When politicians cite religion as the foundation for policy, we should ask: is that ethics—or just majority morality dressed up as certainty? In Episode 96, Steve Gibson breaks down morality vs ethics, the danger of “gang morality,” and why the real baseline is simple: don’t interfere with another person’s existence.

In Logic Dictate Hot Topics — special episode, host Steve Gibson revisits one of the most foundational themes of this podcast: should religion be the basis for public policy—and if not, what should be?

Steve argues that when a politician claims moral certainty rooted in religion, voters have an obligation to ask:

• What morality is being imposed?
• Who decided it?
• Does it protect individual rights—or erase them?

Key Ideas in this Episode

• Morality vs. ethics: morality can reflect what a community feels is right; ethics tests what is right in a way that protects individual rights
• Why “moral majorities” have historically justified immoral outcomes (Steve uses slavery as a clear example of community morality being wrong)
• A case for being amoral in the sense of refusing “sheep morality,” while still pursuing ethical clarity
• Descartes and certainty: “I think, therefore I am” as an epistemological starting point—not a shallow slogan
• Free will vs. an all-knowing creator: why omniscience creates a philosophical conflict with genuine human choice
• The “Steve Rule”: Don’t assume you can adversely interfere with someone else’s existence (a practical ethical baseline for law and policy)
• Applying ethics to policy debates: the death penalty, drug policy, and prostitution—framed through harm, consent, and government fallibility
• Why these questions matter even more as synthetic intelligence evolves and begins to ask ethical questions back at us

Listener Question

If we strip away religious certainty and mob morality, what’s left as a guide for law? Steve proposes an ethics-first framework built on individual freedom, non-harm, and skepticism of government’s ability to administer perfect justice.

Learn more about the philosophy behind Logic Dictate (and the novel that inspired this podcast):

📘 Read Logic’s Dictate for only $0.99:

Breaking news: the Supreme Court just struck down President Trump’s tariffs in a 6–3 decision, ruling the emergency statute used by the administration doesn’t authorize tariffs. In Episode 92, Steve Gibson explains why the Court got it wrong, why the administration argued it wrong, and why this could trigger a refund and trade-policy mess—fast.

In Logic Dictate Hot Topics — Episode 92, host Steve Gibson reacts to a major Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a 6–3 decision, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

Steve argues this decision creates immediate national consequences—economically, legally, and politically—and he breaks down what went wrong on two fronts:

What Steve says the Supreme Court missed

• If a statute empowers the Executive to regulate importation, Steve argues that should logically include tools like tariffs as a form of regulation—not just taxation.

What Steve says the administration should have done differently

• Steve argues the White House should have framed the trade imbalance and job loss as an enduring national emergency and built a stronger legal foundation for tariff authority and urgency.

The “what happens now?” problem

This ruling raises real-world questions that don’t wait for theory:

• Are prior duties now subject to refund claims (and how fast)?
• Does Customs keep collecting while courts sort it out?
• Can the administration implement a workaround immediately—and should it apply retroactively?

Legal and budget analysts have noted the ruling opens the door to refund litigation while leaving key mechanics to lower courts.

What comes next

Even within the Court’s own writing, there’s acknowledgement that other statutes may still support tariffs—potentially with additional procedural steps (e.g., parts of the Trade Act of 1974 and Trade Expansion Act).
Steve also explains why waiting for Congress to move quickly is unrealistic—and why executive/legal strategy will matter immediately.

Disclaimer: Commentary and analysis only—not legal, tax, or financial advice.

Learn more about the philosophy behind Logic Dictate:
https://www.logicsdictate.com

📘 Read Logic’s Dictate for only $0.99: https://amzn.to/4oAo6AJ

Stephen A. Smith says he’s a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. That might win the center—but it won’t win the imagination. In Episode 91, Steve Gibson explains why Smith could be viable—and what bold, creative policies he’d need to break out.

In Logic Dictate Hot Topics — Episode 91, host Steve Gibson examines growing speculation that sports commentator and media personality Stephen A. Smith could explore a presidential run.

Smith has publicly positioned himself as a “fiscal conservative and social liberal,” a political identity that historically has appealed to centrist Democrats, independents, and moderate voters—similar in some respects to the electoral coalition that supported President Bill Clinton.

But Steve argues that merely occupying the middle lane is not enough.

To truly capture the Democratic electorate—and expand beyond it—Stephen A. Smith would need to:

• Move beyond being “not Trump”
• Move beyond being “not socialist”
• Articulate bold, creative, actionable policies

Episode 91 explores what those breakout policies could look like, including:

• Serious prison reform rooted in rehabilitation and accountability
• Building out federally supported medical centers to address healthcare cost and access
• Drug policy reform with economic realism
• Infrastructure innovation, including water and irrigation modernization in the American West
• Aggressive national mobilization around advancing cancer therapies

Steve argues that candidates like Stephen A. Smith—or others such as Rahm Emanuel—have an opportunity to reset the Democratic Party’s direction. But they must offer something imaginative and forward‑thinking rather than positioning alone.

This episode is political commentary and analysis—not an endorsement.

📘 Learn more about the philosophy behind Logic Dictate:
https://www.logicsdictate.com

📕 Read Logic’s Dictate for only $0.99:
https://amzn.to/4oAo6AJ