Greetings Beautiful People!
Welcome to the first ever episode of the Pursuit of Truth. I’m Paul Beach.
Here on the Pursuit of Truth, we do our best to take an extremely rational, highly
objective, even-handed and open-minded approach to controversial topics and current
issues. We do our best to break the issues down to their fundamental essence; their
bottom-line, in an effort to discover, hopefully, one or two things of universal
importance; one or two little things that might serve as common ground, a starting point,
so that people who like to debate issues won’t be constantly talking past each other. Our
main goal is to get you to think.
Have you ever tried to help someone understand? Sharing knowledge is one thing, and
it’s generally not that difficult; it’s academic. That’s what academia is all about, in fact.
But helping someone to integrate that knowledge into something more than mere
perception; helping them to UNDERSTAND a concept, may actually be impossible! It’s
ancient wisdom that the path to enlightenment is an inner journey and that no enlightened
person can show to the unenlightened. Funny, that ancient wisdom certainly has done
nothing to discourage some people from trying. And now I’m going to give it the old
college try. We can approach this as an experiment; to test the validity of this “ancient
wisdom.”
Am I enlightened? I fancy that I am. Ultimately, it will be for you to decide. Take in as
much of my message as you can stomach, then weigh it all out for yourself. But now is a
great time for me to mention my famous disclaimer: I could be wrong. With
EVERTHING you ever hear me assert, always remember those four words. I could be
wrong. I don’t want to have to say it after every assertion. So just remember that I said
here. It’s my little disclaimer. I could be wrong.
[Throughout the previous paragraph POV will cut away to Camera Two where I will
shaking my head.]
My theories, concepts, my belief system, if you will; the little ideas that I accept as “the
way it is”; all of it is constantly under re-evaluation. I’m constantly on the lookout for
that one key piece to the puzzle that I might have missed. As a result, I have given due
consideration to a lot of ideas, and continue to do so, with alarming regularity. Some I
embrace, and some I discard. But all ideas are given due consideration.
Every opinion has value. Whether right or wrong, evaluating an opinion is a chance for
us to once again test our personal beliefs and values. If the opinion is found to be correct
it has inherent value. If it’s wrong, the opinion can help us re-affirm and better articulate
our personal beliefs. Either way, it gives us a clearer understanding of the truth.
[POV change: “Write that down.”]
With that said, let’s begin by covering just a few little fundamental basics of human
behavior as a starting point; some easy concepts that ANY rational person would agree
with, and then from there we can launch ourselves into some controversy. Sound like a
plan?
Pop quiz! What two fundamental motivations lie at the core of every human behavior?
Answer: The need to move away from pain, and the desire to move toward pleasure.
POV: Paul mopping dirty kitchen floor.
I hate cleaning. I think MOST people probably feel the same way. But we still do it. We
know that if we don’t keep clean, sanitary conditions decline, and we increase the risk of
disease. Getting sick is painful, and we want to avoid that pain; we want to move away
from that pain. So we engage in a behavior that we don’t necessarily like to avoid pain.
POV: Paul playing his sax… poorly.
Playing my sax gives me pleasure, so I engage in this behavior to move toward pleasure.
Simple, right?
Shawn puts the camera down.
Paul: Dude! Where ya’ going?
Shawn: I’m moving away from pain!
Now, you realize that what I might find pleasurable might not be pleasurable to someone
else. Every individual on the planet has their own personal associations to pleasure and
pain and for the most part those associations are amoral and cannot be judged. They’re
called preferences.
Preferences are awesome! They lend themselves to cultural diversity. Preferences are
what make people interesting. You might come across a body of people that believe the
same way, but they’ll still be distinguishable as individuals by virtue of their differing
preferences.
What I love about preferences is that there is no wrong or right. There is no reason to
debate which restaurant has better food, or which pop singer is a better song-writer, or the
age-old question – boxers or briefs.
Now, I can already hear you asking the next question: what about the guy that takes
pleasure in causing pain to other people; the guy that prefers to kill people? What about
his preferences?
Well, I’m glad you asked, because I would suggest that there is a moral constant. Yes, I
said it. A moral constant! Some people would contend that morals, like time and space,
are relative! They would suggest that the ends justify the means. However, I submit to
you that morals are, rather, like the speed of light – constant!
There is a moral constant that is the same for anyone whether you’re Christian or Jew,
Muslim or Hindu, Buddhist or Branch Davidian, Atheistic or Agnostic. And while
preferences are great, they do come in secondary to the moral constant.
Explaining the Moral Constant falls squarely into the category of trying to help someone
understand a concept. If I were to just blurt it right out, but you’d only get it on an
academic level at best. So I’m going try something else. The moral constant is wrapped
around two personal questions that you’ll answer in your own way. Don’t worry, the
subjective nature of these personal questions does not take any invariability away from
the moral constant. These questions are simply a way for you to measure yourself against
the moral constant. Your answers to these fundamental questions are the Genesis to your
belief system.
