You Can’t Lie To The Eye In The Sky

You Can’t Lie To The Eye In The Sky

Please notice that many communites are strategically mounting video cameras in an attempt to control criminal (immoral) behavior. There is a strong message in this technological effort, which is doomed to failure.

B.F. Skinner once argued that a government that governs least, governs best, only when something else is  governing. This of course suggests that without good values and moral behaviors, and a source of their maintenance,  “The People” will be unable to govern themselves effectively.

You are seeing the truth of this statement dramatically playing-out, now during Amrica’s tragic decline.

Secular humanism (atheism)  cannot provide the good behaviors and values needed for a population’s sucessful self-governance. The following is an explanation of some of the reasons this is true.

For those who do not believe in God, the question is: Why should they believe in God’s rules for personal conduct?  What moral influences on the nonbeliever are left?

For non-believers,  God’s moral rules are apt to be weaker because there are no spiritual consequences for resisting our innate tendency to selfishly maximize our immediate pleasures with blindness to the damaging delayed consequences of such behavior.

It is natural for humans to associate with others who share similar views and behavior patterns; and who will agree with and reinforce their own, and others, short-sighted pleasure-driven actions. Non-believers, like Believers,  will normally avoid the company of those who do not approve of their thoughts, words and actions.

Non-believers are more likely to associate with those who reward conformity to nonreligious moral codes. Unfortunately, a great many non-religious guides are inferior to the religious ones due to delayed harmful consequences to misbehaving individuals, their loved ones, and the whole socioculture in which they reside.

Secular social moral influences will also have a weaker effect upon the moral conduct of non-believers for another reason. Non-believers will experience social consequences for only their behaviors that are detected by their moral associates. Social moral influences will  be weak when nonbelievers can behave in private, with anonymity (i.e.,the internet, large cities, travel to distant locations). Under these conditions many short and long-term negative social consequences are more easily escaped or avoided by those who do immoral things. Modernity promotes the very conditions that increase privacy, anonymity, and association with others, who are willing participants and share similar immoral value systems and behavioral tendencies. Anonymity also makes it more likely that those who behave badly can find unwitting victims.

On the other hand, for True Believers the most powerful consequences come from their personal God who they believe sees everything they do and even knows their private thoughts. For them, God will certainly consequate their public and private behavior. He will provide worldly misfortunes  for bad public and private behavior, as well as well-known  spiritual (i.e., heaven or hell) delayed consequences.  For the believer, these consequences are certain and they can very powerfully influence the quality of their actions.

The main reason that the True Believer will be more likely to be better behaved than the non-believer simple.

For the True Believer, there is no way to lie to the Eye in the Sky.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.   1/2/12

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “You Can’t Lie To The Eye In The Sky”

  1. homophilosophicus Says:

    The bellum contra Dawkins continues on the Ethics front:
    Your thoughts and comments would be most welcome. He is also a thinker whom I admire, but his critical thinking apropos philosophy is somewhat problematic.


    • vtmawhinney Says:

      You have found, and I think you will continue to find, that my own humble remarks will also be problematic. I hope not to trouble you too much, in that regard. Thank you kindly, VTM


      • homophilosophicus Says:

        Yes, and that is exactly the beauty of discussion. It is entirely up to you, but you would be more than welcome – and both of our minds and opinion will be chiselled for the better. All opinions are valuable.


  2. homophilosophicus Says:

    Dear V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., thank you for this contribution. Before I say anything further it may be important for you to know that I am a person of deeply held religious belief; so at least in this regard we can rest assured that we are ‘singing from the same hymn sheet.’ It is not, however, my intention to cause you harm or humiliate you in anyway, but as a fellow academic I feel that I must point out that your argument and your lines of reasoning a deeply flawed.

    You make the dubious point that CCTV cameras are intended to “control criminal (immoral) behavior.” These devises may well be used to monitor criminal and/or immoral behaviour, but your placement of parentheses around ‘immoral’ indicates your belief that criminal behaviour is synonymous with immorality. This is not the case. Sometimes the law might be moral – but there are many occasions which demand that to be moral demands that the law be broken. This is a problem for a competent Ethicist to work through.

    It might also be pointed out that there are a plethora of examples of atheistic ethics. From one believer to another, I feel the need to point out that to obey the law merely for fear of divine punishment is a rather weak form of ethics – as creatures made in the image and likeness of God (which we believe even of people who profess no faith in God) we must accept that ethics and morality are facets of human nature and therefore discernible to the facility of human reason.

    This weakness in logic is a stick which the secular academic has repeatedly employed to beat the religious mind with. In this regard you may be interested in the following:

    Have a wonderful new year.


    • vtmawhinney Says:

      Thank you for your comments. I look forward to reading your reference and responding to your comment. I will have time to give all of that the consideration it deserves later this week. Kind regards to you. VTM


      • homophilosophicus Says:

        And may I please take the time to apologise sincerely if my opening comments read a little too antagonistic. This was emphatically not my intention. Let’s just call it insomnia and an over exposure to Richard Dawkins.


        • vtmawhinney Says:

          Yes, please do not apologise. Your position is sincerely held and I can tell that you have thought and researched long and hard to reach it. So, we may agree on some things and disagree on others. That is the way of things pursued honestly. All is well with us. VTM

          P.S. I like Richard Dawkins and most of our wonderfully bright scientists. I also love their methodology. However, wherever I have seen science advance, it has been at the expense of Judeo/Christian moral precepts. What has predictably followed is civil decline. The distilled wisdom of the ages (devine or not) will not be replaced by a science of ethics for a very long time, I judge, and maybe never. I will hope for a useful amalgamation in the not-to-distant future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: