"The mob is the most ruthless of tyrants."
RAGNAR PURJE PhD
Neuroscientist. Author: RESPONSIBILITY THEORY?. Adjunct Senior Lecturer CQUniversity. Saxton Speakers. Contributor Psychology Today
“The mob is the most ruthless of tyrants.” (Friedrich Nietzsche).
“When the mob rules, who should speak out?” (Ragnar Purje).
“If not me, then who? If not now, then when?” (Hillel the Elder).
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke).
The immutable universal laws of physics, biology and child development. The universal anatomical brain of a child. The universal biological brain of a child. The universal mind and thinking of a child. The universal development of a child. The universal principles of ethics and morality. The universal truth about consent is that children do have the neurobiological or intellectual capacity to give consent to anything.
Ethics
Ethics and morals have similarities. However, even though both of these constructs are often used synonymously and interchangeably; the research indicates that these constructs have differences. Sydney Grannan, writing in?Encyclop?dia Britannica,?notes that “ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., [such as in] codes of conduct in [organisations] or principles in religions [or any cultural or social collective].” Therefore, any and all rules – to be ethical, in any collective – must begin with, and end with, the universal adherence and behavioural application:?to do no harm.
Morals
Morality refers to an individual's personal behaviour, which must also begin with, and end with, the universal adherence to, and behavioural application of:?to do no harm.?This inevitably means an individual's moral self-worth (and associated moral collective self-worth), can only prevail, if all of the behaviours of every individual present (in any collective) acts and behaves to meet the universal standard of being moral; i.e.,?to do no harm.??When universal moral behaviour is taking place; it is only then that the individual will have moral self-worth, and it is only then that the individual will be living a moral life.
Universal truths
It has always been a self-evident universal truth, that in the entire history of human development, there has never been a child that has ever had the anatomical brain size, nor the biological dimensions of an adult brain, in terms of volume, capacity, complex connectivity, bioneurological depth, thickness, nor in its immense multifaceted intricate and phenomenal universal richness. This includes but is not limited to the concomitant of the trillions of neurological connections and the estimated 70+ billion adult neurons, and all of the additional profound neurobiological and neuroglial support, that is attached with all of these neurons, dendrites, axons, synapses, and much more, in that of the adult brain.
Fused biological adult brain
All of these universal biological, neurobiological, neuromuscular and electrical and neurotransmissional capacities, which includes a self-regulating network of some 70 thousand genes; that engage to direct the development and application of an immense cellular neurobiological network, that includes something like anywhere from the estimated 50 to 70+ trillion connections. All of which then flawlessly combine and unite to seamlessly, comprehensively and cohesively bring into action the ethereal cognitive consciousness of the adult mind. Profoundly, it is this fused adult biological brain and body that then brings into existence the adult mind, thoughts and associated adult behaviours.
?The mature adult brain
Added to this brain, mind and body universal biological and neurological living existence, the biological and neurological research is emphatic and immutable, and that is, the human brain cannot and will not mature into a complex operational neurobiological adult brain (with its associated fused adult mind, with it accompanied cognitive capacities) until at least the age of twenty-five.
It is biologically impossible for a child to have an adult brain or mind
As such, and because of these absolute and immutable universal brain-based biological and neurobiological imperatives, no child will have an adult sized brain, no child will ever have the biological or neurobiological capacities of an adult brain, and no child can or will ever have the anatomical or the biological brain of an adult, nor will a child ever have the ethereal, sentient or the cognitive consciousness of an adult mind.
Child thinking is not and can never be adult thinking
What all of this axiomatically means is that there is no child who will ever be able to think like an adult until the brain of the child develops and matures into a biological adult and has the biological brain of an adult. As such, no child will ever be able to ever explain, examine, evaluate, explore, reflect, review, contextualise, analyse, scrutinise, monitor, question nor have any of the associated sophisticated and highly complex cognitive or advanced critical thinking intellectual capacities like that of an adult. Added to this no child can, or will ever have the required intellectual predictive adult cognitive capacities of an adult, that will provide a child with the erudite means to have the sentient insight and highly sophisticated intrinsic rational capacities to think about and understand adult consequences.
Predictive adult behaviours
Added to this biological, neurobiological and sentient imperative, there is no child who can, or will ever be able to have the thoughts, feelings, insights, knowledge, comprehension, discernments, abilities, intelligences, understandings, consequential adult comprehensions or any level of future adult-based predictive behaviours of an adult.??
A child cannot ever consent to anything
This then imperatively, conclusively (and in absolute terms means), that when a child says ‘yes’, or if a child says they want something, this utterance of ‘yes’, or this uttered ‘want’ by the child, cannot imply, cannot suggest or nor can this desire (by the child), ever infer that this expressed utterance of ‘yes’ or this remark of ‘want’ will ever be able to physiologically, neurobiologically, sentiently, cognitively or intellectually ever actualise adult thoughts, adult behaviours or adult consent. In absolute terms this means a child cannot ever consent to anything, not now, not ever.
