A PHILOSOPHY WORSE THAN AYN RAND'S

For a long time I have given the conservative movement the benefit of the doubt; they do what they do because it is in their genes; to win at any cost, to lie, cheat, and steal to win, etc, but they do not intentionally do it to hurt people. They are more like sociopaths in as much as they lack empathy toward others. Driven to be the top chicken at any cost, as a social group, they seem not to care, to love, or to hate. This is rejection of our humanity is the Ayn Rand type of conservatism we have in Washington D.C..  However, recent events in North Carolina and other radical conservative states has forced me to add another dimension to my thinking—they willful intend to punish those who do not agree with their political philosophy.  For any of this to make sense I have to put it in a biological context.

They (Ms. Rand and her followers) were copying an element of bestial greed they could only have gained from nature meaning it is in there genetic makeup. In an antidote related by George C. Williams (Adaptation and Natural Selection; Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.1996) in a different textual content, made this point in a very poignant manner. He was watching a film about. . .

. . . family life of elephant seals on one of their insular rookeries. Amid the crowed but thriving family groups there was an occasional isolated pup, whose mother had deserted or been killed. These motherless young were manifestly starving and in acute distress. The human audience reacted with horror to the way these unfortunates were rejected by the hundreds of possible foster mothers all around them. It should have been abundantly clear to everyone present that the seals were designed to reproduce themselves, not their species.

Mother’s milk (money to us) is a precious resource of an elephant seal as it is to any mammal. It should not be used other than to perpetuate ones own kind. This is cruel harsh subhuman mammalian biology. To address the altruistic aspect of the story—the counter to the conservative side—I bring up the idea that unlike humans, animals have no moralistic sense of cruelty, shame, sympathy, empathy, among many other cultural notions. Ann Rand completely ignores this fact and makes a case for her bestial political attitude; society should used resources and assets only to perpetuate “her” own kind, which of course she and her followers defines in there “self-image” or moral group. Thus, she fully embraces the evil side of social Darwinism: in her view, there is no moral justification for the sick, infirm, low IQ, and other wise unfortunates to survive.

Apparently, this brand of Republicans feel that we (society as a whole) should ignore centuries of cultural development, enlightenment, humanization, or what ever you chose to call it and turn back the evolutionary clock to our pure bestial instinct of greed as it contributes to survival. All evidence would suggest that we, as human beings, have learned better than this but the fact that she has many followers who believe this forcefully illustrate the idea that primitive animal instincts are still part of our fundamental genetic being.

In the film, the audience reacted with horror at the rejection of the orphaned baby sea lions. Imagine the horror of the audience if the mothers with healthy pups not only rejected but also punished the orphans in some way. In North Carolina, the Republican majority has cut off unemployment insurance to save money. At the federal level, the Republicans rejected a farm bill that included food stamps—a life line for many poor and unfortunate people. By Republican majority, I am tying a course of action or universal behavior to a large group of people, which we can explain if it is genetic. I interpret their kinds of actions as punishment; when given the option they as a group choose to punish the unfortunate as a group, which is quite different from just ignoring them.

I do not believe Democrats should act in kind and try to punish the Republicans for what they do but should try to explain to them that human morality does not make room to ignore the unfortunate among us but especially eschews punishment. Democrats replace it with empathetic understanding. The best way to explain this to them is at the voting box. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated