tax on the entire economy. The only Fair banking is public banking. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/how-money-works
Telegram
SENATOR ROBERTS UNCENSORED
The Big 4 banks have been ripping Australians off for decades. Taking all the profits, they're leaving regional communities in the dust, closing branches and strangling small business capital. We need a people's bank in Australia.
I had the pleasure of speaking…
I had the pleasure of speaking…
Public banks create money at interest to the public instead of drawing revenue via income tax. Private banks create money at interest to the banks and thus covertly tax the public via inflation, on top of the income tax. The choice is a no-brainer: we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by legislating for all credit issuing institutions to be publicly owned.
Why be Rational?
The idea of “different ways of knowing”, implying that different standards of rationality are equally rational, equally valid, presupposes a universal, singular standard of rationality according to which all the multiple standards are ascertained as “valid”, thus negating the idea that there are multiple standards, therefore non-sense. Moreover, to deny the existence of a one, universal standard of rationality, consisting of the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity, is to deny the possibility of common meaning, a common bond, therefore it amounts to denying humanity.
One may ask, why be rational? Non-adherence to the law of non-contradiction impedes our capacity to reliably realise our intentions, to be reliable and trustworthy, to understand others and be comprehensible, to generate common meaning, and this leads to practical failure, alienation, violence and suffering. It is therefore in everyone’s interest to be rational.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/how-be-rational-about-being-right
The idea of “different ways of knowing”, implying that different standards of rationality are equally rational, equally valid, presupposes a universal, singular standard of rationality according to which all the multiple standards are ascertained as “valid”, thus negating the idea that there are multiple standards, therefore non-sense. Moreover, to deny the existence of a one, universal standard of rationality, consisting of the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity, is to deny the possibility of common meaning, a common bond, therefore it amounts to denying humanity.
One may ask, why be rational? Non-adherence to the law of non-contradiction impedes our capacity to reliably realise our intentions, to be reliable and trustworthy, to understand others and be comprehensible, to generate common meaning, and this leads to practical failure, alienation, violence and suffering. It is therefore in everyone’s interest to be rational.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/how-be-rational-about-being-right
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
How to be Rational about being Right
Lord (2017) has rigorously demonstrated that what we are rationally required to do is just what we Ought to do. This conclusion nonetheless raises the question as to what exactly counts as Rationality. Do normative judgements made on the basis of, for example…
Irrational cultures are conquered and perish.
Rationality dictates that irrational cultures Ought to be conquered (by rationality) and allowed to perish.
Rationality dictates that irrational cultures Ought to be conquered (by rationality) and allowed to perish.
Leadership is antithetical to individual moral authority and freedom. Dogs have leaders; morally responsible humans think in their own words, learn from interacting with others and make their own moral determinations, but do not follow.
Claiming privilege on the basis of ancestry commits one to also accept any liability for the actions of one’s ancestors (all of them). On this basis, everyone who claims ancestral privilege (for example, monarchy) is guilty of murder.
Vaccine mandates imply that being born human is no longer a guarantee of the right to life, coercing us to periodically submit to a medical procedure that some will not survive.