KAMALA HARRIS - WHY IS SHE LAUGHING?

 Many Conservatives, as well as others, have been critical of VP Harris’ laughter at, what certainly appears to be, inappropriate, if not bizarre times. I am, once again, merely positing a theory - one that I have not heard espoused by others.

Pseudobulbar Affect (PBA) is a condition that causes uncontrollable crying and/or laughing that happens suddenly and frequently. It can happen in people with a brain injury or certain neurologic conditions. . . .. Someone having a PBA laughing spell may laugh when they don’t feel amused or when they only feel a little bit amused. (PBAInfo.org)

This possibility may be considered relatively inconsequential, but for President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline.

An exploration of VP Harris’ health history, particularly with respect to neurological health, would appear prudent. One would be hard-pressed to conclude that the VP’s behavior is either appropriate or consistent with her putative concern regarding the plight of those oppressed (e.g., immigrants detained at our borders).

I would welcome input concerning this theory.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORALS & ETHICS?

 It is not uncommon for individuals to confuse morals with ethics. This is due at least in part to the fact that the derivation of these terms come from the French, Greek and Latin languages.

While the meanings of these terms do have similarities, there is a marked distinction in application amongst members of society.

At its root, what does the term “morals” mean? It is a reference to a person’s idea of that which shapes their surrounding environment, to include their belief system. It is these values that shape a person’s view of what constitutes right and wrong. It is the belief system, to a large degree, that guides an individual’s perceived notion of that which must be either right or wrong.

It is these morals that provide many of the ideas behind ethical systems. Herein lies much of the confusion.  In most instances, morals serve as the basis for ethics. It is obvious that morals are not always the guiding principle upon which one relies.

What constitutes a moral person? He or she is someone who desires to do that which is right. It is this moral impulse that frequently bespeaks  best intentions.

Morals are associated with or characterized by right behavior. They are also associated with or concerning either conduct or principles perceived as either good or bad. The Latin term “moralis” references a person’s behavior in society. We commonly see this term used in relationship to manners.

Societal mores takes into account that behavior which is accepted as appropriate, beneficial and permitted. A violation of conduct that satisfies the foregoing often results in opprobrium.

Synderesis refers to inborn knowledge of the primary principles of moral action —distinguished from syneidesis (the capacity to apply general principles to moral judgment).

Ethics is frequently discussed as though the term is a study of moral character. (See discussion infra.) However, such a description may lead to profound confusion, as well as legal conundra, if applied to situations in a cavalier manner.

The term “ethics” is derived from Old French etique “ethics, moral philosophy” from Late Latin “ethica,”, and from the Greek “ēthik.” These terms refer to character, particularly moral character. These terms reference “moral principles of a person or group.”

While they’re closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors.

A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior. Most frequently observed in professions (e.g., Law, Clergy).

What do we mean by the term “ethics”? Ethics are often distinguished from morals in that ethics  are intended to accomplish codified goals. For example, an attorney violates professional ethics if he or she discloses privileged information, irrespective of the consequences of a failure to disclose. Disclosure may clearly be the moral course of action, while at the same time being a gross ethical violation.

It is important to bear in mind that an ethical code doesn’t have to be even remotely moral. The ethical code need only be a set of rules individuals are required to follow. There are many professional organizations (e.g., American Bar Association, American Medical Association) that have created specific ethical codes for their respective fields. Those of you who are Seinfeld fans may recall that even Dry Cleaners have a code of ethics that prohibit them from wearing customers’ clothes.

These ethical codes have nothing to do with a firmly established set of beliefs. They are rules that are drafted by trade organizations to assist members in gaining confidence from those who retain members’ services, to demonstrate conduct that brings credit to the organization, and provides standardization in regulating violations of the ethical codes.

How do we determine that which is moral? This leads us into the question of whether a cosmic being (e.g., God) issues edicts from on-high that establishes that which is moral or is the determination that which arises organically? 

We may easily distinguish between the two by considering the following: (1) Society A is governed by a belief system that relies upon the Sixth Commandment - Thou shalt not kill - and concludes that to kill is immoral; and (2) Society B is governed by a belief system that relies upon the practice of killing one’s enemies and consuming their flesh to be imbued with greater courage and power.

Are we to merely speculate as to which, if either, Society A or Society B adheres to moral principles? Irrespective of how repugnant one finds the foregoing, in the absence of some universal principle of morality, I suspect that we are truly left with no alternative but to conclude that Society A’s and Society B’s conduct are equally moral in their respective milieu. 

To explore the matter further, let us look at the difference between deontological and consequentialist views regarding the issue under consideration.

Let us first consider Kant’s Deontology. Deontology is described as an ethical theory that relegates the distinction between right and wrong to a set of rules. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and perform their duties. The question naturally arises, “From whence cometh these universal moral laws?”

If one simply considers the basic premise of Deontology, it is simple to apply. People are, at least in theory, required to follow the rules and perform their duty. Such an approach appears to comport a supposed universal view regarding that which is or isn’t ethical. Kant said, “Two Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

The contrary view that judges actions by their results is referred to as Consequentialism. There is no consideration of costs and benefits in a Deontological analysis. The only consideration is whether the specified rules were followed.

There are numerous deficiencies in a Deontological analysis, not the least of which is that it can produce results that many people find not only unacceptable, but also repugnant.

Much confusion arose with respect to behavior deemed either moral or ethical during the so-called Enlightenment era. It was during this time that Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” Many agreed and were propelled into a morass of confusion regarding any universal perception of that which is either right or wrong.

Essentially three responses arose to address the mindset emanating from the Enlightenment era: (1) Social Contract Theory; (2) Utilitarianism; and (3) Kantian Ethics. I am reminded of the passage found in Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

 

What is the Social Contract? It is a theory propounded by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher. He argued that morality was essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon amongst themselves in order to make living with one another possible. Hobbes opined that if individuals didn’t implement these rules, life would be absolutely unbearable for those in societies devoid of such rules.

What is Utilitarianism? It was another attempt to give morality a non-religious foundation. Proponents of this theory were David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. This theory posits that pleasure and happiness have intrinsic value. It is assumed that happiness and pleasure are what we all want and are the primary goal toward which all actions are directed. That which is good is that which promotes the most happiness. That which is bad produces suffering. The primary duty of man, under this rubric, is to try to do things that increase the amount of happiness and reduce the amount of misery in the world. 

What is the Kantian Ethic?  In Kant’s view the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong, is our awareness that human beings are free, rational agents who should be given their due respect. Of course, “the devil is in the details.”

Kant asserts, “The only thing that is unconditionally good is goodwill.” Kant states that goodwill is always good, irrespective of circumstances. Kant defaults to a description of goodwill as doing what is done because it is perceived as the duty of the individual performing the deed. In essence, Kant believed that goodwill is a result of a sense of moral obligation.

In conclusion, what is the difference between morals and ethics? As you can see, there is a great deal of confusion. However, if we accept the premise that ethical conduct is frequently established via codes for various entities, we may conclude that a violation of such codes of conduct would be the antithesis of ethics.

Regarding morals, it would appear that one’s view of a Universal principle, as opposed to an organic principle (i.e., arising from acceptable conduct as determined by selected societal members), would determine what constitutes moral conduct. The former being that which is necessary, the latter being that which is contingent.

 HISTORY OF LANGUAGE - ONE PERSPECTIVE

The history of language, of necessity, is not settled. There are numerous perspectives, contingent on the historians’ worldviews. It stands to reason that if the historian contends man evolved from lower life forms over billions of years, the evolution of language would likely vary substantially from the historian who contends that man emanated from man.

Language, simply stated, is a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols. Although current members of Congress and society assert that language, as well as gender, is fluid, there must be some degree of constancy to make sense of the sounds or conventional symbols upon which communicators rely.

In the absence of such conventions, we simply have gibberish. Violence is a result often seen when language becomes incomprehensible. Irrespective of our desire to be politically correct, we must agree on certain truths, obvious to most of us for eons, if we wish to establish society.

Did language evolve through random, mindless mutations  - conveying intelligence from one entity to another? Did language arise from transmission of data from a Supreme Intelligence, conveyed in such a way as to be readily understood? 

It should come as no surprise to learn that many views assert the former, but few the latter. I will be exploring this topic from the latter perspective. Furthermore, the focus here will be on language shared amongst humans, not other creatures. 

Naturally, there is ample evidence that other creatures have a language as a means to convey messages to one another. Such language may be conveyed by  movement, sounds, vibrations, expressions, mannerisms, etc. However, this exploration is better left to those who specialize in these specific areas.

Both gender and language are “fluid,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said while discussing “gender inclusivity in the Spanish language,” defending the use of the terms “Latinx” and “Latine.” Researchers tell us there are more than 7,000 languages extant. Does such fluidity exist throughout this spectrum? Do we accept this premise to the extent that cultures around the world would agree? Sadly, most don’t even bother to consider the consequences of such views. They merely accept them as true because they comport with an unwillingness to accept “facts” as they are encountered.

John Locke said “Language is the great bond that holds society together.” Language is the common conduit whereby knowledge is conveyed from one man and one generation to another. It accomplishes this crucial task by enabling us to record our own thoughts and to communicate with others.

Etymologically, communication, the vehicle employed in the use of language, is intended to mean “common to all.” Interestingly, “common” is that which belongs to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character. If that is the case, who determines how “fluid” language may be?

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through The Looking Glass,” Humpty Dumpty states, in a rather scornful tone, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” To which Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty Dumpty replies, “The question is, which is to be master — that’s all.”

It does appear as though we have traveled “Through The Looking Glass.” Have we reached a point in society where language has become essentially unmoored from any semblance of rational thought?

During Senate Confirmation Hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, the nominee was asked if she could define what a woman is. The nominee responded that she couldn’t - stating she wasn’t a biologist. This transpired simultaneously with both the President and this nominee asserting that the nomination of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court was such a momentous occasion.

W. H. Auden, in “The Dyer’s Hand,” stated, “There is one evil... which should never be passed over in silence but be continually publicly attacked, and that is the corruption of the language.” 

There are many recent changes in the way words are used and corrupting the language. This corruption is leading to the corruption of civilization itself. 

Okay. Let’s return to the topic. What are the first words, for which we have a record, in history. Those who deny the Judeo-Christian account would obviously disagree. However, there appears to be substantial acceptance that the first words recorded quote God saying; “Yehi ohr” (“Let there be light.”). 

Subsequently, we find God speaking to Adam. The manner in which this exchange occurred is not disclosed. We then learn of Eve’s creation and references to communication she had with Adam. We also have an account of Eve communicating with Satan.

Clearly, we have documentation, the origin of which may be disputed, of information being exchanged between individuals from the Garden of Eden forward. There is no recorded account of difficulty in interpreting the language, irrespective of what it was, until the following account, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech . . .. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:1-7).

The manner in which words are used is extremely important. In spite of our best efforts, the words we use are often not understood in the manner intended. (For verification of this, ask any spouse who has been married for several years.) 

As an attorney, I have encountered numerous instances in which obfuscation was intentionally employed to take unfair advantage in a situation. If parties to a discussion do not mean what they say, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog. A break down in communication will customarily lead to estrangement. It is said that when dialog ceases war commences.

How do we distinguish between dialect and language? Very poorly!

 Dialect is defined as a specific kind of language spoken by a defined group or region. Cultural influences impact the language spoken, contingent on societal constraints. Language is the means by which members of a specific culture communicate with each other. It is this communication  that bonds specific cultures together as a family - of sorts.

There are more than 300 languages in China. Mandarin is by far the most commonly spoken. Naturally, the number is quite varied, contingent on how you contrast language and dialect. It is quite interesting that both Chinese and Japanese languages share characters. The Chinese characters are referred to as “Hanzi.” The Japanese characters are referred to as “Kanji.” Although there are similarities, caution must be exercised to avoid insulting the listener.

As stated, the focus here is on a Judeo-Christian perspective regarding the history of language. It appears that whether one adopts a view of language evolving from lower life forms to man or that human language emanated from the Garden of Eden, the multiplicity of languages remains mysterious.

Linguists, by and large, purport that all human languages originated from one human language. Is it reasonable to assert that all these languages arose as dialects of that initial language? If the answer is yes, how do we account for the myriad extant dialects/languages? 

Interestingly, although there many differences, there are also many similarities. Even more interesting is the fact these variations often followed geographic isolation. The commonality of language closely related to regions to which individuals migrated. 

It seems strange that so many languages have arisen in Europe. Although, once again, there are many similarities, there are also marked distinctions.

If, as linguists tell us, one language, on average, disappears every 2 weeks, in what way is that consistent with a simply naturalistic process?  Why would mutations in language be waning? The contrary would appear to be the more likely result.

Certainly, one may suggest that this is the natural consequence of advancements in technology. However, this claim is a bit hollow when we observe that most industrialized nations cling bitterly to that identity created by a common language.

While there are those who reference the Bible as indicating that there were two distinct miraculous events: the original creation of Adam as a talking and understanding being; and the subsequent division of humanity into language groups as a judgment on the rebellion of the descendants of Noah, this view appears to ignore the purpose for which God subsequently took action to stem-the-tide on man attempting to usurp His throne. (See discussion infra.)

In summary, the Judeo-Christian account, once again, is clearly articulated in Genesis 11:1-9:

“1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

“3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

“5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

“8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

Prior to the account provided, we are told the whole world spoke the same language, i.e., there was one common speech for all people. In their hubris, the inhabitants intended to build a city with a tower that would reach up to heaven, ostensibly to usurp God’s dominion over them.

The term “Babel” is derived from the root meaning “to confuse” when God observed these efforts, He confused their language. This resulted in a balkanization, of sorts. When the inhabitants began speaking in many different languages, they were no longer able to understand one another. 

Although we are forced to speculate, it would appear that groups, not single individuals, began to utter phrases understood by discrete groups. It was these  discrete groups that splintered off into various tribes and scattered all across the face of the earth.

There is no doubt that many will dispute this view. However, I would contend that is at least as plausible, if not more so, than that espoused by secularists.