Are you ready to learn the Moral Constant? Brace yourself, Baby!
Question One: Do you believe that reality is perceivable in this lifetime?
This question is not asking if you actually see reality as it truly is; only if you think it is
possible to do. Or do you believe that true reality will elude us until we die, at which
time, only in an afterlife, will we finally be able to see things as they truly are. Or that
each individual creates their own reality from his or her mind?
It is a simple question, and if you answered YES then congratulations. Regardless of
whether or not you can perceive true reality correctly at this moment, you at least strive
to. Can you imagine the futility of life for somebody who is convinced that they will
never see true reality in this lifetime! For them, what is the point of going on?
And for those poor souls that answer this question with "No, I create my own reality"
please be careful. You're skirting a thin line that separates you from those committed to
full-time psychiatric care.
It doesn’t matter if we can’t see real reality right now. How can we when there is so
much that we don’t know? The point is to try! To continually strive to learn more, to
grow, and to do our best to perceive real reality.
Why is this question important to the moral constant? Simply this – if reality is relative to
the individual, there can be no constants of ANY sort; write that down!
That’s right. If reality is relative, then there’s no Speed of Light, no Planck Masses, no
Newton’s Law or general relativity. So even if you answer the question right now with a
“No”, I have a theory. I would suggest that anyone who lives long enough will eventually
come to answer this question YES. Now the question now is, will you live long enough?
Will I live long enough to be proven right? We have to try!
Question Two: Should the individual have the right of private property?
This question is slightly more complex, but not prohibitively so. The fact that we don't
have the right of private property is not an issue with regards to this question. Also, the
term Private Property in this context is used to describe all of an individual's personal
property, to wit: any claim to real property, recognized and given validity by society;
their person, including the freedom to move about the universe; and their produce,
including but not limited to intellectual property and un-emancipated offspring.
Many people will reflexively answer yes, we SHOULD have the right to private property,
and that is great!
But if you’re not sure, put your answer in the form of a percentage if necessary. What
percent of your property should you have a right to - 90%? 75%? An even half and half?
And just to make sure that you frame the question in the proper context, here is a
hypothetical situation. Let's say you have ten dollars that you use to purchase certain
materials. You use your personal knowledge and expertise to assemble these raw
materials into a widget. You then sell the widget for 100 dollars. Using your time and
your personal talent, you have turned 10 dollars into 100 dollars. How much of that 100
dollars does someone other than you have a claim to?
As previously stated, we don't actually have a right of private property. The amount of
private property you and I have a right to is not an arbitrary value, but is, rather, a distinct
percentage that varies to the individual, depending on many factors; mainly, what country
you live in. Citizens of the United States probably average about 60% right of private
property; for those in other countries it could be as little as 25% or less. If you don’t
believe me, just stop paying your taxes and see what happens. Of course, we must be
careful not to confuse payment non-voluntary taxes with voluntary exchange of money
for something else of value.
[POV change: “None of you confused those two things, right?]
The sad truth is that there is a great number of people with their hands in your coin-purse.
And it's important to point out that every one of those people with the grabbin’ hands has
made their decision on Question Two, at least subconsciously. It is reflected in their
behavior. What is reflected by your behavior?
It is academic to say that taking what is not yours is wrong. We all know that. With that
said, if you answered Question Two with anything other than 'yes', then you have
admitted your disregard to right and wrong; you believe that the ends justify the means;
morals, to you, are relative.
Doesn’t this right of private property sound like a good right to have? How could we all
acquire such a right? The only way that I can think of is for everybody to respect the
private property rights of everyone else.
Now, imagine a world where all of its conscious occupants respect the rights of private
property of everyone else. Can you see how such a condition would eradicate all of
society's current ills? I would suggest that people who believe that morals are relative are
the cause of problems.
The Moral Constant is simply respecting every conscious individual's right of private
property. In doing this one simple thing, everyone would be free; everyone would prosper
to the full measure of their ability in a world devoid of crime and immorality.
However! Everyone would have to do it!
And there is no way to FORCE anyone to be moral. That would be immoral. The only
thing we can do is try to persuade everyone to respect the right of private property of
everyone else. Many people might scoff at such an undertaking, but I suggest that it is not
prohibitively difficult. What is mankind's alternative, anyway? Besides, there have been
massive movements carried over throughout history. What better movement is there than
world peace? You can start with your offspring.
So, now you know the basics of human behavior, your behavior, and the behavior of
every conscious individual in the world. We all have our individual preferences; you
prefer to live in a warm climate, or you prefer to drive fast, or you prefer to watch TV
rather than read, or you prefer to sacrifice large amounts of your time to earn money so
you can buy nice things, or the opposite. You are entitled to any preference under the sun
as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's right of private property - that's the Moral
Constant.
Do the necessary self-assessment; find out where you stand on the two questions. Then
decide where you want to be. Live in such a way, that if everyone in the world adopted
your behaviors, there would be peace.
Thanks for watching the Pursuit of Truth. I’m Paul Beach. Until next time, Be God!