AMERICAN ETHICS: AN ESSAY
Edward E. Rochon
Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir
American Ethics: An Essay
Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon
Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.
Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.
Some Other Works by the Author
[American Theodicy: An Essay
Apocalyptic Timeline: An Essay
Atheism & Fraud: An Essay
Biblical Exegesis & Fraud: An Essay
Biblical Riddles: An Essay
British Israelism: An Essay
Contra Nominalism: An Essay
Contra Pantheism (Atheism): An Essay
Cosmic Despair: An Essay
Deist Check Off List
Divine Irony: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II]
[Inquisition of Christ
Joy of Life in Verse
Misery of Life in Verse
Pyramid of Ed
The Second Coming: An Essay
Table of Contents
Is vice ignorance or malicious lust, or both in turns? Are some men good but ignorant, and some men bad with ignorance as the sauce that adds to the filthy dish of their lives? These are good questions, but we go to another matter.
Is reason the best or only way to quell the unruly passions? Or is this vain, an attempt to put out an oil fire with a squirt gun? We maintain the latter. Ethics as pure indefinable trait is the remedy to vice on the human plain of affairs. You can certainly appeal to divine providence for salvation. We speak of the practical matter of staunching vices through those efforts and weapons that God gives us, that in no way mitigates the essential sustenance that comes from God. We are here by divine grace, possess what we have by divine grace, and all falls into place by grace. And we hear that God helps those who help themselves. If you will not lift a finger to help yourselves, why should God sustain such pathetic wretches? Given pity for the weak, this goes beyond human frailty into hellish perversity. That is hell’s subject, not heaven’s.
Chapter 1: Reason & Virtue
What is the road to virtue? We have a notion current in the Greco-Roman world:
Virtue controls the passions through reason.
This reason to exist at all must stand outside of nature and the venue of action that the human body dwells in, otherwise it is some insane delusion. But this presumption of insane delusion is an insane delusion. It is the atheist that suffers from mass psychosis, not the theist, deist. For there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that ideas, consciousness, indefinable attributes such as virtue, justice, beauty, charity are anything other than indefinable attributes of existence. As a general rule, the thinkers of the past would agree with this with the exception of idiots such as Lucretius, Heraclitus and the rest.
Contingent upon this is the idea that evil is merely ignorance. We see that vice leads to retaliation by those afflicted by crimes, leads to an endless game of deception to disguise motives, producing war and chaos, all leading to the diminishment of human polity, human kindness, prosperity and the fertile environment for the advancement of knowledge and wisdom.
Countermanding this above paragraph, throughout history is the notion of survival of the fittest that holds that war, struggle, greed, cruelty are hallmarks of (sic) civilization, or at any rate what is called (sic) healthy regenerate culture. So vile decadence is called health and regenerate. They opine the cruelty of letting live the deformed child, and the lingering anguish of the aged. We hear nothing of the arts of healing these wretched examples of human misery that would surely extend human wisdom to the very gates of paradise if acted upon. We hear nothing about the fact that this ongoing struggle would pit otherwise healthy individuals against the same, once the easier victims were preyed upon, with the view that struggle involves the marginal advantage of all against all. If you can kill or ruin your foe, that foe being anyone you feel constrained to prey upon, it is endless violence. We can see that war would never end, society reduced to a junkyard dog vagabond herd of canaille (a word more apt to so called nobility than commoners), churls, the scum of the earth.
I will sidetrack here for a bit to discuss the genesis of Greek culture.
We see the glorification of Sparta as a paradigm and irony of this twisted motif. Anyone who has knowledge of human development that thinks the treatment of Spartan children produced healthy and strong soldiers is a fool. If he be a doctor, he is a vile quack. Now these churls exposed the lame child at birth, only to stunt the healthy development of young boys later. They separated husband and wife, leading to fewer opportunities for procreation, promoting lesbianism, pederasty, the transmission of venereal disease to the youth at an early age. The extreme athleticism of the dyke women, enamored of the hard bodies of the athlete, promoted infertility along with the promiscuous transmission of VD through their lustful desires, rotting out their wombs.
The training of small boys resulted in teeth knocked out long before their time, head trauma, starvation generated malnutrition during critical phases of maturity, the promotion of immorality, cruelty at every level. This vice would only be restrained by the necessity of inflicting the wretched helots with brutality and murder, the Spartans living in constant fear of slave revolt by the alien Helot population.
Let us look at the vaunted military success of Sparta. These brigands managed to conquer the largest contiguous fertile plain in the Greek peninsular/islands demesne. For much of their existence, they shunned naval power, commerce and the attendant strife of clashing cultures that this entails. Their plain was surrounded by mountains in the heart of the Peloponnese Peninsula, a peninsula of the Greek peninsula of the Balkan Peninsula. Rich in grain, olive oil, grapes and viticulture, livestock for hides, meat, sinews for bows, the mountains still somewhat forested for timber and firewood, minerals to smelt, this coupled with an austere lifestyle that shunned foreign luxury goods, required minimal need for foreign trade. The surrounding cities of Corinth, Athens, etc. would supply what might be needed by inland caravans from seaports to Sparta.
This also meant that Sparta had little reason to quarrel over trade routes with other city states. Moreover, the need to suppress the Helots gave little time for foreign adventures, and made such ventures risky, drawing the troops from home. It was only with the threat of the Persians, then later expanding Athenian, Macedonian power, that drew Sparta into naval affairs and constant strife with neighbors. She developed seapower only later in her political life, and succumbed to foreign armies at the end.
Her great victory over Athens had more to do with plague and treason within Athens than to Spartan military prowess. Her evil oligarchy finally felt compelled to have its army led by one commander/king as the efficient army must be led in such a way. A state ruled by an oligarchy is a state that spits in the face of God. A state ruled by a sovereign prince is a state that spits in the face of God. These nations pay the price with injustice, civil war, vile behavior and ignorance. It is the first citizen, the prince, that represents the commonwealth of the nation, democratically inspired that makes a commonwealth prosper. But Satan is at work to ruin all, placing phony princes as puppets of corrupt oligarchs to hide their corruption. Yet, even this sop to God produces a generally more stable society. Democracy is only unstable because the corrupt rich, the evil priests, the vile ignobility (so called nobility) subvert it. And the human race is the pawn of heathen godlessness.
I might add that much of history has seen monarchs rule states, at least in theory. There is little doubt that the great masses of humanity supported this, making it (ironically) democratically consistent as Hobbes supposed. True, they rued corrupt kings, puppet kings, but otherwise had positive opinions of the monarch, and with good reason. Oligarchies are invariably vile, tyrannical and corrupt. They despise the people, are traitors in that they do not support the commonwealth, for it is impossible to belong to a faction, whether political party, social class or other faction, and not be a traitor to the commonwealth. These vile churls condemn corruption and are corrupt, condemn tyranny and are tyrannical, condemn immorality and hypocrisy and are immoral and hypocritical. QEII in England, this sovereign in a proclaimed democracy that must place the electorate as sovereign, probably still has the majority support of her nation. People loathed Cromwell, despise Parliament today, and fraud goes on. We see in the demand of the Jews for a king as the universal paradigm here. They reject God and wisdom for the face of a man. So if we are to despise humanity, let it be for reasonable ends, and not the shameful hubris of base born oligarchies. All noble traits are spiritual, immaterial, and cannot be engendered through blood. A good father does indeed encourage virtuous children, but for his spiritual traits, not by reason of his blood.
The armies of Babylon, of Assyria would spit with contempt upon the Spartans in their heyday. Sparta would not have lasted 45 minutes against Cyrus at Thermopylae. But all empires decay to cop armies, suppressing slave revolts fought by untrained and poorly armed combatants. Even the Athenians finally learned how to get the upper hand over the Spartan phalanx, though plague and treason led to their defeat. We know that the ancients were in fact familiar with the contagious nature of diseases. We see this knowledge manifested in the Bible, in the tactics of the Mongols and others, though not aware of microscopic life, per se. We can suppose that the deliberate dissemination of plague behind Athens’ walls with the help of traitors is not implausible.
The Greeks like to proclaim ancient Egypt as the fountainhead of their culture. This is bunk. It was Canaan and the related Cretan culture of human vileness that engendered the Greeks. The reason for this Greek proclamation is the great monumental architecture of Egypt, the relatively less noxious nature of Egyptian culture compared to Canaanite and Cretan culture. The Greek alphabet came from Canaan. Their seaborne trade at first was with these areas more than Egypt. The island of Cyprus and Rhodes and the cities of Asia Minor were extensions of these peoples.
We hear that it is now proven that Cretans were of Indo-European origins due to a number of corpses found with still intact DNA. The Bible states that the original inhabitants of Crete were Hamitic as were those of Canaan. All sea peoples were heavily involved in slave trading. In the later periods, the Vikings engaged in slave trade, passing slaves down to the Islamic world through the rivers of Russia and other routes. This was true of North African corsairs as well, and the Portuguese. The Greek city states used seapower to bring in slaves on a grand scale. We must suppose the Phoenicians did the same.
We have a report from the 4th century BC that the ratio of slaves to freemen in Athens was about 10 to 1 slaves to freemen. This seems extraordinarily high, but probably included what we would call indentured servants and others not in the same category as the typical slave brought in from warfare and commerce in slave trading markets. We know that when Rome increased its empire. large portions of the city’s population were slaves. This was the case in Athens as well.
Where might the Hamitic Cretans get slaves? The best area would be from Europe. They controlled other Aegean islands near the mainland. Egypt was too powerful to plunder much of the time, and Egypt did not use slave labor except for some slaves brought in by conquest. Egypt never expanded empires as the Babylonians and others did, as the land of Egypt was sacred and must not be left. The Libyans were a warlike people, evidently fair skinned and possibly of European origin in ancient times. Egyptian paintings show some of them with blue eyes. So Europe was the place for Crete to get slaves. They could get them from Phoenicians, but they competed with Sidon and Tyre as seapowers. It was best to do their own work.
The Linear A script found in ancient Crete and surrounding areas is distinct, and likely of a non-Indo-European origin as biblical citation would indicate. We know that Crete was ultimately conquered by Indo-European Greeks. This probably happened over time as with the case of Sicily by the Greeks. Sicily is a bigger and wider island whereas Crete is thinner and smaller. But we must suppose mingling of culture, linguistics and technology. The Bible says the Philistines came from Crete. There are elements of Indo-European traits in Philistine written fragments but not definitively Indo-European. Only modern quack archaeologists feel compelled by their anti-biblical diatribes to make such assertions. As for Canaan, it was conquered by Semitic barbarians who imposed their language on the local people but absorbed their gods and vile sexual and religious practices, intermarrying with them. So the Bible need not be refuted as to their origin. We see this process throughout history with sedentary cultures clashing with nomadic peoples. Sometimes the linguistics goes one way, sometimes the other way. The ancients viewed the gods of the land as associated with the region. This made worshiping these beings as expedient or mandatory, mixing them with their own conquering gods as the case merited. Winning the local priests over helped subdue the local population, mitigating the need to kill them, making them available for slavery and laborers.
As for the Hittites, the scoffers claimed they did not exist for centuries so as to heap scorn on the Bible. They were found in Egyptian and other states’ correspondence and traced to Asia Minor. They dwelled in mountain fastnesses. The Bible states that Hittites were people of the hills and mountains. When Semitic peoples conquered Canaan, the Hittites had an advantage in their mountain fortresses. Rather than moving down from Asia Minor, it is likely that under pressure from Semites, they emigrated to Asia Minor from Canaan, while still keeping strongholds in Canaan. It is claimed their language is Indo-European, but this is not exactly the case. It is different. The Bible says that Asia Minor was colonized by Japheth (Indo-Europeans.) If Hittites kept to their mountain traditions, they would build up mountainous places in Asia Minor. Archaeologists comment that their strongholds were not well suited to trade, but were well suited to defense. Being pressed in Canaan by foreigners, military defense would be upper most in mind.
Hittites emigrated into Indo-European areas, conquered local peoples, picked up or largely absorbed language from these peoples, but with strong elements of the natal language still extent. Those people who must be of Hamitic origins by the Bible’s reckoning do not in fact necessarily speak what is called Hamitic languages (Egyptian, Coptic, etc.) We do not know what Hittite language was like to any great degree in its original form, but the Hittites modified it with contact with northern peoples as they moved into Asia Minor, the opposite of the motions secular scholars claimed happened. The Bible is invariably proven correct in the end.
These scholars claim the Cretans did not practice human sacrifice, because they find happy images of dolphins, fish and bull riding on the walls of palaces. This is in spite of a long tradition of the Greeks that they did do just that. We see them related to the Sidonians, Tyrians and Carthaginians, all of whom practiced immolation and sacrifice of children, including sacrifices of the princely progeny. We have the deniers of this, the endless detractors of biblical truth.
So we see where the origins of Greek wisdom derived from. It is evident that they denied the true immaterial nature of ethics. Ethics were a part of the world order and discerned through reason thereby. In effect, this is the ethics of amorality, immorality hidden by rational platitudes.
So how do we control the passions? With ethical behavior.
Reason must concern itself with rational, finite, definable matters. It is out of its element otherwise. Reason as a religion invariably turns toward the empirical nature of the material world, even denying against both objective immediate empirical evidence, and the demands of logic that this empirical basis of the immaterial is not so. What is the result of this?
The passions, unlike specific thoughts and images, permeate the psyche. They are indefinable. The reason deals only with the definable, making it quite ineffective to fight the unruly passions. You can kill a dragon with a sword when made of lizard flesh, but not the immaterial representation of evil manifested by a dragon icon. This requires an immaterial, indefinable sword of ethics. Reason always fails to staunch vice in any meaningful way. It is inadequate. Just as the law fails to bring about justice, it merely pointing out the unruly nature of men. The stupid get caught in criminal acts, but the corrupt judges and well placed thieves never get caught this side of paradise. The Apostle Paul pointed this out in his epistles. Moreover, many human laws are unjust, or contested by parties to be unjust. They support vice through legality. It is justice and order, not law and order that maintains peace in the city. But justice is indefinable and depends upon the good will of citizens and the uprightness of magistrates, not the laws enforced as such.
What else can we say about reason and passion? Passion overwhelms reason on every side. The reason, not up to the task, is warped into proclaiming good evil and evil good by any and every means and deception known to man. In the first place, reason cannot handle passions, they being indefinable and outside the purview of reason. In the second place, reason is amoral, not in the sense of denying morality, but in that the indefinable aspects of passions and ethics are outside the domain of its provenance. So it always fails in making men virtuous.
No, we fight passions with ethical weapons founded upon that same indefinable world that passions dwell in. Passion cannot outflank it while ethics stands firm. These ethics, being indefinable, are neither learned nor forgotten. Rules are learned; case histories of crimes are learned, law books. Ethics are ingrained in human nature along with all indefinable attributes. It is pointless to talk about a priori knowledge, as immediate indefinable knowledge is just that, immediate. What is immediate is only a priori in the sense that eternity is both prior to and after any point in time. Nevertheless, eternity is not time, cannot be time, and before and after only indicates temporal perspective. The same is true for ethics, esthetics and all indefinable attributes of the mind.
That we need the Bible to teach us ethics is bunk. The Apostle Paul refutes this as does reason and wisdom. Those without the law are a law unto themselves when just. Theft is known, was known for what it was before the Torah, without the Torah, and only heretical folly says otherwise. Now whether Jews mix linen with wool is a matter of law that Israel must obey in times past to obey God. Why? We speculate to counter some pagan attempt to mix virtue with vice or other pagan ritual of the land. For the life of us, in and of itself, mixing wool with linen is not a vice. Whether it is good craftsmanship of weaving will be left alone. The wisdom, power and perfection of God demands obedience as a matter of prudence. To suggest otherwise is hubris based upon vanity based upon self-destructive intent. You sin against yourself, so disobedience becomes a vice. If God later said, it is all right to mix linen with wool as it is no big matter to the pure in heart, the circumcised in heart, but only to the fallible circumcised of the loins whose weakness for the carnal gods of Canaan enjoined such a prohibition; well we can see how God can go one way at one time and another way at another time.
If you bring ruin down upon your family, household and country for stupid refusal to obey a petty restriction, are you not the robber of their sustenance, the destroyer of their lives? And based on what, stubbornness? There is a crossover point where folly becomes vice, although pure ignorance as such cannot be imputed to vice directly. As Solomon notes, there is a way that seems right to a man but is not. Yes, well you do the best you can and appeal to a good conscience for consequences. After all, if men will not look after their own well being, how can they complain about any crime, any act of unkindness, lack of charity?
Chapter 2: The Arsenal of Righteousness
Does hope ever die? In hell? No sir, it does not. He who gnashes his teeth will wish he were not, even in hell. Despair is a lie that the despondent tell themselves to dampen the disappointment of failed hope. It is a hope itself and must always fail. So never give up hope and be enjoined to this purpose by Jesus Christ. It is pointless and a life of vice that sells its soul for ephemeral gain and loses all.
Is a sceptic wise? He is a fool who knows nothing and rejects what he does not know based on no evidence. As with the case of the despondent despair, his scepticism is a belief system and self-contradiction of itself, utter nonsense. Though we can prove nothing by faith, nor does the man of faith prove anything, that being the absence of faith and all but certain guarantee of the failure of faith, barring divine intervention, we keep faith in our arsenal for prudence as well as for hope.
If we love the joy of life, do we not tend to our needs? If we love our children, do we not deal with them as if our own flesh, that they are in the mystical sense, and biologically when deemed in the practical and associative sense? We must do right by ourselves to avoid retribution, to seek the good, to live by the golden rule, to aspire constantly to the majesty and glory of God as our paradigm of behavior. The golden rule and two great commandments of the Gospel are surely in play.
So we have faith, hope and charity. Yet, there is another. “I am the truth” (John 14:6) someone said. Without truth, hope is vain, faith is mockery, love is mere infatuation. And of the four things, truth is the greatest. If we seek truth, we love the world and our self. What we seek we believe in and hope for and all things work together. If we did not believe, we would not seek, would not hope for. If we believe, we hope. If we hope, we believe. We hope and believe in what we love. We love what we hope and believe in. We find all through truth in the end. Faith fulfilled is no longer faith but truth manifest. Hope fulfilled is no longer hope, but fact, truth. If we do not love truth we will not seek it but be averse to it. How the fool destroys himself by killing the messenger because the news is not what he wants to hear! Take heed of bad tidings and prepare to staunch the tide of malice, turn things around, use bad tidings to bring about good tidings. Do not delude yourself in the delusive fires of hell on earth.
So we are good and well rounded in our shield against unruly passions. Does not Christ and the Bible confirm all this, though written by me in other words here?
Other Works by the Author
Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Logic: An Essay
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V
My current biography and contact links are posted at . My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.
A preface briefly discusses notions of why evil exists, and segues to the main argument that ethics, not reason is the best defense against unruly passions. Chapter 1 lays out the Greco-Roman argument defending reason as the shield against unruly passion. We dismiss this, showing that reason deals with definable things, not indefinable sentiments of the passions. The indefinable ethical standards are the shield. We fight lust with ethics not with reason. I divert the argument a bit to go over the origins of Greek culture by contrasting academic with biblical sources for its derivation. I loosely connect the reason argument to an essentially amoral view of the world expressed in Greco-Roman thought. We then show that passion outflanks and deludes reason at every turn, that fighting indefinable passions with definable dependent reason is a bad idea. Chapter 2 comments that faith, hope and charity with truth added to the armory is the armor of virtue against the unruly passions of lust.