Yesterday's post was one of reflecting on the "world's problems, and the foundations of society. I admit that "rights" undermine the foundations of family, community and Church ( or any other organized structure). But, the question is not one of foundation but ultimate principle. What are the foundational principles that lead a free society? What are ultimate values that must be allowed if society is to remain free? These are questions Kindergarten can't teach you.
'Rights' do undermine "groups", because they are by definition individually identified in free societies. Without upholding civil liberties, then we are doomed to fulfill another's value system, which just might include slavery, patronage, or any other "out-dated" or discrimanatory system.
Perhaps, some would adhere to these systems as they help to create an ordered organizational structuring and functioning. But, at what costs? The "outcome" in business venures, is indeed profit. So, how does one do business and maintain a healthy stance toward those whose "place", "function" or "role" is necessary in producing that "profit"? Does one reward those who produce 'profit margins" and is there a "moral" standard to gauge the dollar value to an individual in a specific company? Will the workers be rewarded, as well as the CEO? At what costs do companies make their profit in human capital. Or should humans "be" capital? Justice should be the "by-word" when it comes to company assests. Reward should be based on risks, investments, time, training, and service.
America has become great because of private enterprise, creative innovation, and corporate co-operation. Individuals associate with what advances their interests, as well as the company's. Motivation does not have to be driven by an outside force, but by the passion of those committed to the vision of the company.
Other countries where companies are "used" or owned by the government do not have widespread economic prosperity, because government brings a cumbersome administration that inhibits "fine-tuning" in the specifics of a company . And it makes much room for unaccountable abuses of government "power" and wasted resources. Those who hold the reigns of control are the ones that are profited most, and when government advances its own interests, instead of the people's interest, incentive suffers and corruption abounds.
Kindergarten can't teach you what is of personal value or what one must commit to. The "shoulds" are not personal commitments of value, but are social guidelines for maintaining ethical business practices or social order under a limited government. This is what the law is and does. The law never should tell us the details of our personal lives.
Showing posts with label conventional morality ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conventional morality ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Let's Get Ugly
Ugly is only understood by some standard. And standards are defined by whatever "standard" the culture agrees upon. This is a cultural "norm". And cultural norms help to maintain social order. Social order is good for society's functioning, so that people can live in "peace".
Our nation of laws provide the standards that represent good leadership, as leaders should obey the law. And the law protects us from "invasions" of different kinds; invasions of privacy (identity), invasions of property (trespassing), for example. We are a people that believe in "equality under law". Therefore, we "trust" that others will respect the law and not trespass, but acknowledge and accept the social contract.
Some, though use the law to their advantage. These are ugly people. They lack character because they do invade, but in a "legal way". I do not respect, nor should anyone else respect such leadership.
Those who do evil should be held accountable by any means available, as they should learn that these invasions are never to be overlooked, but learned from. Power does not affirm others in lawlessness.
But, just as those who use the law for their advantage, those who revolutionize also do. These are the ones who have made history in challenging the status quo. The revolutionary understand that there is a higher principle that must be maintained, otherwise others will suffer under invasions of the ugly. These are the rights of individual liberties that protect invasions of personhood.
A gentler and kinder way, is the way of reform. Reformers work within the system to make it change, without upsetting the whole social order.
One must decide whether the ugly is worth fighting, forsaking, or furthering in a different way. The choice and decision must be a personal commitment of value and vision, as one will pay a cost, whichever way one chooses to change evil into good.
Our nation of laws provide the standards that represent good leadership, as leaders should obey the law. And the law protects us from "invasions" of different kinds; invasions of privacy (identity), invasions of property (trespassing), for example. We are a people that believe in "equality under law". Therefore, we "trust" that others will respect the law and not trespass, but acknowledge and accept the social contract.
Some, though use the law to their advantage. These are ugly people. They lack character because they do invade, but in a "legal way". I do not respect, nor should anyone else respect such leadership.
Those who do evil should be held accountable by any means available, as they should learn that these invasions are never to be overlooked, but learned from. Power does not affirm others in lawlessness.
But, just as those who use the law for their advantage, those who revolutionize also do. These are the ones who have made history in challenging the status quo. The revolutionary understand that there is a higher principle that must be maintained, otherwise others will suffer under invasions of the ugly. These are the rights of individual liberties that protect invasions of personhood.
A gentler and kinder way, is the way of reform. Reformers work within the system to make it change, without upsetting the whole social order.
One must decide whether the ugly is worth fighting, forsaking, or furthering in a different way. The choice and decision must be a personal commitment of value and vision, as one will pay a cost, whichever way one chooses to change evil into good.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Betwixst and Between
My husband and I just got back from a Science/Religion conference this evening. It was geared toward "religious responses" to Darwinian evolution. I found several things interesting, but one especially so, the "is" and the "ought".
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
A Re-Definition of What is Valued ..
Belief is a form that is constructed by certain groups that maintain their group identity. These are groups such as faith groups, social groups, nation states, etc. Those that are the leaders within these groups formulate what is to be believed to maintain identification and social order to accomplish their particular purposes. Beliefs form laws, and are speicified by the group's values .
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Legalizing Marijuana
Obama has stated that he will leave legalizing marajuina to the States. California is to bring up the issue before their State legislature and it is expected to pass.
