The next movie I want to see is Hellbound?, a new documentary by Kevin Miller.
Hellbound? is a feature-length documentary that explores the questions, Does hell exist? and If so, who ends up there, and why? The answer is that everyone ultimately gets to go to heaven. That’s because the writer and director is a universalist. Universalism is one of three main positions on the questions the documentary explores. (The two main alternatives, annihilationism and traditionalism, hold that not everyone gets to go to heaven.)
I enjoyed watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, an earlier documentary cowritten by Miller and hosted by Ben Stein, Christianity’s answer to Michael Moore. As expected, this new documentary is biased in favour of Miller’s theological views. See Glenn Peoples’ review for further theological details.
The cast includes some famous names in death metal. đ
Elsewhere, my co-blogger Tim is arguing with commenter Terry about Objectivist ethics.
The key to their dispute is the following brief remark by commenter Matt (quoting Terry).
âItâs not rational to accept a value from another without giving a value in returnâ why not, on standard means ends accounts of rationality thatâs perfectly rational, some argument for this conclusion is needed.
Matt refers to “standard means ends accounts of rationality”. David Hume, the greatest philosopher who ever lived, gives such a standard account in the following passage.
[P]assions can be contrary to reason only so far as they are accompany’d with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, ’tis only in two senses, that any affection can be call’d unreasonable. First, when a passion, such as hope or fear, grief or joy, despair or security, is founded on the supposition or the existence of objects, which really do not exist. Secondly, When in exerting any passion in action, we chuse means insufficient for the design’d end, and deceive ourselves in our judgment of causes and effects. Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chuses means insufficient for the end, the understanding can neither justify nor condemn it. ‘Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. ‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter.
— David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
Let’s be clear. The Objectivist account of rationality is not a standard means-ends account.
Rand stuffs all manner of rabbits into the Objectivist rationality hat. This enables her to pull all manner of rabbits out of the Objectivist rationality hat. It’s sleight of hand! Here‘s an example.
âThe Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clashâthat there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving VALUE FOR VALUE. [ Ayn Rand, âThe Objectivist Ethics,âThe Virtue of Selfishness, 31] (emphasis mine)
âIt is only with (other menâs) mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest COINCIDES WITH THEIRS. WHEN THEY DONâT, I ENTER NO RELATIONSHIPâ [Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged] (emphasis mine)
How much more explicitly could Miss Rand state the case?
The above supports without contradiction the fact that a rational man who identifies that it is not in his customerâs interests to deal with him (regardless of his customerâs protestations to the contrary), he will not deal with him. Why? Because it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return.
If you define ‘reason’ as being such that the rational interests of men do not clash, then you may conclude that when the interests of men do clash, the interests of one or more parties are not rational. But this is just pulling a rabbit out of a hat. If your account of rationality is such that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return, then you may conclude that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return. But this is just arguing in a circle.
The Objectivist’s code of ethics is fine insofar as it goes. An Objectivist will not take from his fellow man without giving in return. But none of the injunctions of Objectivist ethics, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” flow from a standard means-end account of rationality. Rand simply incorporates such injunctions into her own account of rationality and then claims that it is irrational to steal!
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in itânot forgetting what they have heard, but doing itâthey will be blessed in what they do.
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)
The most vile homebrew I ever drank was decades ago when I was a student in Dunedin. My flatmates brewed up a batch which they aptly named “Ralph”. I’m pretty sure I did just that, but not before (so it is alleged) I danced … to Marillion!
Dirty deeds, Dundas Street. Ah, those were the days. đ
Some homebrew I’ve drunk in more recent years rivals all but the best commercial craft beers.
Residentsâ Associations say the dangers of homebrew, highlighted by a recent death, are that you donât know the alcohol content of the drinks and say the drinking culture of pre-loading before events is a big issue that needs to be addressed.
This is the first time I remember that the purported dangers of homebrew have been sensationalised in the media, but I’m sure it won’t be the last.
This is also a vivid illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The only reason that homebrew beer is gaining popularity is because beer in supermarkets is being priced out of affordability by the wowsers in government. What on earth did they think would happen when beer drinkers are being asked to fork out $20 for a six-pack of Macs or Monteiths?
Pre-loading is an established custom. Who can afford to get drunk on $7 handles of Tui? Who would even want to?
The Pauatahanui Residents Association Chairperson says the danger in homebrew is that you donât what you are drinking.
âYou donât know if they have mixed methanol into it,â says Alan Gray.
What you mean ‘they’, white man?
Oh, you’re not talking about my flatmates. You’re talking about the bootleggers in the gang house down the road. Do they collect excise tax? No. Do they ask for ID from anyone who looks under the age of 35? No.
The toxic substance, which is sometimes added to drinks to make them more alcoholic, has killed many people overseas he says.
We’re a bit behind India and the rest of the world, but the incentives to produce bootleg liquor locally grow ever greater by the day.
It is not known if methanol is a factor in the death of a teenage student who died after drinking homebrewed spirits in Auckland recently.
No, but let’s mention it anyway, to scare the crap out of the usual hand-wringers who are now primed to cry out, “The government should do something!”
Mr Gray says it is lifestyle choice for those who choose to consume homebrew and he does not know how Police could enforce any laws or regulations around it.
Paremata Residentsâ Association Chairperson Terry Knight says there is no way to protect people from themselves, as âthere are plenty of idiots out thereâ.
At least the President of my Residents’ Association is sane. You can’t legislate away stupidity.
Normandale Residentsâ Association President Peter Matcham agrees there is a drinking culture which is the root of the problem.
âThey want to get smashed out of their heads, whether it is by drinking home brew or RTDs,â he says.
âThey think it is cool.â
Getting totally hammered is cool at weddings. đ
He says there is no easy answers as how to curb the issues around young people and their drinking habits, but suggests that being drunk in a public space should become an offence.
What a fascist. It’s already an offence to be drunk and disorderly.
An Auckland teenager, Tyson Devon, 18, was drinking homebrewed spirits with friends in Rosehill, South Auckland, on Saturday afternoon when he died.
Tyson had passed out after âpre-loadingâ on homebrew in anticipation for the birthday party he was suppose to be attending later that day.
Labour List MP Charles Chauvel (pictured top right) has resigned from Parliament (effective 11 March). He’s going to a job at the United Nations where he’ll join his former boss, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark (pictured bottom left).
The United Nations is a common penultimate destination for Labour’s troughed-out ex-MPs. (When they die, they go to the great trough in the sky.)
Former Labour List MP Carol Beaumont (pictured top left) is set to return to Parliament as Chauvel’s replacement. We’ll be up a trade unionist abortionist and down a gay lawyer. This minor opposition reshuffle is interesting (to me) for two reasons.
Firstly, Chauvel sponsored a Member’s bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, which would have dealt to scum-of-the-earth usurers.
Ever since I became an MP, an issue that I have supported is the regulation of so called “loan sharks”. Loan sharks prey on the vulnerable with unscrupulous rates of interest and this includes many of our Pacific people. They are the scourge of our community and instead of lending a helping hand keep borrowers in poverty. It is common for payday lenders to charge interest at rates between “only” 8% and 15% per week, compounding well into four figures at a time when mainstream rates have declined.
Chauvel’s Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill was drawn from the ballot in 2009. In early 2010 Beaumont took over responsibility for Chauvel’s bill, which was subsequently defeated at its first reading in July 2010. So, a common interest there, and with Beaumont back in Parliament perhaps we’ll still see some action on loan sharks.
Secondly, three elections in a row Chauvel failed to unseat United Future MP Peter Dunne (pictured bottom right) in the Ĺhariu electorate. Dunne gloated tweeted from Dubai airport
Ready to board Melb/Auck flight. After what’s been happening in NZ today certainly seems time to come home and join the fun.
Chauvel did succeed in reducing Dunne’s majority from 12,534 (in 2002) to 7,702 (in 2005) and 1006 (in 2008) but 1392 (in 2011) was a miss as good as a mile. I hope Labour puts up a strong candidate to contest the Ĺhariu electorate in 2014. It’s way way wayyyy past time to flush the Dunney!
