Civil Commotion

Book Two: A Criticism of the Highest Values That Have Prevailed Hitherto
III: General Remarks on Morality

§291   How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality —

The value of an action must be judged by its consequences, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin.

But do we know its consequences? Five steps ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion? As a stimulus? As the spark which causes an explosion? Utilitarians are naive –. Also, we would first of all have to know what is useful; here also they can only see five steps ahead -—. They have no notion of the great economy which cannot do without evil.

We do not know the origin or the consequences: has an action, then, any value?

We have yet the action itself to consider: the states of consciousness that accompany it, the yea or nay which follows upon its performance: does the value of an action lie in the subjective states which accompany it? (In that case, the value of music would be measured according to the pleasure or displeasure which it occasions in us — which it gives to the composer –). Obviously feelings of value must accompany it, a sensation of power, restraint, or impotence for instance, freedom or ease. Or, putting the question differently: could the value of an action be reduced to physiological terms? Could it be the expression of completely free or constrained life? Maybe its biological value is expressed in this way -—.

If therefore an action can be judged neither in the light of its origin, nor its consequences, nor its epiphenomena, then its value must be “x”, unknown -—

An astonishing number of them, always ready to insist that the Bible is inerrant, haven’t read much of the Good Book.

On the average, the high fundamentalists said they had read about twenty of the books in the Bible–about a third of what’s there. So they may insist that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches, but most of them have never read a lot of what they’re so sure of. They are likely, again, merely repeating something they were told while growing up, or accepted when they “got religion.” Most of them literally don’t know all that they’re talking about. (But they are Biblical scholars compared to others: Most of the non-fundamentalist parents had not read even one chapter.)

A Missouri pastor who sold financial products on the side has confessed to wire fraud rather than face trial.

Until Thursday, Staley, 40, who rents a $1 million home after making excuses for a foreclosed house and unpaid taxes, blamed complaints on “enemies of the Father.”

But rather than face trial, Staley stood in a federal courtroom packed with supporters here Thursday and pleaded guilty of four counts of wire fraud. He admitted that, as owner of a financial consulting firm, he had cheated 16 investors out of $3.3 million while making $570,000 for himself.

Russell Moore, the SBC’s chief ethicist, wonders: What should the church say to Bruce Jenner?

Well, the bald fact of the question tells me that Bruce Jenner didn’t solicit the Southern Baptist Convention’s opinion, so you should probably just keep your mouth shut and leave him alone.

Matt Staver has a pledge he is going to demand that Republican candidates for President sign.

We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.

[ … ]

We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

[ … ]

Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.

Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have already signed, but they are no more than plain-vanilla hucksters and don’t have a hope of actually winning the Republican nomination anyhow. The person who will win, and who has an actual shot at winning the general election in 2016, is the person who will specifically disavow an association with these nutjobs. There will be no healthy Republican Party until somebody with the brains to see what needs to be done, and the backbone to do it, comes along.