- 15 Mar 2003 18:36
#2703
Ethics and morals are merely religious prejudices collected by the masses over time. The most convenient ones remain, whilst the others are dispelled with. The former are dogmatically pushed into everyone's faces at all times under such banners as "Human Rights" and other such imaginary, mystical nonsense.
I do not have any moral or ethical code. I dismiss them as mystical and imaginary. I get a good laugh our of "Animal Rights" activists. I get a good laugh out of "humanitarianism". I get a good laugh out of "champions" of "equality". These people are bigots, forcing their beliefs on everyone, without at any time attempting to prove a thing. (There has been some people throughout the course of history, but each of them failed miserably.) We should accept them, they say, just "because". (I could show you their exact reasoning, but it is laughably circular.) That is their reasoning. If they could present us with sufficient evidence in favour of their ethics, perhaps their bigotry and dogmatics would be rational. And so "Bioethics" is bigotry. "Animal rights" is bigotry. "Humanitarianism" is bigotry. "Human rights" is bigotry. "Christianity" is bigotry.
It becomes a greater laugh when, in the case of equality concerning the races and the sexes, Science points to the contradictory position of egalitarianism -- i.e. that we are not equal at all. (I am not saying that one race or sex is "better" than another -- just that the evidence indicates a certain degree of inequality.) Even if we suppose that morals and ethics are true, we still cannot logically treat unequals as if they are equal. What would be next? Treating cats as dogs? It is the same thing.
At the moment, unlike the vulgar masses of mankind, I am endeavour to deduce "right" from "wrong" from purely self-evident premises, with pure logic. I am beginning to believe that this cannot be done, and I have read the principal works of every distinguished philosopher, from Plato to Wittgenstein. Until we can discern right from wrong by means of the process logical deduction, it is irrational to accept such conceptions as "human rights", or such ethical codes as "humanitarianism". Men of wisdom need evidence. Where evidence is insufficient, belief is irrational.
I do not have any moral or ethical code. I dismiss them as mystical and imaginary. I get a good laugh our of "Animal Rights" activists. I get a good laugh out of "humanitarianism". I get a good laugh out of "champions" of "equality". These people are bigots, forcing their beliefs on everyone, without at any time attempting to prove a thing. (There has been some people throughout the course of history, but each of them failed miserably.) We should accept them, they say, just "because". (I could show you their exact reasoning, but it is laughably circular.) That is their reasoning. If they could present us with sufficient evidence in favour of their ethics, perhaps their bigotry and dogmatics would be rational. And so "Bioethics" is bigotry. "Animal rights" is bigotry. "Humanitarianism" is bigotry. "Human rights" is bigotry. "Christianity" is bigotry.
It becomes a greater laugh when, in the case of equality concerning the races and the sexes, Science points to the contradictory position of egalitarianism -- i.e. that we are not equal at all. (I am not saying that one race or sex is "better" than another -- just that the evidence indicates a certain degree of inequality.) Even if we suppose that morals and ethics are true, we still cannot logically treat unequals as if they are equal. What would be next? Treating cats as dogs? It is the same thing.
At the moment, unlike the vulgar masses of mankind, I am endeavour to deduce "right" from "wrong" from purely self-evident premises, with pure logic. I am beginning to believe that this cannot be done, and I have read the principal works of every distinguished philosopher, from Plato to Wittgenstein. Until we can discern right from wrong by means of the process logical deduction, it is irrational to accept such conceptions as "human rights", or such ethical codes as "humanitarianism". Men of wisdom need evidence. Where evidence is insufficient, belief is irrational.