An Interview With A Moralist

[RCSaunders]

"It Is Immoral To Wear A Mask"

[Dr. Onat Binker, is a tenured professor of Philosophy and Religion, visiting professor at many Universities worldwide, specializing in evolutionary psychology, sociology, and ethics. This interview on PBRN, (Public Broadcasting Radio Network) was fist aired on July 1, 2020. The purpose of the interview was to address the controversial opinion of Dr. Binker that it is immoral to wear a mask to avoid the Corona virus. The introductory remarks have been omitted.]

Interviewer: "You have received a great deal of criticism for your view that wearing a mask is immoral."

Dr. Binker: "Not just criticism, but threats as well. I don't like the threats, but I understand them. People are afraid and fear makes people think and act desperately."

Interviewer: "Well, you do have to admit, your view is very controversial. Except for some anti-social types and those regarded as sociopaths, almost every authority agrees that wearing a mask is both a personally and socially responsible thing to do. Can you explain, in simple terms, why you disagree with that assessment?"

Dr. Binker: "Of course. Not in simple terms, perhaps, because it is not simple. It all has to do with evolution and the future of mankind."

Interviewer: "How is evolution involved?"

Dr. Binker: "You have to look at the entire history of the development of life and especially the more complex forms of life, including human beings. The nature of evolution requires a periodic cleansing or culling of the total biological mass. It is why the history of evolution is dotted with extinctions. Those organisms that cannot be advanced, that have reached a kind of plateau which they cannot surpass are evolutionary dead ends, and nature eliminates them. A similar kind of thing happens within species. From time to time the evolutionary process must perform a culling of a species to eliminate those that bear genes that inhibit further evolutionary progress from the gene pool. That is what all plagues are. Plagues are the evolutionary process of eliminating from species those specimens that hold back further evolution."

Interviewer: "Are you saying the Corona Virus is a good thing?"

Dr. Binker: "I'm saying, from an evolutionary standpoint, the Corona Virus pandemic is a benefit to the future of the human race. If the human race is to improve, or even to continue to exist, whatever the genetic defects are that make contracting and dying from the Corona virus possible, must be eliminated from the species."

Interviewer: "Now there are going be those who are going ask, Dr. Binker, just who do you think you are to decide who should and should not live?"

Dr. Binker: "Yes, that is how my view has already been misrepresented. But I do not make such a decision. It is, in fact, those who want to interfere with what nature has decided that are deciding who should and should not live, and they have chosen against nature. And the reasons for that choice and all their measures to evade the progress of nature and evolution are not moral reasons, but self-serving, and short-sighted, with no concern for the future of mankind or the human race."

Interviewer: "So what is your recommendation, Dr. Binker. Should people wear masks, allow themselves to be quarantined and practice social distancing, or should they just forget it all and do whatever they like?"

Dr. Binker: "People are going to do whatever they like and no recommendation I make will change that. Those who don't care about the future of mankind, who are only interested in possibly avoiding some personal discomfort and who regard their temporary lives as more important than the whole human race will wear masks and do all the other recommended things to satisfy their selfish desires."

Interviewer: "So, in spite of your views that wearing a mask is immoral, you don't want to do anything about it?"

Dr. Binker: "What can I do? If I could do something, I would make wearing a mask fatal to the wearer, but it's not my decision. It may come to that, but it will have to be nature's doing, not mine."

[Skepdick]

I think the nature of evolution requires a periodic cleansing or culling of people who think like Dr Binker.

It seems obvious that he's the kind of organism that cannot be advanced. He has reached a kind of plateau which he cannot surpass - an evolutionary dead end it seems.

I'm saying, from an evolutionary standpoint, culling stagnant thinkers is a benefit to the future of the human race. If the human race is to improve, or even to continue to exist, whatever the genetic defects are that make thinking like that possible, must be eliminated from the species.

The crazy ramblings of dualists who don't see themselves as part of nature...

Dr. Binker: "What can I do? If I could do something, I would make wearing a mask fatal to the wearer, but it's not my decision. It may come to that, but it will have to be nature's doing, not mine."

