How an Atheist Convict Defines Morality, Part Three

What morality means to me – what I strive for – is that I can never rank the value of my life above that of anyone else’s life.  As a humanist, I think this is easy to do.  (Indeed, I think it’s the logical conclusion of rational mind.)  As a convicted murderer, I will forever be looking up.  I do believe that there are people out there who’re much worse than I am, and therefore their lives are less valuable than mine.  But this is only because they themselves have lowered the value of their lives through the victimization of others, not because I have elevated mine above theirs.  As someone who strives to be moral, I refuse to do that.

If I think that everyone’s life has equal (or more) value than my own, I cannot possibly justify victimizing anyone, ever, for any reason.  I will not claim to be selfless human being – but I willclaim as my moral goal to never base the value of another’s life on my own interests.

This does not, however, mean that I will abdicate moral responsibility and judgement.  I can’t do that and expect to be a moral person.  No moral human being can reserve judgement, or they would walk on by as a child gets beaten to death.  Anyone with the tiniest kernel of moral sense can make definitive judgements such as, “I’m better than that person.  I’ll fight him to put a stop to it.”

As a humanist who doesn’t think there is any divine moral standard, I’m still capable of absolute judgements about the value of human life.  For example, though I accept the evidence for the theory of evolution, this doesn’t mean I think there is anything moral about it.  We can’t look to natural selection for gauge of life’s value, because the only thing of value to natural selection is passing on one’s genes.  In this case, the mot valuable people would be the ones with the most children.  Sexual slavery and no birth control or abortion would be the hallmarks of a “moral” society (similar to life under Old Testament laws, ironically.)

The age-old and extremely common methods of valuation such as ethnicity, nationality, and skin color are simple prejudices.  They do not determine anything meaningful about the value of a human being’s life.  Indeed, they are the height of irrationality, since these concepts become meaningless if you trace humanity back far enough into it’s past.  Gender doesn’t work either.  One doesn’t have to be a radical feminist to understand that whether a person has a Y chromosome or not says nothing about their intrinsic value as a human being.

Productivity (how much a person produces in their life, in the form of goods or services for others) is also out.  It makes for a neat little synthesis of laissez-faire capitalism and evolutionary theory, but it obviously cannot be accepted as a moral standard.  A serial killer might be an extremely productive individual.  Indeed, perhaps his victims are people who refuse to produce anything.  Not only would he be a great producer himself, but he would be helping general productivity by removing those who only consume the work of others.  Besides, you can’t objectively measure someone’s potential productivity – a person might be unproductive their entire life, yet later produce a great product or service that eclipses many others.

None of these methods for measuring the moral value of human life are any good.  In fact, you can be pretty sure that if someone is using one of these methods, that person is a good example of what is not moral.

How an Atheist Convict Defines Morality, Part II

I never understood why religious people say that morality can’t exist without a god.  If we live in an existential universe, isn’t it the logical conclusion that every single human is not only equal in value, but also incredible precious and fragile?  Indeed, can it not be said that the notion of an existence with Abraham’s God takes away the value of human life and bases it solely upon how obedient each person is?

I said before that I think morality is the position that your life is at most equal in value to the lives of others.  The “at most” part is very important.  No moral person can claim that his or her life is greater in value to the life of another.  They wouldn’t be moral anymore, would they?  Imagine if even a pillar of selflessness such as Mother Theresa got on TV and started shrieking that she is worth more than any ten human beings, that her life has much more value than the lives of others because she has done so much humanitarian work, that her life should be saved even if the cost is ten innocent lives.  Could she still be said to be a moral person?  Absolutely not!  A moral person would invariably do the exact opposite: willingly sacrifice him- or herself to save ten lives.

On the other hand, Mother Theresa’s life is certainly worth more than the life of, say, Adolf Hitler.  No one could possibly argue with that.  But it’s not Mother Theresa who raised the value of her life above his.  Remember, if you’re moral, you can’t do that.

A person can, however, lower the value of their own life.  That’s what Hitler did.  He did it by becoming a victimizer (a rather prodigious one).  When you make a choice to victimize someone, you’re claiming that your life is more valuable than theirs.  You’re using your opportunity to take away their opportunity.  This is unjust because your need to victimize cannot possibly outweigh another’s need to be left alone.  Serving your own self-interest is not immoral, but doing it at the expense of another’s self-interest is.

Raising the value of another’s life is what truly selfless people do.  For example, if forced to save the life of either a ninety-year-old with cancer who has lived a full life or an eighteen-year-old on his way to college, I believe that all of us would choose to save the kid.  Indeed, if the elder volunteered to sacrifice himself to save the teenager, he would be a hero – like a mother who sacrifices herself so that her child can live.

On the other hand, try to imagine that child demanding his higher status, demanding that his mother willingly give her life to save his, demanding that his life is worth more than hers and her duty is to protect it even at ultimate cost.  It leaves a bitter taste, does it not?  Perhaps the child is even right, but does it make him moral to claim such a thing?  Is it possible for a son to be a moral human being if he believes that his life has more value than his mother’s life?

My anser would be a resounding “No.”  It is, however, possible for the mother to be moral if she believes that.  Double standards are not always bad things.

How an Atheist Convict Defines Morality I

If I live with the idea that there is no divine moral absolute, how do I know what is right and wrong?  I’ve tried to answer that question for years.  I see morality as making choices about the value of human life in relation to your own.  There are basically three positions that you can take in this matter:

1. My life is equal in value to the lives of others.
2. My life has more value than the lives of others.
3. My life has less value than the lives of others.

Number One is the position of a moral person.  Number Two is the position of a victimizer.  Number Three is the position of a reformed victimizer.  I fall squarely into the third category.  In fact I lean toward the idea that I can never climb to the summit of Number One, because the effects of my crime are impossible to erase and repay.  The best compliment I can award myself is that I’m incapable of ever returning to Number Two.

As a de facto atheist, I’m operating under the notion that I don’t have a soul, that I live in a universe with no afterlife, that I am the sum of my parts, a collection of atoms.  Identity, consciousness, and self-awareness are simply the products of social experiences and the firing of synapses.

If this is so, then it’s perfectly compatible with Number One.  Each of us is a human being, the same as billions of others.  We’re all equal in value.  We start off with the same opportunities, the same capacity for kindness or cruelty, the same inalienable human rights.  None of us are special – at least no more special than anyone else can be.  Your happiness and pain are no more important than the happiness and pain of a random shoemaker in Tibet or a farmer in Kenya.  It is simply irrational to think that your desires have more importance than theirs do.  If you don’t think so, then try making an objective argument for why your happiness is more pleasurable than theirs, or why your pain hurts more.

If you have a rational mind, if you use the faculty of reason, I don’t see how you can escape Number One.  This is why I’m so fond of saying that reason banishes prejudices, pointless tradition, and other faulty methods of thinking.  This is also why I think that reason is the true path to morality, not obedience to a divine moral standard.  And you can’t have it both ways, either; reason cannot abide obedience to dogma.

So not only do I think that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the notion of divine morality (or divine anything), my position is that even if there were a divine moral standard, I would not follow it.  I think humanism is simply superior.

What Prison is Like

I’ve heard all sorts of complaints from those on the outside (talking heads on the news, religious moralizers, the families of victims, etc.) about how prison isn’t punishment enough for some offenders.  Maybe their right.  I’m not going to speak for my peers, but in my own case, I can’t say that I don’t deserve a solitary cell with bread and water – or worse.

I do, however, want to assure these people that prison is not a vacation.  I’ve heard jokes about how committing a felony is a good way to live an easy life without any bills or worries.  It’s not.  Trust me, cable TV does not make life cushy.  Prison is an ugly place, a dismal and boring place, a violent place, and above all, a stressful place.

The best way to imagine it is to think of everything that stresses you out in your daily life.  We all have bad days.  We all have problems and worries that frustrate the hell out of us.  Picture all the things that are difficult in your life, all the things you unload on your spouse and friends, all the things that make you want to get a drink on Friday nights or take a pill or see a therapist.  Most importantly, think of every single person you can’t stand, every person who hassles you for no reason, every person whom you’ve ever had problems dealing with.

To get an idea of how it would be in prison, multiply all of that by a thousand.  Then add in being thrust helplessly into a cell with one such problem.  Add in paranoia, the threat of violence, constant lies and rumors and drama, gang separation, racial tension, exaggerated peer expectation.  Add in the fact that others have power and control over you, that strangers can ruin your life and get you more time just because they do stupid things when you’re around.  It’s like this every single day.

But here’s the topper, the coup degrace:  You’re stuck with all of it.  On the outside, you can remove yourself from these situations.  In prison, this is impossible.  Your problems never, ever go away.  Indeed, they only intensify until you deal with them.  Deal with them in the wrong manner, and you’re much worse off than before.  Deal with any social situation in the wrong matter, and you’re in a physical altercation.  And two weeks later, you might be side-by-side with the same individual, the same problem, once again.

The old rules no longer apply, and the old solutions only make it worse for you.  Think of the moronic peer pressure and cliques of high school, but with one caveat: Lose your social status in prison, and you get victimized.  This is why prison is difficult.  Not because it presents new challenges, but because it magnifies a thousandfold what you’ve already experienced in life, then takes away all the ordinary tools you had to deal with those experiences.

Of course there’s no hard and fast rule.  Prison is better for some, worse for others, but the main thing to remember is that it’s not a vacation, ever.  No one wants to retire here, not even the most self-destructive idiot.  And if you thing the “hard convicts,” the big tattooed guys who treat prison as a badge of honor or a playground, have it easy, they don’t.  They do the hardest time of all.  They get into the most drama, the most trouble; something most of them freely admit.

I want it to be clear that I’m not complaining.  I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for me (or anyone in here).  I’m only trying to explain that people who want prisoners to do hard time can rest easy.  If what I’ve just said doesn’t convince you that prisoners aren’t living a vacation, then my literary ability isn’t sufficient.  Maybe you still think that we should all be locked in solitary with no media or human contact.  Maybe some of us even deserve that.

But let me put it this way: A prisoner can always choose protective custody.  You’re asked if you want it when you first get processed.  The thing is, protective custody in prison is solitary, sitting in a cell for twenty-three hours a day.  It’s no different from being in the Hold for a disciplinary reason.  Everyone’s seen this environment on TV shows and documentaries about Super-Max prisons.  And there are prisoners who willingly choose that fate over dealing with ordinary prison life.  Think about that.

Why People Should Stop Cheering for Jeremiah Wright

Where do you begin with Barack Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright?  It’s impossibleto resist commenting on this guy, while he soaks up his fifteen minutes.  He’s appeared at an NAACP event, at a press interview, and on PBS with Bill Moyers.

How about we start withhis statements that white kids and black kids learn with “different sides of their brains,” and hear music in “different beats” in their heads.  Yes, apparently whether your ancestry is African or European determines which side of your brain you use to learn, and whether you count the second and fourth beat in 4/4 timing or the first and third.  Apparently we should have separate teachers and classes depending on the amount of melanin in a student’s skin.

Since I’m absolutely positive that “Reverend” Wright is interested in scientific study into this matter, perhaps he should be made aware that there are several very distinct groups of people with African ancestry, including Bantu, the Khoisan, the Pygmies, the “whites” in Northern Africa, and those of Madagascar with an Indonesian background.  Africa has by far the largest genetic diversity of people on the planet.  You can’t simply group all Africans together, and you fall headlong into absurdity when you claim that all of these people share a trait like “left or right brain learning.”

Similarly, stating that all white European Americans share the trait of learning with a particular side of their brain is just as foolish.  “Reverend” Wright is making the puerile error of assuming that skin color constitutes what it means to be a “people.”  He seems to have forgotten the fact that more genetic diversity exist within the groups he’s talking about than between them.  Perhaps the “side” of the brain he uses is prone to ignorant stereotyping.

“Reverend” Wright should also be told that he sounds exactly like every white supremacist that I’ve heard, sitting here in prison.  They all say the same things, that blacks learn differently, hear music differently, and that somehow these traits are dependent upon their ancestry.  Instead of “Reverend” Wright’s words, however, they say something like “Blacks don’t do well in schools made for whites, and blacks like jungle music.”  Perhaps someone could explain to me the finer points – how exactly is this different from what “Reverend” Wright said?

Regardless, is this how he proposes to address the issue of race in this country?  By making sweeping racial stereotypes and mocking the way people talk?  Does he honestly think that such idiotic blanket statements can be applied to people like that?

He made sure to repeatedly point out that “we’re different, not deficient.”  The way I see it, we’re only “different” because of cheap demagogues like “Reverend” Wright who use victim-politics and race-baiting to get people to clap for him.  Rather than try to divide people, why can’t this guy use his status and fifteen minutes to talk aboutt how we’re all human beings with the same rights, the same mental capacity, the same abilities, and the same opportunities?  Why can’t he say that what continent is in front of “American” when someone describes you is completely immaterial to the kind of person you are?

Don’t Forget or Forgive

People (especially friends and family members) have told me that I must forgive myself for committing murder.  I have been reminded that the act was not willful, that it was an accident caused by a stupid eighteen-year-old during the course of a robbery.  I have been told that I even deserve forgiveness, independent of the Christian notion that everyone does.

My question is, why?  Why should I forgive myself?  Why should I ever?  I don’t expect it from others.  I certainly don’t expect it from the loved ones of my victim.  I myself would never grant it to me, if the positions were reversed and I was one of those loved ones.

What does forgiveness even mean, anyway?  If people mean that I should learn to live with what I’ve done, then obviously I have.  It’s been eleven years and I haven’t opened a vein in my wrist, nor do I have any plan to.  But if people mean that I should wipe the slate clean, start over, and judge myself solely on the man I am today, I can’t do that.

If someone hurts you, you’re never going to forget what the person did, so why does it even matter whether you forgive them or not?  Likewise, I’m never going to forget what I did, so “forgiving myself” seems like a hypocritical way of searching for moral high ground.  Besides, what exactly is accomplished by “forgiving” someone?  Is there anything to it other than the statement itself?  Perhaps for some people, there is.  Perhaps it could even by explained to me, because I don’t see it.

You might forgive Hitler, but does that mean you’d be willing to give him another shot at commanding an army?  Does that mean you would even give him a single second of freedom?  You might saythat you forgive him, but what does that really mean for him?  You’d still never let him off the hook.  You’d still never grant him any moral equality.  On the other hand, however, it might be perfectly reasonable (for some) to forgive a cheating spouse and give them another chance.  We should judge each individual and their acts separately and decide whether forgiveness is in order, not subscribe to inclusive statements such as “everyone deserves forgiveness.”

I’ve thought about it and decided that forgiving myself is not something I should do.  I don’t think that I deserve it, if for no other reason than I can never make right what I did.  The effects of some crimes can be erased; others will continue to be experienced forever.  Mine is one of the latter.

I don’t despise myself.  I don’t seek out suffering or abstain from goals.  I don’t think that I’m worthless and can never do anything good.  I look forward to my release date.  Maybe this makes me a selfish coward.  Whether I’m worthy of freedom and happiness one day is another matter, and also something I cannot bring myself to say that I deserve.  This doesn’t mean that I would purposefully shun freedom and happiness – I simply reserve the right to believe that if they were denied to me, I couldn’t really complain or feel wronged about it.