Ethics, as well as science should be considered in this legislative decision. It is reported that marajuina is available to teens more readily than alcohol and cigarettes. The argument is that legislating a substance requires a more regimentation and structure which helps those who need it and limits abuse of minors.
Marajuina is regarded as a medicinal way to alleviate pain for those with painful illness, such as cancer, AIDS, and even for manic depressive disorder. Many think that this is a compassionate way to help, not only with pain but supposedly with appetite. Appetite loss results from certain drugs, not to mention the damage to organs that further complicates the initial illness.
California is not just looking at legislating marajuina because of compassion but because of the monies that can come into state coffers through taxes. It is known that pharmacetical companies have strong influence in our Congress, so possibley passing the buck to the States is a political means to stay "clean" on the issue, while helping States cover their deficits.
On the other hand, the argument against legalizing marajuina is substance abuse. Those who are buying the drug on the black market not only are furthering the drug trafficing along our borders that increase the dangers of gangs and crime "warlords", but it also exposes these people to possible tainted substances that could have damaging reprecussions. So, do we take the chance on addictions escalation through legalization, or do we further the crimes at our borders with drug smuggling? It is not an easy choice. It will be an interesting development to watch.
Ethics, as well as science should be considered in this legislative decision. It is reported that marajuina is available to teens more readily than alcohol and cigarettes. The argument is that legislating a substance requires a more regimentation and structure which helps those who need it and limits abuse of minors.
Marajuina is regarded as a medicinal way to alleviate pain for those with painful illness, such as cancer, AIDS, and even for manic depressive disorder. Many think that this is a compassionate way to help, not only with pain but supposedly with appetite. Appetite loss results from certain drugs, not to mention the damage to organs that further complicates the initial illness.
California is not just looking at legislating marajuina because of compassion but because of the monies that can come into state coffers through taxes. It is known that pharmacetical companies have strong influence in our Congress, so possibley passing the buck to the States is a political means to stay "clean" on the issue, while helping States cover their deficits.
On the other hand, the argument against legalizing marajuina is substance abuse. Those who are buying the drug on the black market not only are furthering the drug trafficing along our borders that increase the dangers of gangs and crime "warlords", but it also exposes these people to possible tainted substances that could have damaging reprecussions. So, do we take the chance on addictions escalation through legalization, or do we further the crimes at our borders with drug smuggling? It is not an easy choice. It will be an interesting development to watch.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ethics and Science in Stem Cell Research
Because of the recent commitment of our president to stem cell research, there has been much discussion about science and ethics. Our president suggested that stem cell research was not to be determined on an ideological commitment, but on the "facts of science".
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A Movie to Chew On...in Moral and Ethical Questions
This past week-end, while in D.C., my husband and I went to a movie. There are many choices available in the D.C. area that are not available in certain regions of our country. And some of these movies never make it outside the larger cities of D.C. or New York. We enjoyed having the opportunity last year of taking advantage of this situation while in D.C. for the year.
This movie was about an illiterate German woman during WWII and her response to shame. Although the movie was a pretty common story of a relationship, estrangement, reconcilliation, and human tragedy, it's story line ran through many complex moral and ethical questions. The more my husband and I talked about it, the more ways we "saw" the diverse views of understanding the 'issues"....
This woman was "convicted" of war crimes, partly, because she was ashamed of revealing her illiteracy. While she was being tried before a jury, she struggled as she was asked about her passivity to the cries of prisoners being burned alive. Her response was one of "keeping moral order" ("There would have been chaos, if I had freed them."). The moral detachment from the reality of human suffering is one that most of us in one form or time have experienced. Even though others were just as cupable, her sentence was for life, while the others were sentenced to 4 years...
What was the moral obligation of the "friend" who knew facts that would have given her leniancy? How was his shame connected to his reticence to come forth with the information? What did he do as a result of his guilt? In the end, was the life of the woman (and "friend") "saved" from the tragedy of what "shame, humiliation, and condemnation" of thier "societial obligations" (the "moral authorities") demanded?
I find it fascinating that most often those who resist the moral authorities are at a higher level of moral development than those who allow the domination of a system. I do not support revolution for revolution's sake, but it seems that humans are "comfortable" in the "morally mundane"...
This movie was about an illiterate German woman during WWII and her response to shame. Although the movie was a pretty common story of a relationship, estrangement, reconcilliation, and human tragedy, it's story line ran through many complex moral and ethical questions. The more my husband and I talked about it, the more ways we "saw" the diverse views of understanding the 'issues"....
This woman was "convicted" of war crimes, partly, because she was ashamed of revealing her illiteracy. While she was being tried before a jury, she struggled as she was asked about her passivity to the cries of prisoners being burned alive. Her response was one of "keeping moral order" ("There would have been chaos, if I had freed them."). The moral detachment from the reality of human suffering is one that most of us in one form or time have experienced. Even though others were just as cupable, her sentence was for life, while the others were sentenced to 4 years...
What was the moral obligation of the "friend" who knew facts that would have given her leniancy? How was his shame connected to his reticence to come forth with the information? What did he do as a result of his guilt? In the end, was the life of the woman (and "friend") "saved" from the tragedy of what "shame, humiliation, and condemnation" of thier "societial obligations" (the "moral authorities") demanded?
I find it fascinating that most often those who resist the moral authorities are at a higher level of moral development than those who allow the domination of a system. I do not support revolution for revolution's sake, but it seems that humans are "comfortable" in the "morally mundane"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