[Sculptor]

"It Is Immoral To Wear A Mask"

[Dr. Onat Binker, is a tenured professor of Philosophy and Religion, visiting professor at many Universities worldwide, specializing in evolutionary psychology, sociology, and ethics. This interview on PBRN, (Public Broadcasting Radio Network) was fist aired on July 1, 2020. The purpose of the interview was to address the controversial opinion of Dr. Binker that it is immoral to wear a mask to avoid the Corona virus. The introductory remarks have been omitted.]

Interviewer: "You have received a great deal of criticism for your view that wearing a mask is immoral."

Dr. Binker: "Not just criticism, but threats as well. I don't like the threats, but I understand them. People are afraid and fear makes people think and act desperately."

Interviewer: "Well, you do have to admit, your view is very controversial. Except for some anti-social types and those regarded as sociopaths, almost every authority agrees that wearing a mask is both a personally and socially responsible thing to do. Can you explain, in simple terms, why you disagree with that assessment?"

Dr. Binker: "Of course. Not in simple terms, perhaps, because it is not simple. It all has to do with evolution and the future of mankind."

Interviewer: "How is evolution involved?"

Dr. Binker: "You have to look at the entire history of the development of life and especially the more complex forms of life, including human beings. The nature of evolution requires a periodic cleansing or culling of the total biological mass. It is why the history of evolution is dotted with extinctions. Those organisms that cannot be advanced, that have reached a kind of plateau which they cannot surpass are evolutionary dead ends, and nature eliminates them. A similar kind of thing happens within species. From time to time the evolutionary process must perform a culling of a species to eliminate those that bear genes that inhibit further evolutionary progress from the gene pool. That is what all plagues are. Plagues are the evolutionary process of eliminating from species those specimens that hold back further evolution."

Interviewer: "Are you saying the Corona Virus is a good thing?"

Dr. Binker: "I'm saying, from an evolutionary standpoint, the Corona Virus pandemic is a benefit to the future of the human race. If the human race is to improve, or even to continue to exist, whatever the genetic defects are that make contracting and dying from the Corona virus possible, must be eliminated from the species."

Interviewer: "Now there are going be those who are going ask, Dr. Binker, just who do you think you are to decide who should and should not live?"

Dr. Binker: "Yes, that is how my view has already been misrepresented. But I do not make such a decision. It is, in fact, those who want to interfere with what nature has decided that are deciding who should and should not live, and they have chosen against nature. And the reasons for that choice and all their measures to evade the progress of nature and evolution are not moral reasons, but self-serving, and short-sighted, with no concern for the future of mankind or the human race."

Interviewer: "So what is your recommendation, Dr. Binker. Should people wear masks, allow themselves to be quarantined and practice social distancing, or should they just forget it all and do whatever they like?"

Dr. Binker: "People are going to do whatever they like and no recommendation I make will change that. Those who don't care about the future of mankind, who are only interested in possibly avoiding some personal discomfort and who regard their temporary lives as more important than the whole human race will wear masks and do all the other recommended things to satisfy their selfish desires."

Interviewer: "So, in spite of your views that wearing a mask is immoral, you don't want to do anything about it?"

Dr. Binker: "What can I do? If I could do something, I would make wearing a mask fatal to the wearer, but it's not my decision. It may come to that, but it will have to be nature's doing, not mine."

Can you cite your source please. This clown is unknown to Google.

[Sculptor]

I think the nature of evolution requires a periodic cleansing or culling of people who think like Dr Binker.

It seems obvious that he's the kind of organism that cannot be advanced. He has reached a kind of plateau which he cannot surpass - an evolutionary dead end it seems.

I'm saying, from an evolutionary standpoint, culling stagnant thinkers is a benefit to the future of the human race. If the human race is to improve, or even to continue to exist, whatever the genetic defects are that make thinking like that possible, must be eliminated from the species.

The crazy ramblings of dualists who don't see themselves as part of nature...

Dr. Binker: "What can I do? If I could do something, I would make wearing a mask fatal to the wearer, but it's not my decision. It may come to that, but it will have to be nature's doing, not mine."

He does not even exist.

[Skepdick]

I think the nature of evolution requires a periodic cleansing or culling of people who think like Dr Binker.

It seems obvious that he's the kind of organism that cannot be advanced. He has reached a kind of plateau which he cannot surpass - an evolutionary dead end it seems.

I'm saying, from an evolutionary standpoint, culling stagnant thinkers is a benefit to the future of the human race. If the human race is to improve, or even to continue to exist, whatever the genetic defects are that make thinking like that possible, must be eliminated from the species.

The crazy ramblings of dualists who don't see themselves as part of nature...

Dr. Binker: "What can I do? If I could do something, I would make wearing a mask fatal to the wearer, but it's not my decision. It may come to that, but it will have to be nature's doing, not mine."

He does not even exist.

Dumb Philosopher. The idea exist even if the interlocutors are made up.

Nobody by the name of "Sculptor" can be found on google either, yet all of your words are on this forum to see.

That's how pseudonyms work.

[commonsense]

I understand and reject Dr. Binker’s point of view. Definitely a different view. Stale thinking? In what respect? Binker’s idea may not be novel or unique, but it certainly isn’t stale.

For the propagation, let alone the evolution, of the human species, we all have to die and end our usage of the planet’s resources. But we all do that, eventually, even without the help of a plague. In that regard, we are all destined to do the moral thing by dying, either naturally or by other means.

In view of the maldistribution of the planet’s sustaining resources, even an arbitrary reduction in the human population, unrelated to genetic defects, could benefit those who remain. In that vein, suicide becomes an altruistic act despite even the most selfish of motivations.

But how does one live a good life without self-preservation? There might be circumstances where self-preservation is immoral, but on the whole, a moral existence depends necessarily on existence.

To say that it’s immoral to wear a mask is nearly the same as saying there’s a moral imperative not to. But not to wear a mask is to imperil others, even if it leads to an evolution of the human species. Imperiling others seems the more immediate breach of ethics.

The species will evolve whether one wears a mask or not.

[Sculptor]

I understand and reject Dr. Binker’s point of view. Definitely a different view. Stale thinking? In what respect? Binker’s idea may not be novel or unique, but it certainly isn’t stale.

Dr Binker died of complications following a Covid-19 infection.

For the propagation, let alone the evolution, of the human species, we all have to die and end our usage of the planet’s resources. But we all do that, eventually, even without the help of a plague. In that regard, we are all destined to do the moral thing by dying, either naturally or by other means.

In view of the maldistribution of the planet’s sustaining resources, even an arbitrary reduction in the human population, unrelated to genetic defects, could benefit those who remain. In that vein, suicide becomes an altruistic act despite even the most selfish of motivations.

But how does one live a good life without self-preservation? There might be circumstances where self-preservation is immoral, but on the whole, a moral existence depends necessarily on existence.

To say that it’s immoral to wear a mask is nearly the same as saying there’s a moral imperative not to. But not to wear a mask is to imperil others, even if it leads to an evolution of the human species. Imperiling others seems the more immediate breach of ethics.

The species will evolve whether one wears a mask or not.

[commonsense]

What a stroke of good or bad luck.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whether Dr. Onat Binker is real or not, there are real 'sick' people who share his views.
I believe RCSaunders, not an Objectivist but with his neo-Randism ideology, is one of them.

Saunders believes [by various implications] that only the superior ones are qualified to survive without taking into account the inherent qualities of human nature inherent moral function.

I have presented the perspective of Moral stance within the Covid19 pandemic here'

Covid19 - A Case for Objective Moral Standard
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28781

The Moral Standard is;

• 1. No human ought to kill another - a justified true moral fact,
  2. No human ought to spread the Covid 19 virus to other human beings to risk killing them,
  3. Therefore all humans ought to wear mask - one mode of prevention.

It is thus morally wrong to have the view;

• 1. SOME humans ought to die from Covid19 - evolutionary culling of the weak!
  2. ALL humans ought to spread the Covid 19 virus to other human beings
  3. ALL humans do not need to wear mask

Naturally there will be people who are not morally inclined in this case who will not wear a mask or do not agree others should wear a mask and let things be without any intervention.
This non-compliance generate a moral gap and this gap must be closed via the various approaches.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to increase their moral competence immediately, as such humanity will have to rely on laws [politics] to deal with the problem. This is what is going on with the majority of countries.

Whilst we have to recognize the moral obligation to wear a mask to prevent the spread of the Covid19 infection, we also need to understand the exponential expansion of population is a also a threat to humanity.

However the moral maxim;
1. No human ought to kill another - a justified true moral fact,
overrides all other moral maxims

Since it is immoral to cull the weak, the future solution is to find effective FOOLPROOF* [this is critical] approaches to reduce the population expansion to acceptable sustainable optimal levels.
*"foolproof" means a lot of collective thought, rational and wisdom will need to be incorporated to ensure it is foolproof.

I am optimistic the above is possible in the future [50, 80, >100 years from now] given the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology that is progressing at present, e.g. the human genomic project, the connectome project, etc.

[RCSaunders]

Dr Binker died of complications following a Covid-19 infection.

Not many people know that, Sculptor. You are especially observant.

It is sad, but Binker did do his part for the preservation of the race--such as it is.

[RCSaunders]

Whether Dr. Onat Binker is real or not, there are real 'sick' people who share his views.
I believe RCSaunders, not an Objectivist but with his neo-Randism ideology, is one of them.

Saunders believes [by various implications] that only the superior ones are qualified to survive without taking into account the inherent qualities of human nature inherent moral function.

I have presented the perspective of Moral stance within the Covid19 pandemic here'

Covid19 - A Case for Objective Moral Standard
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28781

The Moral Standard is;

• 1. No human ought to kill another - a justified true moral fact,
  2. No human ought to spread the Covid 19 virus to other human beings to risk killing them,
  3. Therefore all humans ought to wear mask - one mode of prevention.

It is thus morally wrong to have the view;

• 1. SOME humans ought to die from Covid19 - evolutionary culling of the weak!
  2. ALL humans ought to spread the Covid 19 virus to other human beings
  3. ALL humans do not need to wear mask

Naturally there will be people who are not morally inclined in this case who will not wear a mask or do not agree others should wear a mask and let things be without any intervention.
This non-compliance generate a moral gap and this gap must be closed via the various approaches.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to increase their moral competence immediately, as such humanity will have to rely on laws [politics] to deal with the problem. This is what is going on with the majority of countries.

Whilst we have to recognize the moral obligation to wear a mask to prevent the spread of the Covid19 infection, we also need to understand the exponential expansion of population is a also a threat to humanity.

However the moral maxim;
1. No human ought to kill another - a justified true moral fact,
overrides all other moral maxims

Since it is immoral to cull the weak, the future solution is to find effective FOOLPROOF* [this is critical] approaches to reduce the population expansion to acceptable sustainable optimal levels.
*"foolproof" means a lot of collective thought, rational and wisdom will need to be incorporated to ensure it is foolproof.

I am optimistic the above is possible in the future [50, 80, >100 years from now] given the trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology that is progressing at present, e.g. the human genomic project, the connectome project, etc.

What a joy you are. You are exactly the kind of audience that makes the kind of work I and my friends, J. Swift, F. Arouet, C. Dodgson, S. Clemens, and I labor so assiduously to accomplish, worth the effort.

[RCSaunders]

... it is immoral to cull the weak ...

So morality is in defiance of nature and evolution which both operate by culling the weak. Is that right?

[Sculptor]

... it is immoral to cull the weak ...

So morality is in defiance of nature and evolution which both operate by culling the weak. Is that right?

Nature is amoral; your objection if groundless.
It's not even wrong; it's incoherent.

[Sculptor]

Whether Dr. Onat Binker is real or not, there are real 'sick' people who share his views.

Sick people tend to die and or fail to reproduce.
They just get the Darwin awards

[RCSaunders]

Whether Dr. Onat Binker is real or not, there are real 'sick' people who share his views.

Sick people tend to die and or fail to reproduce.
They just get the Darwin awards

Your are hard man to agree with. That's exactly my point.