The news drought continues, so your Curmudgeon’s mind is wandering. Forgive us, dear reader, but we’re drifting into uncharted waters here. We hope, however, that this speculative essay is at least tenuously on topic.
There are all kinds of creationists — a topic we’ve discussed before — see Creationists: Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked. Most are merely ignorant, and a few are deranged. The others know better than their drooling followers, but they have motives. Among those with motives, it’s possible that some are sincere, but most are charlatans who see their ministries as an easy way to make a living.
And there are a few we haven’t described before. They have a different motive. Like those without scruples, they advocate creationism (or intelligent design) while almost certainly knowing it’s scientifically absurd, yet they do so anyway because they think a lie — or what they probably consider a harmless fiction — is morally justified if it results in a greater good. They consider themselves to be the wisest of all.
Although no one knows his motives, everyone’s most likely example of this is the late William F. Buckley, Jr. — see So Help Us Darwin. Buckley was no fool, but he probably justified what he did as a noble lie for the greater good.
This is a perverse form of utilitarianism. We can refer to such people as idealistic creationists. They believe that their kind of religion is beneficial to society, even if they, in their wisdom, are aware that some of its teachings are false. But can a moral system based on falsehood ever be a good thing? We don’t think so. A brief glance at history informs us that it’s impossible to calculate the evil that has been done in the world by those who tell themselves that a little bit of evil is justified by the greater good.
Would it really be a better world if everyone truly believed that bad conduct would inevitably result in the Lake of Fire? Maybe. But that approach demands the existence of a celestial record-keeper who imposes grotesque punishment after death, and it also involves a multitude of relatively trivial rules about harmless private conduct. Such rules are often ignored, which discredits the whole package. It’s an intellectually indefensible system that has never worked. Only the most mindless can totally accept it, and it makes hypocrites out of everyone else. Is that the greater good?
A non-mystical behavior code limited to criminal conduct upon which virtually all could agree would be just as effective — probably more so — if people could actually see that the consequences.of criminal behavior were swift and certain. Unfortunately, the existing system doesn’t serve us well. It suffers from lax enforcement and jail terms that are often waived or too brief. Everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of repeat offenders.
Is there a system that might serve as a better example? Possibly. Consider the American military (but don’t be misled by Hollywood’s common depiction of them as savages). If you were given the choice of walking around at night, alone and unarmed, would you prefer to take your stroll at a military base or in some large civilian city? The choice is simple. Military bases are almost always safe. Why?
The answer is simple. It’s because criminals are civilians. The military almost never accepts them — see An Arrest Record Could Keep You From Enlisting, and also US Military Enlistment Standards. For military personnel who do commit crimes, a dishonorable discharge is almost certain to follow.
Could the whole country be a criminal-free zone, analogous to a military base? Yes, but it wouldn’t be easy. The idealistic creationist’s method of trying to persuade everyone that mythology is real obviously isn’t the answer. It never was. One possibility is placing violent criminals in prison permanently. Another possibility, perhaps a better one because it’s far less expensive, is exile — assuming there were some place to send them. It would have to be a very big Devil’s Island — but somewhat more humane, of course.
Don’t misunderstand us. We are not recommending how society should be transformed into Utopia. All we’re doing here is telling you what exists, and why things are the way they are. We’re also saying that science-denial for the greater good isn’t the answer, nor is any other form of idealistic nonsense. If you’re looking for someone to propose rules for changing society, you’ve come to the wrong place. You need a politician, or a sociologist, or maybe a community organizer. Those occupations are way below your Curmudgeon’s pay grade.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
“This is a perverse form of utilitarianism.”
Which is totally unlike Jesus and also unlike the OT. We still can find this attitude in the RCC though, where all kind of authorities are supposed to judge what the flock is capable of handling and what not.
“if everyone truly believed that bad conduct would inevitably result in the Lake of Fire?”
Actually there was such a world in the past: medieval Europe. Was that a better world?
“if people could actually see that the consequences.of criminal behavior were swift and certain.”
All criminological research (and yes, that’s part of sociology) shows that that is the key to reducing crime: the consequences must not be severe (Norway applies very soft punishments, but has relatively considerably lower crime rates than the USA) but swift and certain.
“It suffers from lax enforcement and jail terms that are often waived or too brief.”
Nice to see how you contradict yourself that fast. Because forget science, eh? Never mind the facts. And if you have to recognize them there is always a way to talk around them – like creationists do for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
USA: 4,8. Norway: 2,2.
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html
“It would have to be a very big Devil’s Island”
Like Australia and French Guyana you mean? They didn’t exactly make England and France safer in the 19th Century.
“somewhat more humane, of course”
How lax of you. So much for consistency. But yeah, unless it’s Evolution Theory under fire you actually like creationist methodology, so I have noticed, including your four steps plan.
Don’t misunderstand me. While I’m radical left I’m not an idealist nor an utopian. I just happen to observe that rightwingers dismiss the scientific method even easier and quicker than leftwingers. But I’m equally harsh to both. I haven’t forgiven Greenpeace yet for the Brent Spar fraud.
mnb0 says: “But yeah, unless it’s Evolution Theory under fire you actually like creationist methodology …”
And you like to test my benevolence.
SC: “And there are a few we haven’t described before. They have a different motive. Like those without scruples, they advocate creationism (or intelligent design) while almost certainly knowing it’s scientifically absurd, yet they do so anyway because they think a lie — or what they probably consider a harmless fiction — is morally justified if it results in a greater good. They consider themselves to be the wisest of all.”
That describes Discoveroids to a T – unless you consider them among the “without scruples,” in which case you could be right. In the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty,” it doesn’t cost anything to think most of them are genuinely afraid that the “masses” need to reject “Darwinism” to serve the “greater good.” More importantly, though, I’m convinced that most or all Discoveroids know that all the mutually-contradictory creationist “theories” – and the ID scam itself – are absurd. On the other hand it does cost a lot to assume that they honestly believe that the evidence supports those “theories.”
Frank J says: “That describes Discoveroids to a T”
I can understand that Buckley was knowingly telling a noble lie for the greater good. But that kind of virtue — albeit misguided — is rare. I wouldn’t attribute it to the Discoveroids.
SC: “But that kind of virtue — albeit misguided — is rare.”
It may be, but it’s one of those things that no one will ever admit to. In fact I never thought of it until the late 90s when I read this. A “Straussian”, practically by definition, can never admit to being one. And they are usually mistaken for either an honest believer of what they peddle or a non-believer who fakes it just for ego and/or money. So if I’m wrong about the Discoveroids, the latter would be my second guess.
Two thoughts:
(1) I recommend that the author read “The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand.
(2) All of Mnbo’s critiques are accurate (except possibly the nitpicking on the first point) and appropriate.
That is all.
“The noble lie” seems like it must have been a plot device in a Star Trek episode or movie.
Ah, but who is to decide what the greater good is, and who will then be masters over everyone else to exert the necessary control to sustain that greater good? What this really is saying that even a Hitler is acceptable, as even the German people (most of them), accepted his reich. The same is true for every dictator throughout history, secular or sectarian, all have succumbed to the notion that they are the superior ones and all others should do their bidding for the greater good, as defined by those in charge.
mnbo“All criminological research (and yes, that’s part of sociology) shows that that is the key to reducing crime: the consequences must not be severe (Norway applies very soft punishments, but has relatively considerably lower crime rates than the USA) but swift and certain.”
As someone who has a passing interest in Criminology let me ask this: were these the techniques that were used to successfully end the crime wave New York suffered from in the 80s? Because I remember that after London got torched in the riots people over there looked to how we reduced crime in that situation and then lamented that we just threw our criminals in jail and that they couldn’t possibly do that.
Please do not misunderstand my post. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I would like more information. Also, I am not sure that what works for one nation or even generation will necessarily work for another. We all like to think that democracy always works, but look at Bush. Or slavery in the South. Had the southerners had their way and become their own nation, you can bet they wouldn’t have ended slavery on their own.
SC“Could the whole country be a criminal-free zone, analogous to a military base? Yes, but it wouldn’t be easy.”
When you wrote this part I thought I was reading an idea I had back in my Criminology class. I was told how there were experimental programs aimed at criminals who were deemed the most likely to re-offend that putting those criminals in a military like atmosphere. In the end it was deemed a failure because as soon as those criminals were taken out of that atmosphere the same percentage as before would re-offend. I always thought that maybe the problem was that they ever ended the program. Maybe some people need a world that is completely structured top to bottom in order to stay on the straight and narrow.
I think that you are over broad on the safety of military bases and the efficacy of court martial. The US military has a very real problem with sexual assault that until recently wasn’t widely acknowledged.
That being said, this post kind of reminded me of Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.
I would think that some convicted criminals could benefit from military training and access to the GI Bill. I don’t have any data on this, but the hypothesis that training convicted criminals to have alternate ways to make a living and hopefully reduce recidivism seems like a good idea to try.
Looking through the comments, I can’t remember when I’ve had a post so misunderstood before. I did NOT suggest a military takeover of the US, or a military takeover of the criminal justice system. I DID mention that military bases tend to be free of criminals, while our civilian cities are comparatively dangerous. That’s an observable fact.
I did NOT attribute the low-crime environment in the military to the joys of military discipline, and I did NOT say that military discipline should be extended throughout society. I DID say that the relatively crime-free environment in the military is because they almost never accept recruits with criminal records. They can’t train them, don’t trust them, and therefore they keep them out. I dared to suggest that it’s the virtual absence of criminals that makes military bases far safer to stroll through than our civilian cities.
My humble thought was that we might consider some way to achieve the same low-crime environment for the rest of the country — NOT by militarization of society, and NOT by promoting creationism, but by exclusion of criminals. That’s all I was saying, folks, so calm down.
For a good article on the “noble lie,” see Ronald Bailey|’s “Origin of the Specious” from 1997:
http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/print
Maybe we could open a penal colony on Manhattan Island and hope the president’s plane doesn’t crash on it and he has to Escape from New York.
But seriously, isn’t this what we do now? We put criminals on metaphorical islands (prisons), excluding them from society. The hard part is knowing who and/or when to let someone back into society.
John Pieret says:
That’s an excellent article.
BioRod asks: “But seriously, isn’t this what we do now?”
Yes, but we don’t do enough of it.
Much crime is driven by addiction to high-cost, illegal drugs. Addicts steal and rob to support their habit; gangs battle over control of their sales area. Gang wars morph into long-term vendettas.
We have already filled our jails with users of illicit drugs, and that hasn’t worked. We’ve tried stemming the flow of drugs, and that just drives up the price, because it doesn’t reduce demand.
Not sure what the solution may be, if there is a solution. Certain legal actions could help — legalizing pot might help; at least, it would ease the burden on jails, opening up space to hold violent criminals longer. It would also cut the connection for kids to easily get pot, because legal vendors will not be likely to risk their license selling to underage customers. If we take away the adult market from illegal sellers, it won’t be worth the risk for them to sell only to the much smaller teen market. A big benefit of this would be that it would take away the easy connection to get more addictive drugs.
Another thing that could help — make it very difficult for kids to get tobacco. I haven’t seen any studies on this, but common sense tells me kids start smoking cigarettes long before smoking pot, and not many are going to start smoking pot first. And if they aren’t smoking pot, they would be less likely to experiment with addictive drugs. If fewer people start using, the demand goes down, crime committed to support addiction goes down, fewer criminals can make a living selling drugs, and maybe we could start to get a handle on the problem.
SC: “Yes, but we don’t do enough of it.”
We have the largest prisoner population of any country in the world…we have the largest percentage of our population imprisoned compared with the rest of the world. Yet you still believe we don’t imprison enough of our society?
More than 50% of our fellow citizens imprisoned are there for non-violent drug crimes. I’d be willing to bet the ones who got violent were probably just pissed as their liberties and freedoms were being curtailed by an authoritarian fascist government.
SC: “For military personnel who do commit crimes, a dishonorable discharge is certain to follow.”
This is not true. I have known multiple Marines who committed various crimes ranging from Assault, Battery, DUI, possession of controlled substance, etc who remained in and even received honorable discharges. It depended on a number of variables.
1. IF anyone in your command found out.
2. Who within your command found out.
3. Your reputation, rank, rate, etc.
I personally smoked cannabis a few dozen times while serving in the US Marine Corps(off duty of course), and fought for every citizens right to do if they so choose, among other rights and liberties that have been taken by a fascist government and frightened electorate.
America is a parody of its former self.
Land of the Free.
Home of the Brave. Hah.
@John Pieret:
You may have noticed that Bailey’s article is my link above. Over the last 16 years I have posted that link probably more than anyone else. I may have set a similar record for this one, and in fact posted it just a few minutes ago in a comment on NCSE’s Facebook page.