Immutable, universal, biological and neurobiological imperatives
As such there is no level of adult initiated opinions, constructs or politically initiated propaganda; any form of deceptive linguistic ideological or social manipulations that can change these immutable, universal biological and neurobiological imperatives pertaining to the brain, mind, body and child-based sentient capacity of a child.
Opinions and constructs
In terms of opinions and constructs, it is profoundly important to note that a construct derives its name from the fact that – a construct – is not anything more than a mental construction. As such, a construct is no more than a thought, that brings into existence a descriptor referred to as an opinion, which provides the means to bring into existence a descriptive construct.
Definitions
All robust universal dictionaries concur that opinions are no more than a general subjective point of view, i.e., a personal sentiment or a feeling; which is not based on fact or knowledge.?The fact of the matter is that gender is not (and it has never been, and it cannot ever be) a universal biological truth. Gender is a construct. That means gender fits into the category of a concocted descriptor, and, as such, what that axiomatically means is that the word gender is nothing more than a mental opinion, or a descriptor of convenience.
The utterance of the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology
Therefore, in absolute universal terms, what that means is that the word and construct gender can never be a universal biological truth. As such, the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology, nor can the utterance of the word ‘gender’ change the universal laws of biology.
Male chromosome pairing
Universally, ever since humans have existed, when a human male is born, he will have a genetic XY chromosome pairing. As such, in terms genome and sex, this male will, in universal biological terms always be a male. If, for example, this XY chromosome male was to ever have a finger, hand, arm, toe, foot, tonsils, appendix or even their genitals surgically removed; this male will still be a biological male, a genetic male, and this male will continue to have the pairing of his male-based XY chromosomes.
Female chromosome pairing
This same universal and biological genome-based principle, of course, and immutably, also applies to the female sex. When a female is born, she will have an XX chromosome genetic pairing. As such this female will (universally, biologically and genetically) be the sex of a female. Any surgical procedure that takes place, cannot and will never change the biological XX female chromosome pairing. And no amount of ideological shouting or any deceitful politically motivated gender-based utterances, or any social bullying or ideological ‘word-play’ manipulations, will ever change these laws of physics and/or biology.
?Importantly and profoundly, nor can any forced experimental application of hormones (into the body of a child), change this immutable XX chromosome (female) or XY chromosome (male) genetic pairing. No amount of forced experimental hormonal injections into a child can or will ever change the genetic XX or XY chromosome pairing that exists in the body of a child.
A child will never have the sentient capacity to think as an adult or give consent
NB: The use of the words: ‘forced experimental application of hormones’?is being deliberately applied to reflect axiomatic universal facts. Fact 1: A child does not have (and will never have) the brain-based capacity or the neurobiology functioning capacities to bring into existence adult-based sentient consciousness thinking; therefore, a child cannot ever give consent to anything. Fact 2: A child will never have the biological brain or the sentient mind to think as an adult. Therefore, and again, a child cannot give consent to anything. Fact 3: As noted, even if a child says ‘yes’, or if a child ‘wants’ something, this ‘yes’ and this ‘want’ is based on the neurobiological operation and sentient consciousness functioning of a child. That means a child cannot give consent until the brain has biologically matured into an adult brain. Fact 4: Which in universal neurobiological terms does not mature until the age of twenty-five. Fact 5: If hormones are being injected into the body of a child (by anyone), this process can only take place by and through the application of force. That is because consent – by any child – is impossible. Fact 6: Any adults who are initiating and administering this forced hormonal experimental injected action, or any form of ‘gender-based’ surgical procedure (on the non-consensual body of a child), the adult will be doing so immorally, and as such, also, according to international human rights law, illegally.
Denying universal truths cannot change a universal truth
Denying these universal human laws and biological truths, as history informs, brings with its catastrophic biological and social outcomes. History also unambiguously cautions and informs that any society or organisation (political or private) that allows, supports, initiates or forces anyone (irrespective of policies, laws or even orders from superiors), to engage in immoral forced actions (against any individual or collective), these actions will be declared as being illegal. That is because it has been internationally declared, in an international court of law, that moral actions supersede all laws, conventions, directives or what may even be considered as being orders by superiors, which of course can take place in many different forms, which includes publications of policies and books.
In terms of the application of universal societal and biological principles, imagine how the world would have responded if the Third Reich, and other organisations, such as the Hitler Youth, education and medical institutes had been set up gender institutions and experimentations?
How would the world have reacted? History unambiguously informs, that the international community would have and actually did universally condemn these words, and all of the associated forms of abhorrent and immoral social engineering actions that took place, in the strongest possible terms. These universal condemnations, as history informs, were eventually enacted and applied at an international court, at what became known as the Nuremberg Trials.
?Amoral social engineering dogma
In the axiomatic interest of noting historical actions, the all-important question that must be asked is: Would the publication of this type of book, by the Third Reich, have resulted in the Third Reich deciding to carry out experiments to support their particular ideological point of view? And, as history informs, the Third Reich would have, and it actually did carry out institutional social engineering and biological experiments to support all of their particular forms of self-righteous biological, genetic, cultural, societal, political and social engineering dogma.
Provided a moral choice was possible
In 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces. As a result of this insightful moral assumption, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This ruling unambiguously declared that following or undertaking an immoral order (which in fact makes the order unlawful) cannot be used as a defense.
As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Principle declared that the "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes. In terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.?[The key?words here of course are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”]
Recognition
As such this recognition must be addressed in accordance with international law, that was set down in an international court, that followed the directive of Nuremberg Principle IV. Anything less undermines all of the universal principles that were set down in accordance with Nuremberg Principle IV. All of which led to advancing universal truths, which became the guiding principles in the development of the?United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
When a universal truth is applied to morals and ethics, this means it is applied as an absolute for all of humanity. This immutable universal truth is affirmed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as follows:
1.?????All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2.?????Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
3.?????Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
4.?????All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
5.?????All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
6.?????Everyone has the right to freedom of thought.
7.?????Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
8.?????In the exercise of his[her] rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
9.?????Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Moral and ethical self-worth
All of these interrelating and interpenetrating statements provide the intrinsic means by which the individual is able, as noted by Robin Dillon, to then intellectually and in absolute personal terms, understand that the self (and the other), both morally and ethically, have “significant worth," i.e., there is an associated connectedness of the moral self – with the other – in terms of having (in absolute terms) a co-existing moral-centred universal social intrinsic connectedness: I am, you are, we are, one moral and ethical humanity.
Universal connectedness
This intrinsic ethical and moral-centred – personal and social moral-centred reverberation of universal connectedness – then acts to influence the very formation and foundation of a person's (and that of the collective's) values, emotions, commitments, dispositions, thoughts, actions, desires, and encompasses the very identity of the living self, and, therefore, all of humanity.
Moral self-worth and moral collective self-worth
The profound importance of having moral self-worth (which is connected with moral collective self-worth), and that of living a moral life (individually and collectively) is further emphasised by Robin Dillon, who refers to Immanuel Kant. An individual's moral self-worth can only be lived and expressed in accordance with the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative
The categorical imperative, according to Robin Dillon is considered by Kant as being the universal "supreme principle of morality." The categorical imperative universally informs that it is the "humanity in [all] persons, strictly speaking, that has dignity; that it is in virtue of the humanity in them that [all] humans are and so ought to be treated as ends in themselves," and never as a means to an end. This aligns with the universal principle of personhood as expressed by Arthur Danto. The school headmaster telling teachers not to call school students ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ does not meet with?the categorical imperative, nor that of personhood.?
Personhood
If personhood is to take place, each-and-every person must be treated with respect. According to Danto, “[p]ersons … must not be used merely as a means to someone’s end; they are in Kant’s famous phrase “ends-in-themselves” and sources of value in their own right.” Robert Downie and Elizabeth Telfer offer a similar view. They write:?
‘Persons ought to be respected’ is not merely to say ‘What is valuable ought to be respected,’ but rather ‘humans ought to be respected for what is valuable in them’ … this is not a trivial claim, for it asserts that there is something worthy of respect about a human being.
Crucial axiomatic point of view
Andreas van Melsen extends the importance of this crucial axiomatic point of view pertaining to the categorical imperative, personhood, and moral self-worth even further. Van Melsen asserts: "each individual human is not just an instance of mankind in the same way in which a piece of copper is an instance of copper. Each individual is an original centre of being in action. His [or her] actions are [his or her] own." And as such, must only be treated as an end-in-themselves.
Universal protection of all children
If a nation does not have the will to protect its children, that means that nation is a nation that should not be considered as a nation. That is because nations exist in accordance with laws that are based on the principles and application of ethics and moral principles.
Anything less diminishes all of humanity
Anything less than this moral choice diminishes all of humanity.?Therefore, in terms of the categorical imperative, ethics, morals, moral self-worth, collective moral self-worth, personhood, the universal human condition, and the immutable ontological fusing of these imperatives (with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights); what all of this then irrefutably means – in absolute universal terms – and can only ever mean – is that all human lives and all of humanity matters. Anything less, diminishes all of humanity.
The following quotes offer further insights to these universal principles: