Intentional Ethics Explained

As a Heretic, I spend a lot of time dismantling orthodox ideas that don't work. Essentially, I'm a pragmatist, but that gets lost in the furor created by discrediting orthodox positions that don't pass muster.

From my perspective, if an idea, concept or theory doesn't work, it should be jettisoned in favor of something that does.

The motivation for creating intentional ethics was my desire to provide ethical concepts that work. This evolved into formulating a system that can be applied to any situation by anybody. Like any new idea, it will take time and testing to be used effectively.

The saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" was a starting point. What is a good intention? What is a bad intention? I felt these terms needed to be redefined. So I redefined them.

Adopting the more neutral language of mathematics was the first step. The next step was listing from highest to lowest four possible intentions. The highest intention would be to understand. The lowest intention would be the desire to eliminate.

The next highest intention would the intention to desire and the second lowest would be the intention to use force.

In order from highest to lowest, the intentions are:

4) To understand

3) To desire

2) To force

1) To eliminate

In my first year at seminary, I shared these intentions with classmates and professors, hoping for critical feedback. A Harvard-trained professor with a PhD in Psychology was fascinated by the intentions and suggested I look into motivations and their connections to intentions.

This led to the second phase of intentional ethics, combining motivations and intentions. I described three possible motivations.

3) For others

2) For self and others

1) For self

Good discussions followed. Several people pointed out that a motivation for others may always contain selfish aspects. They may be right. Altruism is rare, and may not exist in any pure form, the discussion went. I included it as the highest motivation based on my theory it is easier to attain if one has the intention to understand beforehand.

The result of the interactions between intentions and motivations produce results that can either be constructive or destructive. Assigning the higher value to constructive results creates the following table.

INTENTIONS/MOTIVATIONS/RESULTS

4) To understand

3) To desire; 3) For others

2) To force; 2) For self, others; 2) Constructive

1) To eliminate; 1) For self; 1) Destructive

There are 24 possible results (4x3x2x1). Twelve of the results would be ethically acceptable and twelve would unacceptable.

To illustrate the intention to understand for others to produce a constructive result, I suggest we look at Robert Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis the night Martin Luther King Jr. was killed.

You can find it on YouTube or follow the link to my Facebook page. Discussion will follow.

Oil Did Not Come From Dinosaurs

I never believed the claim that oil came from dinosaurs. It made about as much sense as 'the stork brings babies.' I can't remember if it was in any textbooks we were supposed to read in school, because I never read any textbooks in school.

I read a lot of books in school, mainly from the school library, but I never bothered with the official texts assigned in class. I was operating out of a default setting that adults and authority figures either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying.

Apparently, there are people who believed that the stork brought them their baby sisters and brothers. There are also people who believe, to this day I am told, that oil comes from dinosaurs.

Well, the truth is that nobody knows how oil was made. Nobody. There are many theories. Which means that the most educated people on our planet are still making guesses and don't know.

There are two main theories, one adopted by scientists in the West and one adopted by scientists in Russia and the Ukraine.

The Western theory is flawed because it can't explain oil bubbling to the surface that has not been subjected (as in Kuwait) to thousands of years of mountains pressing down on them. The Russian/Ukrainian theory, which stipulates a non-organic origin, suggests oil seeps through fissures in the earth's surface, can explain surface oil deposits.

The dinosaur 'theory' it turns out was based on an ad campaign by Sinclair Oil Company, whose mascot was, you guessed it, a dinosaur. Bet you didn't know Madison Avenue had it's own scientists, but it does.

There is an explanation that makes sense. It has to do with what we, today, do with waste. Especially waste we consider toxic or unhealthy. Think nuclear reactor waste. What do we do with it?

Here is where we get heretical. Imagine there existed on the planet civilizations far more advanced than ours. Oil would be one of the waste products they disposed of in the same ways that we dispose of waste today.

When anyone mentions a civilization more advanced than ours, and there is ample evidence to that effect, nay sayers bring out aliens and little green men.

Nonsense. No need of aliens.

There is evidence our planet produced intelligent life a billion years ago. This evidence is ignored because it does not fit any orthodox theory. The first intelligent civilization would have been underwater.

The next phase of civilization would have been amphibian. Our civilization, which begins officially with the Sumerians, may not even be the first mammalian civilization on the planet.

No need for aliens or little green men. It's all been home-grown.

The oil we use today is a waste product left behind by another civilization. It's called recycling.

Getting Rid of Bad Drivers, Mr. B's Solution

Good evening. Today, in our ongoing series 'Eliminating Bad Drivers from Society' we look at solutions to the problem. Our guest is Mr. Poobody, an expert on hanging his head out car windows.

Interviewer (I): Mr. Poobody, you are a dog, is that correct?

Mr. Pooboody (B): Please call me Mr. B.

I: Mr. B, how long have you been a dog?

B: My whole life.

I: In our series, we have discussed drivers who text while driving, who tailgate, who don't signal when changing lanes, who fall asleep at stoplights, who don't undertsand yield rules, who go 40 mph in residential areas, who use cell phones while driving. You claim to have a solution to all these examples of bad driving?

B: Yes.

I: Do you drive?

B: No, I just stick my head out the window when my human remembers to open it.

I: Your human?

B: No, I'm a dog.

I: What?

B: I've already told you I'm a dog. I own a human, though. Humans aren't very intelligent. They need owners to tell them what to do.

I: Huh? ... Moving on, what is your solution to bad driving?

B: Eliminate automatic transmissions, power steering and power brakes.

I: But ... but ... that would make driving hard.

B: That's the point. You humans would have to actually pay attention to what you're doing.

I: It would be a tough sell.

B: It would work. Humans would have to use two hands and two feet to drive. Their bodies and minds would have to be involved in the driving process. Distractions are the single largest cause of accidents.

I: We want driving to be easy so we can do other things while we're driving.

B: As mentioned earlier, you are not an intelligent species.

I: We were hoping you could suggest a slogan we could put on a bumper sticker.

I Ain't Got No Beliefs, I Only Got Faiths

The English language, having died last week, needs to be resurrected today so we can talk about the difference between Belief and Faith.

Grammar isn't my favorite topic of discussion, but today is Monday. Might as well.

When you list different forms of 'belief' you get: belief, believing, believer, believable.

For 'faith' you should get: faith, faithing, faither, faithful.

Don't know how it happened, but in English, 'faithing' and 'faither' have dropped out of use. We substitute 'believing' and 'believer' when we want to use the 'faith' word.

For me, the key is the use of 'believable' as opposed to 'faithful.' Beliefs are like theories, they are either believable or not. Faiths are what we place our trust in. The motto is not 'In God We Believe.' The motto is 'In God We Trust.'

Since beliefs are like theories, we should change them when presented with information or knowledge that renders them no longer believable.

Faiths are different. Where we place our trust may remain a constant throughout our whole lives. I want to make clear to my friends with strong religious convictions that I'm not going after any body's faith.

Beliefs, however, are fair game. They are designed to be subjected to scrutiny. Beliefs, as they are constructed opinions, can be deconstructed. This should not be construed as an attack on faith(s). That being said, let's get ready to use Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine.

Some Thoughts on American Fascism

Public discourse in America usually involves name calling and the avoidance of ideas and concepts underlying issues. For now, no name calling (maybe later), but instead a discussion on Fascism as it relates to our political landscape.

Having worked for both liberals and conservatives (liberals pay better) as well as Democrats and Republicans (Republicans pay better), I have concluded I would like to work for a liberal Republican. As it appears they no longer exist, I will probably remain out of the political fray.

So I will moderate this discussion on American Fascism (feel free to join in) between conservatives (C) and liberals (L).

L: I don't like you, you're a Fascist!

C: I can't stand you, you Socialist!

Moderator: There, we have the name calling out of the way. Let's talk about ideas. What is Fascism?

C: Something like Nazi Germany.

L: How about Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy?

Moderator: Ideas, please.

C: The merger of big government, big business and big military.

L: Mussolini said it was 'the merger of the state and corporate power.'

Moderator: I'll throw a couple of definitions out there for you to comment on. Here's one:

Fascism is "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victim hood ... in which a mass-based party of committed militant nationalists working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

L: That pretty much sums up our government's approach since 9/11. There has been a 'preoccupation with community decline' and 'victim hood.'

C: The 'collaboration with traditional elites' includes all those liberals who have been in power for decades. And liberals in congress have not returned any of the democratic liberties taken away after 9/11.

L: Is 'spreading democracy' just a euphemism for external expansion?

C: Is obsession with 'community decline' a euphemism for internal cleansing?

Moderator: Another quote: "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross."

C: Sinclair Lewis said that. He was a Socialist.

L: Historically, the group that has hated Socialists most is ... wait for it ...

C: ... Fascists. Fascists fear Socialists most of all. It's their favorite epithet for someone they disagree with.

Moderator: Is America a Fascist nation?

C: Yes, in America even the liberals in government are fascists. Daniel Goldberg said that.

L: 'Liberal fascism' is a phrase coined by H.G. Wells. He was in favor of it. I'm tired of being told what to eat, what to believe and how to talk in public. Every one gets offended by everything you say and wants to impose their beliefs on you.

C: Conservatives do not want a big government.

L: Liberals do not trust a big military.

Moderator: What do you propose?

C: A return to decentralized government. The Articles of Confederation worked fine. We won our independence from England under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution created a plutocracy, not a democracy.

L: The Bill of Rights was an attempt to save certain liberties from being taken by the government. That hasn't worked well. We lose liberties and freedoms every year to the government.

Moderator: What is the forecast for America?

C: Partly cloudy to rainy.

L: Stormy weather. Thunderstorms and lightning. Stay inside.

Why I Wrote 'The Heretic' Like an Album

The interview between my reporter self and writer self continues as the past and present discuss vinyl record albums.

R: What literary style did you use in writing your book?

W: Remember vinyl albums?

R: Yeah.

W: Remember when you bought an album how it was to take the record out of the sleeve, place it on a turntable, lift the needle on the vinyl and then kick back and give it that first listen?

R: Yeah.

W: How many songs on the album did you have to like to say you liked the whole album?

R: Good question. But I'm supposed to be asking the questions.

W: Roll with it, how many?

R: Probably at least three.

W: You didn't have to like all the songs on an album to say you liked the album?

R: No. There were probably some songs I didn't like at all. Or at least at the time. And then, I liked different songs better over time.

W: That's how I wrote the book.

R: Don't follow you.

W: Think of the book as an album with 12 different songs sung in three different styles. Not every style will appeal to everybody. But one of them might. Not every chapter may appeal to everybody, but three of them might.

R: OK, what you're suggesting is we don't have to like the whole book?

W: I'd be surprised if anybody did. I'm happy if you like a couple of chapters or a couple of scenes.

R: Are you getting any feedback that suggests this approach, dare we call it a novel approach, is working?

W: Yes, a first-year law student, who was a philosophy major, liked the philosophic parts, didn't read much of the rest of the book, but said he was fascinated or moved by what he did read.

R: More?

W: A young adult who likes fantasy and science fiction only read those parts and liked them, offering good suggestions for sequels. Some middle-aged readers liked the middle-aged romance that is the one of the soul centers of the book.

R: What are some other centers, or themes?

W: A daughter seeks the father she knew only from pictures, stories and dreams.

R: What is the point of view? What's your agenda?

W: Good question.

R: I only ask good questions.

W: The marketing person who read my book couldn't figure out what my agenda was.

R: If you can't discern an agenda, it may be there is none. Or that it is disguised or buried. Which is it?

W: Back to music. Remember what Jerry Garcia said about Bob Dylan's songs?

R: Yeah, I'm You, course I remember.

W: For the benefit of our readers, please.

R: Oh, yeah. Jerry said Dylan left space in his songs for others to inhabit. It's why there are so many Dylan covers.

W: I've left space for readers to inhabit. When they read the book, it becomes theirs. Remember that interview Bill Hicks gave to the BBC?

R: Yes, he said he viewed his comedy act as conversation between friends.

W: My book is a dialogue on ideas between friends.

R: What are some of the ideas?

W: Where go after we die. Whether we are reunited with those we love and how. There is an elaborate ethical system that runs throughout the book. The chapter headings sometimes give an idea of the ideas discussed, like 'Redemption' and 'Divine Justice.'

R: What was the impetus for writing the book?

W: The death of my mother. It ripped a huge hole in our family's universe. The book is my way of coping with the losses in my life of people that I have loved and cared about, from my grandparents to my friend Doug Hosier. It's also my attempt to share with others possible explanations for the after life/before life that are quite heretical.

Why I Wrote The Heretic: The Interview

The thought occurred to me given my experience in journalism and public relations, I could interview myself. It's kind of like sending yourself a postcard. The present self writes to the future self. When the present self receives the postcard, it's a message from the past self. Aren't thoughts fun?

I've been asked what's the difference between journalism and PR and I answer "about three years."

So here goes, the interview between my Reporter/PR self and Writer self.

RP: Why did you write 'The Heretic?'

WR: I'd spent 40 years working on some stuff and decided to share it with other people.

RP: Why wait 40 years?

WR: I was going to keep it to myself. But I've realized most people don't have the time to study what I've dedicated most of my life to understanding. The struggle to provide for yourself and those you love and care about is all consuming. You don't have the energy after working hard all day and/or night to engage in reflective thought.

RP: How did you manage to find time?

WR: I never really worked that hard. Early on I was labeled a 'Daydreamer.' On rainy days as a kid I'd sit up in our tree house and read books and think.

RP: You have a reputation as a misogynist, why share anything?

WR: You mean misanthrope. I'm misanthropic, there's a difference.

RP: Right, sorry, I was just going to point out you didn't get married until you were 45.

WR: Doesn't make me a misogynist. I made a lot of mistakes in relationships, I was just fortunate not to marry any of them.

RP: OK. Given your misanthropic reputation, why bother to share this information?

WR: Love. Unconditional Love.

RP: What? Didn't you say that people who drive SUVs should ride horses to work? Or people with Hummers should ride donkeys? Or that people who use cell phones more than once a day are devolving? Or that people who tailgate are sociopaths who deserve to be flogged in public?

WR: Yes.

RP: Didn't you say that in 50 years colleges will be full of monkeys texting each other, hoping to recreate the works of Shakespeare? Don't you have a pathological hatred of rich people?

WR: Yes. I admit to a biblical, prophetic attitude toward elites. It goes beyond repulsion and hatred. It's in the very fabric of my soul.

RP: You are on record as hating Christmas. Is this a Scrooge thing? From Bah Humbug to Santa Claus?

WR: I still despise the materialism of the Christmas season. People can believe in Santa if they want, along with the tooth fairy, Easter bunnies, chocolate eggs and democracy.

RP: How did you get from misanthropy to unconditional love?

WR: Long story short, death, loss, grief and in the midst of the deepest and darkest period of my life, I met someone who changed me and transformed me.

RP: You fell in love? I thought you were too old and cynical for that sort of thing.

WR: I didn't see it coming. I didn't think I was capable of unconditional love. Not for one person, much less all of humanity. But most importantly, I stopped hating myself.

NEXT: How I wrote 'The Heretic' to be like a record album.

The Future is the Past: 1929 Revisited

The Newark Star-Ledger ran a graph on their editorial page yesterday that deserves comment. The graph, in shades of black and gray, may not reproduce well online. Accordingly, this post will be largely descriptive rather than analytical.

Visually, it is striking to compare income distribution over time.

The dark color represents gains in income for the top 1 percent of households. The lighter color represents income gains for the bottom 90 percent of households.

From 1923-1929 the top 1 percent added 70 percent to their income, the bottom 90 percent added 15 percent.

From 1960-1969 income gains reflects a significant shift, as income rose more than 60 percent for the bottom and barely 10 percent for the top. Now we know why the rich didn't like the 60's (but taking it out on The Beatles was not cool).

During the Jimmy Carter years (and we all remember those fondly) both groups experienced significant growth. Maybe the sweater guy wasn't as bad as his enemies portrayed him. The bottom gained more than 45 percent and the top more than 35 percent.

From 1982-1989 we see a dramatic shift, as the top increases from 35 to 40 and the bottom decreases from 45 to 25, a significant drop in income gain.

The Clinton years, 1992-2000, saw the trend toward unequal gains continue, though not dramatically.

From 2002--2007, the income gains for the top 1 percent rockets up to 65 percent, nearly the same increase as in 1923-1929; while the bottom 90 percent plunges to an even lower figure than in 1923-1929, at barely more than 10 percent.

And we all know what happened in 1929.

As in 1929, the top 1 percent are well positioned to survive another economic downturn. The bottom 90 percent, however, which includes most of the people I know, love and care about, are in a precarious position.

But you already knew that.

Are Leaves Liberal or Conservative?

One beautiful autumn day in Blacksburg, I was driving my niece home and exclaimed:

"Look, the trees are turning colors."

"No, Uncle Dave, the leaves are turning colors," she replied, correcting me.

Of course, she was right. Five-year olds usually are.

Leaves. They are beautiful. But we don't have the time to give each and every leaf a name of its own, so we call them 'leaves.' When we use the term 'leaves' we eradicate all the differences between individual leaves.

The French philosopher Rousseau called this eradication the 'violence of the letter.' I think we do the same thing when we label people. This is why I resist labels, for myself and others. The act of labeling does violence to individual people.

The labels 'conservative' or 'liberal' are used frequently. I have friends who label themselves as conservative and friends who label themselves as liberal. I like them all, they are my friends. They ask me whether I am conservative or liberal and I answer "what time is it?"

If you picked 100 issues and I answered conservative on 51 of them, does that make me conservative? What about the 49 issues I'm liberal on?

It depends on the issue and the context. I understand there is a dogmatic conservative and liberal stance on many issues. What if I think both dogmatic positions are wrong? What if I think being a partisan precludes one from intelligently thinking about any issue?

Are we back to my being a heretic again? Probably.

The desire to label is understanding. As with leaves, we don't have the time to differentiate each individual's position. But I propose a method other than two-dimensional linear labeling.

A circle has two axis, one from pole to pole and the other from equator to equator. I propose one axis be labeled moderate at one end and zealot at the other end. The other axis would be labeled conservative and liberal at its ends.

On any given position, you would locate your feelings on an issue along the surface of the three-dimensional sphere. If you are close to the conservative position on an issue, you would move toward the conservative position on the north-south pole. If you are somewhat conservative you would be more toward the equator. On the east-west axis plot how strongly you feel about the issue, from moderate to zealous.

If it's easier, think of the two axis as latitude and longitude. After plotting your 100 positions, a pattern would emerge on the surface of the sphere. Everybody's pattern would probably look different.

If we are all different, it becomes more difficult for us to be divided up into two camps that hate each other. That would be a worthy goal.

I have friends that are conservative and I have friends that are liberal. I don't want there to be hate or enmity between us. We can be different without being hateful. Please don't tell me that is a heretical position. It shouldn't be.