When practicing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) in my personal and professional life, I remain cognizant of the distinction between morality and reality. Quite often, people mistake the difference regarding these qualities.
Providing an example of how I’ve alluded to this matter within my blog, in an entry entitled Righting Historical Wrongs I stated about my late granddad, who was said to have been a convicted murderer after having shot a woman to death:
[M]y expressed memories don’t adequately convey the nuanced reality of a complex system that was the fallible human being I call granddad. As far as I’m concerned, he wasn’t a good or bad, holy or evil, or right or wrong person.
In that post, I referred to “good or bad” and “right or wrong” as elements pertaining to morality. Expanding upon this matter, I stated in a blogpost entitled Morals and Ethics:
A moral is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. As such, morals generally relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.
An ethic is a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or unpleasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics are essentially the rules one pledges to live by—based on morals.
Commonly, morals vary from person to person, across cultures, and can shift over time. Many years of contemplation regarding morals have led to differing perspectives championed by theologians, philosophers, theorists, intellectuals, governing bodies, and others.
Although a significant number of people maintain that there’s an objective morality, this is a contentious matter which has been debated for centuries. As such, I don’t have a definitive answer regarding this matter. Nevertheless, I live as though morals matter to me.
Shifting from consideration of that which is generally considered good or bad, I turn to the matter of reality. In a blogpost entitled On Truth, I stated of this topic:
The unpolished definition of truth relates to that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Incidentally, “true” is defined as accurate or exact information in accordance with fact or reality.
Following these standards, “reality” may be described as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Likewise, “fact” is detailed as a thing that is known or proved to be true, as opposed to interpretation.
This is where matters become difficult to adequately define. For instance, I described that facts are “known or proved to be true,” as that which is true forms the construct of reality. One method of analyzing whether or not something is real relates to use of the scientific method.
This includes observation, questions, researching relevant information, forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting an experiment, data analysis, drawing conclusions, and communicating results. Of this tool, I stated in a blog entry entitled Challenging Disappointment:
Science neither proves nor disproves ideas. Rather, it accepts or rejects data based on supporting or refuting evidence and revises conclusions based on additional evidence.
Given this consideration, determination of what’s considered true, untrue, real, or unreal is an ongoing and rigorous process of examination. Although I understand that partisan actors may not understand or appreciate the following two declarations, these assertions are factual nonetheless:
1. Science isn’t settled. Addressing this matter, one source states:
“The science may have been ‘settled’ at one time, but scientists are human, subject to the same mistakes and petty jealousies of any of us, and this case illustrates those faults very well,” regarding a controversy related to the brontosaurus.
Take a moment to reflect upon the global response to COVID-19. How often did you hear that “the science” – which I argue is a bastardized version of science – was settled and that so-called vaccines for a novel virus were the only plausible solution to the pandemic?
How many people bought into irrational (illogical and unreasonable) appeals to emotion? How many people foolishly fell for irrational appeals to authority? Science wasn’t “settled” in regard to COVID-19 between 2019 and 2022, nor is it settled regarding this matter for the current day.
2. There is no scientific consensus. Regarding this issue, one source reports:
The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”
Briefly, reflect upon times when you’ve heard that there’s a “scientific consensus” regarding climate-related matters. In the United States (U.S.), local, state, and federal governments have taken radical measures to address alarmist data from a so-called “consensus” of science.
While I’ve little doubt that the climate indeed changes over time, it’s simply unknown as to whether or not some factors impact the environment more than anthropomorphic climate change—climate change that is attributed to human-like characteristics or actions. This is merely a realistic claim.
Apparently, there appears to be some level of moral judgment attributed to real-world versus ideal-world claims. For instance, you may irrationally conclude that because I question climate science, I’m therefore a no good, low down climate denier. Respectfully, I disagree.
I addressed ideal- versus real-world distinction in a blogpost entitled Ideal-World vs. Real-World, noting that I maintain friends who favor idealism to realism. In the entry I stated:
Regarding ideal-world desires, a mutual friend of Alice and I once told me something to the effect of, “I just want people to be nice to one another – just be good people.” This is an impossible standard to achieve, because it’s likely never how real-world functioning ever was or will ever be.
From a Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) perspective, I see nothing inherently good, bad, right, wrong, healthy, or unhealthy concerning idealistic preferences expressed by Alice or our mutual friend. It’s irrational, no doubt, though not holy or evil.
Still, when people maintain rigid demands versus hopeful choices, they will likely disturb themselves into unpleasant conditions. For example, merely expressing hope for people to be nice to one another and behave as good people perceivably do is representative of a preference.
If or when this desire isn’t met, one may be disappointed though not miserable. However, if an individual inflexibly demands that others be nice and good – and when people with differing values inevitably reject this dogmatic commandment – then the person using rigidity will typically experience unpleasant consequences of the irrational demand.
Questioning claims of “settled” science or a scientific “consensus” is a method of real-world assessment. However, maintaining unfavorable and inflexible moral prescriptions regarding ideal-world dogma isn’t only unhelpful; it’s arguably the antithesis of rational living.
When addressing the morality-reality distinction, I discovered that Google’s artificial intelligence system, Gemini, states, “The morality-reality distinction is a philosophical debate that centers on whether there are objective moral values and whether moral claims can be true or false.”
Herein, I’ve attempted to provide a clear distinction between morality and reality in accordance with this philosophical debate. At this point, you may ask how morals, ethics, truth, or reality apply to the practice of REBT.
Aside from the aforementioned anecdote concerning friends in my personal life, I’ll use a recent example regarding the 2024 U.S. vice presidential debate. Before I delve into this illustrative sample, consider what I stated in a blogpost entitled The Is-Ought Problem:
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume is credited with having proposed the is-ought problem, also referred to as the is-ought gap, Hume’s law, and Hume’s guillotine. His formula addresses moral or values-based judgements contrasted with non-moral or facts-based observations.
Considering this matter, one source poses the question, “How do descriptive statements (an ‘is’ statement) so quickly turn into prescriptive statements (a ‘should’ statement)?” In a blog entry entitled Description vs. Prescription, I address the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements.
In my approach to REBT, I invite people to consider that use of should, must, or ought-type beliefs or statements often represents a sort of moral demandingness. These unproductive prescriptions of ourselves, others, and life tend to lead toward self-disturbance.
As an example, suppose I was to unfavorably believe, “People oughtn’t to have different moral codes than I.” Based on this unhelpful prescription, I then treat people poorly when they inevitably violate my unreasonable rule of life.
Similarly, when practicing REBT, I encourage people to understand that truth and reality may have little to do with unreasonable prescriptive beliefs. It’s one thing to describe what one believes ought to be the case. However, prescriptively mandating such belief systems is largely unhelpful.
For instance, when I unfavorably believe that others ought not to maintain differing moral codes, reality describes that people inevitably do have competing values. Therefore, what is remains in direct tension with what I believe ought to be.
Hume’s guillotine essentially proposes that one cannot derive and ought from an is. Thus, I cannot irrationally demand what ought to happen when faced with what simply is the case. Understanding the is-ought problem is necessary in regard to the morality-reality distinction.
Now I turn to a pragmatic example of how morality clashes with reality, and how I approach this matter through the lens of REBT. Recently, U.S. Senator JD Vance engaged in a debate with Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz.
One of the debate hosts stated, “The leading cause of death for children and teens in America is by firearms.” Before I delve into claims about reality, consider the following syllogism that represents a distorted inference pertaining to morality, as ostensibly presumed by the host:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r.
Major premise: If p then q.
Minor premise: If q then r.
Conclusion: Therefore, if p then r.
Example –
If the leading cause of death for children and teens in America is by firearms (p), then fewer guns owned by U.S. citizens would decrease the death of children and teens (q).
If fewer guns owned by U.S. citizens would decrease the death of children and teens (q), then U.S. citizens oughtn’t to own guns (r).
Therefore, if the leading cause of death for children and teens in America is by firearms (p), then U.S. citizens oughtn’t to own guns (r).
The moral prescription seemingly inferred by the host follows logical form. However, I argue that her proposition isn’t reasonable – given that the Second Amendment states in part, “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As the implied moral prescription (i.e., U.S. citizens oughtn’t to own guns) is at odds with the prescribed legal consideration (i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), the is-ought problem has been violated. Thus, the prescription isn’t rational.
Keep in mind that for something to be rational, both logic and reason work in tandem. Although the major premise (p & q) seems reasonable, the minor premise (q & r) isn’t justifiable when considering a negative right acknowledged by the Second Amendment.
Therefore, the conclusion of the syllogism (p & r) – tainted by an unreasonable moral prescription – is irrational. Moreover, simply because the major premise “seems reasonable” doesn’t mean it is. Things aren’t always as they seem.
Now, I turn from morality and toward reality. Herein, I’ll assume a charitable position in regard to the host. Perhaps she simply has no facts in regard to “death for children and teens” by firearms in the U.S.
I, on the other hand, will offer evidence to counter her unrealistic claim. According to one source:
The bottom line is that about a third of the firearm deaths for those under 20 involve homicide, where the victims are 18 and 19 years old. Approximately 20% involve homicides for 15, 16, and 17-year-olds. These deaths are largely gang-related, and even banning guns is unlikely to stop drug gangs from obtaining guns to protect their extremely valuable drugs.
The age of majority refers to the age at which an individual is considered an adult. In the U.S., on a federal level, the age of majority is 18-years-old – at which time one can vote, enlist in the military, and participate in other adult-aged activities.
Homicide victims who are 18- or 19-years-old aren’t of the age of minority (minors or children). Therefore, the moral claim offered by the host wasn’t factual. Regarding gun violence for those within the age of minority (i.e., 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds), homicide is already a crime in the U.S.
Trampling the rights of all U.S. citizens in order to protect minors who commit criminal homicide isn’t a rational approach to gun violence. Although one may consider it a morally bad occurrence for a 15-year-old to die by gun violence, gun bans aren’t a realistic solution to the problem.
When considering philosophical matters related to morality and reality, I understand that I can’t verify whether or not there’s an objective morality – as I also remain aware that some philosophers have proposed that there’s no such matter as objective reality. Still, I live my life according to morals and as though I actually exist.
Likewise, when practicing REBT, I invite people to consider that irrational beliefs are sometimes referred to as unrealistic philosophies which people maintain in regard to life. Thus, REBT serves as a philosophical approach to well-being by examining ill-serving personal philosophies.
For instance, suppose I weren’t to use a moralistically prescriptive philosophy in regard to U.S. firearms ownership. Instead, I acknowledge that in reality the Second Amendment limits government action concerning this matter.
Therefore, rather than unproductively using an anti-constitutional perspective, I helpfully use the following syllogistic belief regarding AR-15-style rifles:
Form (constructive dilemma) –
If p, then q; and if r, then s; but either p or r; therefore, either q or s.
Example –
If I purchase an AR-15, then I will have purchased the firearm legally. If a gangbanging teenager purchases an AR-15, then the adolescent will have purchased the firearm illegally. Either I will purchase an AR-15 or a gangbanging teenager purchases an AR-15. Therefore, either I will have purchased the firearm legally or the adolescent will have purchased the firearm illegally.
The propositions expressed in the syllogism are logical and reasonable. Thus, my reality-based conclusion is rational. Perhaps you disagree with the philosophically-sound case I’ve outlined, because you altogether reject the notion that anyone should own an AR-15-style rifle.
Is the matter with which you disagree based on morals or reality? I maintain that my stance is both morally correct and realistically valid, despite your moral rejection. For instance, consider what the arguably anti-constitutional U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives states:
Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older.
A person under the age of majority can’t legally purchase an AR-15-style rifle in the U.S. Of course, this doesn’t mean that a 16-year-old can’t or won’t purchase one of these firearms illegally (e.g., buying a stolen AR-15 from a fellow gang member).
You may not like or love that adults in the U.S. who have no criminal record can purchase AR-15-style rifles. You may even protest as much as you can, inflexibly demanding that no one outside of the military or law enforcement ought to be able to own such firearms.
However, your position is in violation of the is-ought problem. Not only have you disregarded the morality-reality distinction, you’ve advocated infringement of the Second Amendment.
Although you may irrationally believe this makes your argument a morally upstanding prescription, others may emphatically disagree with your stance on the basis of reality. Thus, you will disturb yourself with unhelpful beliefs about what is when declaring what ought to be.
Likewise, dishonest arguments about the number of deaths for “children and teens” in the U.S., regarding firearms, is merely an illogical appeal to emotion. That argument cannot be won on rational or realistic grounds, so one instead resorts to irrationally-emotive argumentation.
In closing, I reflect upon a quote from Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic philosopher who inspired the development of REBT. The Roman emperor stated:
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill.
Currently, there are treacherous-minded people within the U.S. who are at ease with trampling constitutional rights of citizens. Rather than self-disturbing about such people, I stoically acknowledge their ignorance of morality (good and ill) and reality (what is real).
Therefore, I unconditionally accept that fallible people with unrealistic and harmful beliefs serve in the U.S. government and operate on mainstream and social media platforms. Alas, my beliefs about their obvious ignorance and treacherous behavior aren’t worth upsetting myself over.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Academy 4SC. (n.d.). Is-ought gap: From facts to values. Retrieved from https://academy4sc.org/video/is-ought-gap-from-facts-to-values/
ATF. (2022, April 12). Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee? U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Retrieved from https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee
BBC Radio 4. (2014, November 18). The is / ought problem [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/eT7yXG2aJdY
Gemini. (2024, October 4). Google search results: What is the morality-reality distinction? Google.
Highbrow. (n.d.). Hume’s guillotine. Retrieved from https://gohighbrow.com/humes-guillotine/
Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). A principled stance on free speech. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-principled-stance-on-free-speech
Hollings, D. (2024, July 21). A spring of hope. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-spring-of-hope
Hollings, D. (2022, August 26). AntiFACTser: A pandemic of the unFACTsinated. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/antifactser-a-pandemic-of-the-unfactsinated
Hollings, D. (2023, October 21). Appeal to authority. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-authority
Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion
Hollings, D. (2024, September 15). Challenging disappointment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/challenging-disappointment
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2024, March 25). Disappointingly satisfying. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disappointingly-satisfying
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, April 27). Ideal-world vs. real-world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-world-vs-real-world
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 19). Mockingbird media. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mockingbird-media
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, July 7). Non-dogmatic preferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/non-dogmatic-preferences
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2022, August 16). Petty Betty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/petty-betty
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Recommendatory should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/recommendatory-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, June 26). Righting historical wrongs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/righting-historical-wrongs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2024, September 25). Unrealistic philosophies. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unrealistic-philosophies
Hollings, D. (2024, April 10). Welcome to complex systems. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/welcome-to-complex-systems
Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well
Krystek, L. (n.d.). Whatever happened to the brontosaurus? The Museum of Natural Mystery. Retrieved from http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm
Lott Jr., J. R. (2023, July 12). Guns are not the leading cause of children’s deaths. RealClear Politics. Retrieved from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/12/_guns_are_not_the_leading_cause_of_childrens_deaths.html
NBC News. (2024, October 2). Watch: Full vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Z1AIHCfuOT0?si=y_FqNs5VlJZWl2vV
Ozan0053. (2016, September 16). Gangbanger. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gangbanger
Perry, M. J. (2019, December 15). Michael Crichton explains why there is ‘no such thing as consensus science.’ American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
Philosophy Now. (2016). Is morality objective? Retrieved from https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective
Roberts, T. (n.d.). “Why science is never settled” –Part one. Baen Publishing Enterprises. Retrieved from https://www.baen.com/why_science_is_never_settled
Tweku Mor. (2021). Marcus Aurelius [Image]. NightCafe Studio. Retrieved from https://creator.nightcafe.studio/creation/dw3dh2U2hNS30ldzRujz
Wikipedia. (n.d.). AR-15-style rifle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15%E2%80%93style_rifle
Wikipedia. (n.d.). David Hume. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Is-ought problem. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Wikipedia. (n.d.). JD Vance. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JD_Vance
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Marcus Aurelius. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Tim Walz. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
Wikiquote. (n.d.). Marcus Aurelius. Retrieved from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
Comments