Why Morality is Key to the Martial Way

In practicing the art of war and peace and resolving oneself to the martial way, the question of morality assumes a central role.  This owes to a practical necessity of the martial artist: the need to control the scope of conflict.  Those warriors not entirely convinced of the morality of their actions fight not only opponents, but themselves.  While engaged in physical or diplomatic conflict, they also wage an internal battle of ethical debate which paralyzes effective, immediate action.  By not establishing moral standards before a battle, they must do so in the heat of the moment, often with weak results.

So what is considered "good?"

Schneevies often define "good" in a cultural relativistic perspective as anything deemed "good" by a given culture.  This standard, though it aspires to objectivity, is a false standard.  One cannot establish an absolute value which rejects all absolute values.  It is an illogical position.  Further, it provides weak justification for action.  No true warrior will fight to the death just because their culture says it is right.  That dubious justification is susceptible to the manipulation of schneevies, who wish to have control over the strong by influencing their standards of action.  Such schneevies become Cultural Marxists, Bible thumping nutjobs, and others who dictate to soldiers why and how to fight without ever fighting themselves.  In actuality, cultural relativism is used as a cover for a schneevie's true morality, described below.

Scumbags often define "good" in an individualistic hedonist sense, where "good" is anything that brings them pleasure on an individual level.  The needs of others in this hedonic calculus are assumed to not even exist, and if they DO exist, their suffering either has no moral significance, or is itself "good" when it serves the pleasure of the hedonist.  These individuals act with strong conviction because they hold their pleasures on a higher moral plane.  It is against these individuals that warriors fight.

So how does the "good" warrior define morality?

Firstly, good and evil are overly rigid categories of moral action.  Moral actions rarely originate from lengthy ethical deliberation.  Often, morality is a matter of intuition, such that the right action is often known prior to any ethical consideration whatsoever.  Also, there are inevitable exceptions to every absolute ethical standard which invalidate all of them, at least in some situations.  Despite the intuitive nature of ethical reasoning, a martial artist participating in the morally ambiguous realm of conflict can benefit from reasoned consideration of ethical standards when 'the right thing' seems unclear.

Another way to conceptualize good and evil is to replace them with "better" and "worse."  This standard of evaluation has the advantage of leaving open the possibility of ethical ambiguity and allowing a warrior to strive for "best," even if exceptions exist in their rationale.

This author, when faced with an ethical conundrum, finds a couple simple perspectives to be crucial for establishing moral standards before battle.

First, to comply with a priori moral principles, one's actions must embody the "good will."  To Immanuel Kant, the "good will" is the only unconditional virtue.  For example, one can possess all other virtues such as cleanliness, obedience, honesty, competence, strength, and intelligence, but these traits will only make one more evil if they help in the murder of innocents.  Therefore, a warrior should first embody the "good will" as a way of life before conflict ever develops.  Those things which are good in an a priori analysis can be universalized in all instances or reversed upon oneself without harm, so, for example, if one kills an intruder for breaking and entering their home, their action is good only to the extent they can accept death as a suitable punishment for ANYONE caught breaking and entering a home, and/or personally accept death as a consequence for breaking and entering the home of another.

Second, in situations where moral "good will" seems debatable, one should weigh the consequences of proposed actions.  In a consequentialist utilitarian analysis, good is defined by those actions which maximize happiness and/or minimize suffering for the greatest number of people.  This simplistic moral calculus is not absolutely applicable due to its support of the collective above the rights of the individual, but it is another tool which can help resolve moral ambiguity.  In the home breaking example, killing an intruder might be considered 'good' in a consequential analysis if the action causes a reduction in home break ins and a greater respect for community private property rights.

This author posits that when an action conforms with both of the above standards, the action is better than one which contradicts one or both standards.

Therefore, a martial artist, to ensure the moral righteousness of their cause, should do the following: 1. Always intend the best for oneself and one's opponents, 2. When possible, avoid causing harm to one's opponents unless the necessity of victory prevents it, and if possible, attempt to leave opponents better off, 3. Never fight for pleasure or value any pleasure derived from battle.

Lastly, it is helpful when fighting "evil" to remember that "evil cannot be conquered in the world.  It can only be resisted in oneself" (Master Po, Kung Fu).

When Should I Get an Abortion? A Logical Discussion of an Inflamed Debate.

When perusing the literature available on abortion, one finds two starkly diametrical views of the practice.  Considering this blog's stance on dualism (opposed), this author sees fit to shed some light on the issue of abortion as a monistic matter.

Both sides of the abortion debate stifle the free exchange of information and logic surrounding abortion by relying on emotional appeals and mass hysteria to sway the opinions of parents who badly need a logical treatment of the subject to inform their decisions.  The left treats fetuses of all ages as unfeeling cellular matter while the right treats even the most primitive embryos as fully fledged human beings.  The supposedly impartial sciences have also failed to help.  Either through deliberate obfuscation or simple incompetence, the medical establishment has shed almost no light on certain important questions which could greatly change the nature of the abortion debate.  Which questions people want answered depend on core philosophical perspectives and their fundamental ideas about life and humanity.  The answer to whether the reader should justify an abortion centers on the questions they wish to answer as well as their assumptions about humanity.  In such cases, the morality of abortion can be informed by empirical knowledge about fetal development.

This post will detail the questions that medical practitioners, developmental psychologists, and other professionals of fetal development MUST answer to adequately inform a moral debate on abortion.

First, some core philosophical assumptions (from Stephen C. Pepper) and what they imply about the ethics of abortion.

Formism is the root metaphor of similarity,where the truth of a matter relates to the correspondence between a thing and its objective form, embodied as a noncorporeal Platonic ideal.  To the Formist, abortion is most wrong when it results in deformity, or departure from the ideal form.  To these individuals, abortion is wrong after the point that a fetus LOOKS like a baby.  This point is around the 8 week mark when an embryo first develops distinct fingers, eyelids, a brain, and other characteristic physical features of a human infant.  This is the philosophy followed to the extreme by the religious right, which morally equates sweeping cells out of the uterus with cutting apart a newborn because both contain human matter, and the mere cells of a human are human in form.  This is also the philosophy underscoring their antiabortion materials which include grotesque pictures of late term, dead fetuses which have nothing formally in common with merely removing early embryonic tissue.  If you are a formist and pro-choice, abort before you can visually identify the removed tissue as human (before 8 weeks).  The empirical question of relevance: when does an embryo unambiguously resemble a human fetus?

Mechanism is the root metaphor of the machine, where truth relates to correspondence within that system.  To the mechanist, abortion is most wrong when a fetus contains a fully functioning physiology similar to that of an infant, including at minimum a circulatory system and nervous system which function independently of the mother, who physically supports the system's overall continuation.  Abortion is wrong when it interferes with the functionality of a fetus's developing systems.  This philosophy underscores the stance of most medical practitioners, who view human bodies as machines to be tuned up, fixed, and modified.  If you are a mechanist and pro-choice, abort before the first organ system, the heart, develops (3 weeks).  The empirical question of relevance: when does a fetus begin to develop self possessed organ systems?

Contextualism is the root metaphor of the act in context, where truth relates to effective action.  This pragmatic philosophical orientation focuses only on what works to accomplish valued goals.  To the contextualist, abortion is most wrong when it stops the human fetus from contacting a behavioral history of reinforcement within the womb.  This philosophy conforms with pragmatic values of effective working.  If you are a contextualist and pro-choice, abort before the embryo can physically move (6 weeks) or feel physical sensation (8 weeks or 20 weeks depending on who you ask).  The empirical question of relevance: when can a fetus first contact reinforcement or perceive sensation?

Organicism is the root metaphor of the organism, where truth relates to holistic lack of contradiction, such as when a developing plant goes from budding into flowering as a process of reproduction.  To the organicist, abortion is most wrong when it violates concordance of development.  This view can range from aborting only to prevent serious developmental diseases or disabilities or be extended to justify abortion in instances where carrying an infant to term would simply pose an inconvenience to the mother.  If any fetus, even one as old as a viable infant, does not have a chance of normal growth, or will not likely contribute adaptively to its family, then it is permissible to end its life.  This is the law of the jungle where birds will push malformed offspring out of the nest and male lions will purposefully kill the offspring of rivals to secure their lineage.  Those who adopt this view of abortion tend to be r-selected, uncivilized types who will never value family in the first instance.  If you are an organicist and pro-choice, go ahead and abort anyone of any age, inside or outside the womb, due to their lack of normality, conformity, and/or convenience.  Enjoy your place in the history books alongside Pol Pot.  The empirical question of relevance: when does an infant begin to conform with collective expectations of normal growth or the expectations of the mother?

From a review of these stances alone, it can be determined that an embryo before the age of 3 weeks has no circulatory system or autonomous heart beat, cannot physically move or respond physically to stimulation, cannot feel (8 weeks at the earliest), and does not remotely resemble a human infant.  These empirical facts have been hidden by political ideologues with one sided agendas.  This blog's only interest is to balance the rights of families with those of fetuses.  This author hopes the reader will use this information to determine their own moral standard for when it is permissible and non-permissible to terminate a pregnancy.  This author strongly recommends that those who seek morally sound abortions terminate pregnancy completely before week 3 of conception.  Abortions completed after this time window become more ethically problematic with each passing day.  If you have passed any of the time windows above that are relevant to your ethical beliefs, please reconsider abortion.