What's better. A Metaphysics which has a glaring fault at its core, or one which has a beautiful foundation?

A fundamental assumption of our current Metaphysics is that it’s possible to be unbiased. Want to find the truth of a matter? Well then you need to be dispassionate, logical and unbiased. But what does that even mean? Is that even possible? Can we really have no bias? It might be uncomfortable to consider but thinking about this further; unless we can be dispassionate ’objective’ view-from-God all knowing beings then it quickly becomes apparent that indeed it’s not possible.

This is the insight provided by Psychologist and Cognitive Scientist Paul Bloom. In the video above Bloom points out how impossible it is to be unbiased and gives a few reasons why this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

For starters, in a typical ‘scientific’ Subject-Object Metaphysics way - Bloom links the importance of biases to our general survival.

“If we weren’t able to make guesses(prejudices) about new instances that we encounter we wouldn’t survive.” Paul Bloom

But then he takes the value of them a couple of steps further - firstly pointing out how our biases and emotional prejudices allow us to care for others. And then secondly how it's best if we use our intellect to expand our care for others, in a reasonable way, to those whom we may have never met.

In Bloom's writing, we can see lots of harmony with the Metaphysics of Quality. Bloom not only provides insight on the mistake of an over-reliance on biological emotions but rightly emphasizes the value of intellect in moral decision making.

What Bloom misses however, is that his statement about bias actually undercuts the philosophical foundations of our current Metaphysics. It would be a cruel irony indeed that in order for us to understand the truth of anything, we must be dispassionate, logical and unbiased when those biases are written into who we are as people.

But of course we do not have to suffer this irony. Rather than using a metaphysics which sees bias undercutting every human judgment, a better metaphysics to use is one which replaces bias with value. Taking this change in perspective changes no data but improves our understanding so that it's infinitely better.

It might seem strange - but this is actually why The Metaphysics of Quality supports Bloom's scholarship better than our current Metaphysics. Rather than cut into the foundation of our current metaphysics it is supporting the foundations of a value based metaphysics. In modern day language - it shows that our values are a feature, not a bug.

But all that said - does this mean that there is no such thing as a negative bias? No, low-quality biases and prejudices still exist. But within a Metaphysics of Quality - the source of those biases is correctly shown to be low-quality values that need to be questioned and not simply an objective 'mistake' to be corrected.

We're trapped & there's a Ghost! Can you see it?

'Powerful people unite! Caring for the downtrodden, caring for the unseen - these things aren't necessary. They're certainly not reasonable. Fairness, equality, morality; these things don't really exist, so why should we care? Forget the poor, forget the downtrodden, they're not worth a dime.'

Ghost of Reason

This is a line of reasoning that shouldn't at all be possible. Seem callous? It most certainly is. Seem immoral? It most certainly is. But is it considered logical and intellectually reasonable? Sadly, yes. There is no easy way, without appealing to something outside of what could be considered reasonable for all people, to say that it's not justified.

This is clearly a failing, not just of morality, but of our intellectual class. Our intellectual class which allows for these ideas to be reasonable because it can't see that it's trapped. Trapped in a metaphysics which says that what's reasonable can be so, even when it isn't good or doesn't care for what's right.

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance(1973), Robert Pirsig wrote about the existence of a Ghost of Reason. It's this ghost which is being ignored by our intellectual community and so it's haunting everyone. Everyone from Donald Trump voters to consumers who are on the end of uncaring, technology based, 'reasonable' decisions.

But the way to kill a ghost is to learn how it was created so that it can be put to rest once and for all.

So a reminder for all those who care - The Ghost of Reason is a legacy left to us by the Ancient Greeks. One in which reason and Quality became separated, placed in conflict with one another, and where truth and reason were left supreme. And this is why today we accept what's reasonable to be so even when it lacks care and isn't any good. This feeling - that something just isn't quite right even though we're doing what's 'reasonable' - that's the Ghost and it needs to be put to rest once and for all.

Until then, the demise of intellectual quality will continue and those out to exploit its weakness will wrongly gain. Intellectual values exist and are the best values there are. The lack of care from our intellectual class is the result of an unnecessary historical artifact that's undermining these values. So let's put an end to this and see the Ghost of Reason for what it is. When we do that we can escape from this value-free Subject-Object Metaphysics in which we are trapped and move toward a better, value based metaphysics which has caring and Quality at its core.

The moral struggles of now!

‘The MOQ provides beautiful clarity to the evil behind the fascist inclinations of Donald Trump as well as the media culture and neoliberal policies which helped create him.’

It’s evolutionarily immoral to incite fear when there are better, higher, intellectual, rational alternatives.

Fear is a biological emotion. Historically it’s created in response to a perceived biological threat. It’s immoral to overindulge in this emotion when there are higher, intellectual morals which can be created. If the fear incited is not supported by facts then an intellectual case has not been made. This is true of those creating fear as well as those responding unnecessarily to it.

When the media or our political class create or propagate stories whose end result is unnecessary fear; this is immoral.

When people voluntarily seek out media or individuals whose end result is an irrational and biological response; then this is immoral.

What the MOQ makes uniquely clear to us is that these are choices in the realm of morality and the choices made are immoral!

But people aren’t naturally inclined to do the wrong thing. There’s forces at play making them more likely to do so. First and foremost, people are struggling and they don’t want their situation to deteriorate any further. The neoliberal policies that are mostly to blame for the struggles have created disadvantage amongst the poor and the working class. It is this same class who are generally less educated and therefore less inclined to seek intellectual answers to their dire situation. This makes them prime for exploitation with irrational fears.

The media, whose final goal is to gain advertisers and make money, finds an audience with a fearful and undereducated populace. Stories which incite fear create short-term ad revenue. They are ran regardless of the risk they pose, or lack of long-term value they provide for the audience.

Furthermore, a political candidate who is out for personal gain can exploit this same media induced irrational fear. This fear of illegal immigrants, Muslims and African Americans is exploited by providing an assuring authoritarian alternative.

One of the most revealing things about Trump is that the greatest predictor for his supporters is how high they score in authoritarianism. This makes sense. If you’re afraid and unable to fully understand why you're struggling, then a strong social authority figure would indeed be appealing.

But such an appeal to social authority in the face of false threats and contrary intellectual facts is immoral, and in fact, lays the foundations of fascism. The scapegoating of other cultures and banning of media outlets only adds to Trump's anti-intellectual social fascism. This is unprecedented in American politics and poses a unique threat to the country.

On the other side, Hillary Clinton, as the Democrats neoliberal alternative will only provide further struggle to an already struggling working class. More free trade agreements will only create further joblessness and unemployment. At least in Hillary's case, there isn't the immoral fascist leanings of a Trump presidency.

What’s clear is that regardless of who is in power these struggles will only continue. They will continue until there are policies which return manufacturing jobs back to the United States or large re-education programs designed to bring the unemployed into service jobs of the 21st Century. Donald Trump apparently has such policies outlined, and has been able to use these policies to help gain further support. I just hope it doesn’t take a candidate with fascist inclinations for them to happen.

Why you shouldn't use the MOQ

I continually post and will continue to post about why you should use the MOQ. It's great in so many different ways and will help us sort out many problems we face today. But here's a couple of big reasons why you shouldn't bother with the MOQ..

Reason Number 1 - It's a lot of work to change the way you think currently.

Understanding the MOQ takes a lot of questioning assumptions one has taken for granted for their whole life. Who likes questioning themselves? It can be disorienting and legitimately painful. You could fill libraries with the pain induced existential writings of many a philosopher. Who likes to go through all that? Especially when the results are not guaranteed and it can often be not very fun.

It's far easier to stick with the comfort of what you know already. Conservatism has its advantages, and the lack of pain required to change is the big one. 'Why should I change the way I think currently?' is a fair question.

Reason Number 2 - If you do eventually agree with the MOQ you'll have very few peers.

Being that agreement with the MOQ requires philosophical questioning of ones' whole thought structure - few are willing or able to make the journey. Academics who naturally have grown up questioning things, have been taught to question from within the Subject Object Metaphysics tradition only and so make assumptions which the MOQ doesn't. This actually makes them less likely to change their way of thinking about metaphysics than their non-academic peers. Compared to our current metaphysics then, there's very few people on the planet who subscribe to the MOQ.

Furthermore, even those who do agree with the MOQ have a history of disagreement. So who likes to be in a minority?

Of course even in light of these two reasons I still think it's worth going through the pain of fully understanding the MOQ. Without pain, life doesn't grow and become better. Rather than simply just happiness - the meaning of life is to be the best you can be. And the Metaphysics of Quality with its logically sound code of morality makes you a better person.

Human behavior creating global warming is metaphysically immoral and veganism is a moral solution.

In the previous post we established that not changing our behavior in response global warming is immoral. In line with this, according to a report by two World Bank advisers the animal agriculture industry surprisingly contributes to around fifty-one percent of all global emissions. From this study we can conclude that consuming less meat would dramatically reduce our harmful impact on the planet. But why haven’t we heard of this before?

To answer this, the video above shows some of the statistics found in a documentary called Cowspiracy, and it explores why this might not be as well a known cause as the direct burning of fossil fuels. Reasons provided are the reluctance of charities to confront the public about such a large change in behavior, and the power of the animal agriculture industry in stamping out dissent.

But in addition to morally valuing biological life on earth by not suffocating it with inorganic CO2 there is another benefit of not consuming animal meat. This benefit is the correct valuing of biologically more evolved animals over that of their less evolved counterparts – plants and grains. As Robert Pirsig writes in Lila:

An evolutionary morality,.. would say [eating meat is] scientifically immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables.. It would add, also, that this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a lower organism.

Robert Pirsig

Thirdly, that’s not to mention the growing list of health benefits that can be found in reducing the amount of meat in your diet and improving the overall biological quality of the people on the planet.

Therefore these three key reasons make veganism moral on many levels and supported by the evolutionary hierarchy of the Metaphysics of Quality.