C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Showing posts with label cultural norms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultural norms. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Distinctions MUST Remain Clear
I was doing some reading on inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. This is what I found under my Google search and Answers.com:
Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1]
The social contract is where the government over a particular person derives it power or authority. Americans understand that government is granted power by the person's consent. We are a nation that is ruled by laws that protect individual liberties, which are defined by our Bill of Rights.
Some have thought that this does disservice to international concerns, such as human rights. This is not necessarily so, as specified laws protect a particular nation-state, providing its definitions of custom, norms and "morals".
America has protected itself by understanding the dangers of uniting political and religious agenda. Jefferson's separation of Church and State was to prevent such authoritarial ideology. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, that were based on natural rights, while Madision understood that the social contract was to be upheld by the rights of citizens within a particular nation state.
Distinctions about these two issues must remain clear, otherwise, we dissolve boundaries of civil rights, and social norm and custom which help to create identification to the people who live within a country's borders.
Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1]
The social contract is where the government over a particular person derives it power or authority. Americans understand that government is granted power by the person's consent. We are a nation that is ruled by laws that protect individual liberties, which are defined by our Bill of Rights.
Some have thought that this does disservice to international concerns, such as human rights. This is not necessarily so, as specified laws protect a particular nation-state, providing its definitions of custom, norms and "morals".
America has protected itself by understanding the dangers of uniting political and religious agenda. Jefferson's separation of Church and State was to prevent such authoritarial ideology. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, that were based on natural rights, while Madision understood that the social contract was to be upheld by the rights of citizens within a particular nation state.
Distinctions about these two issues must remain clear, otherwise, we dissolve boundaries of civil rights, and social norm and custom which help to create identification to the people who live within a country's borders.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Embodied Minds or Minds Embodied in an Ethical Ideal
We had a speaker just recently at our university, who proposed that we were what we DO, first and foremost. Intention or action is all that matters. Minds are not formative of behavior, but behavior of mind.
I don't want to suggest that I have full academic understanding of this subject, but I do have experience and some knowledge of the question.
Does doing what is in opposition to reason appropriate? Does irrationality breed good behavior? Do we become what we do? Aristotle believed we do become through habit formation.
Although habits can be good or bad, don't we first choose which habits we want to be a part of our life in our behavior? And don't we choose these behaviors for reasons? If I want to loose weight, there are certain behaviors that are necessary. And these behaviors are chosen because I know I am overweight and it is bad for my health.
This particular speaker said that as a faith community ritual was all important, as ritual bred communion and made us believers (?)! If Richard Dawkins took communion, would that affect his belief system or behavior? I thought this sounded a little off the wall, although I recognize that he was just trying to form a way to bring about a wholistic understanding of mind and body. He was thinking in opposition to a dualistic formula. But, it misses the mark, it seems to me...
In attempting to form a "more perfect union" between mind and body, he suggested behaviorism in the form of ritual. The Catholic believes that the elements of communion literally become the body and blood of Christ and that taking in the elements of Communion gives the "life" of Christ to the believer. I disagree.
Luther's view of Communion was not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. He believed that the elements became the body of Christ when mixed with faith. Faith was the pivot point for him. The elements are not important, it is the belief of the person. Richard Dawkins taking the elements would not change his belief system or behavior. The believer must have faith first. As the Reformers believed that faith was a gift of God, then there is no way that behavior can give faith. Behavior follows belief.
Sociologists understand human behavior to be connected to identification factors. If an individual identifies with a certain group that has certain behavioral standards, then the individual is likely to conform. This is part of accepting the 'social norm" of the group. But, the group has a reason why they believe a certain behavior to be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate behavior is considered "moral". "Immoral" is inappropriate behavior. These are cultural norms.
America's "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based more on ethics, where the individual can choose his "own way of life". These ideals cannot be chosen in a way that impinges on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without legal ramifications. We believe that individuals have rights to form their own way of life, as individuals are equal under law. This radical individualism terrorizes the religious because of their fear of anarchy or immorality, as they see an outside authority as necessary.
Character is not understood in specified belief systems, or affirmation of outside authority, but in respectful behavior. Repectful behavior is demonstrated in our tone of voice, and our way of interacting with another. So, while minds reflect our ultimate values, behavior reflects our heart.
I don't want to suggest that I have full academic understanding of this subject, but I do have experience and some knowledge of the question.
Does doing what is in opposition to reason appropriate? Does irrationality breed good behavior? Do we become what we do? Aristotle believed we do become through habit formation.
Although habits can be good or bad, don't we first choose which habits we want to be a part of our life in our behavior? And don't we choose these behaviors for reasons? If I want to loose weight, there are certain behaviors that are necessary. And these behaviors are chosen because I know I am overweight and it is bad for my health.
This particular speaker said that as a faith community ritual was all important, as ritual bred communion and made us believers (?)! If Richard Dawkins took communion, would that affect his belief system or behavior? I thought this sounded a little off the wall, although I recognize that he was just trying to form a way to bring about a wholistic understanding of mind and body. He was thinking in opposition to a dualistic formula. But, it misses the mark, it seems to me...
In attempting to form a "more perfect union" between mind and body, he suggested behaviorism in the form of ritual. The Catholic believes that the elements of communion literally become the body and blood of Christ and that taking in the elements of Communion gives the "life" of Christ to the believer. I disagree.
Luther's view of Communion was not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. He believed that the elements became the body of Christ when mixed with faith. Faith was the pivot point for him. The elements are not important, it is the belief of the person. Richard Dawkins taking the elements would not change his belief system or behavior. The believer must have faith first. As the Reformers believed that faith was a gift of God, then there is no way that behavior can give faith. Behavior follows belief.
Sociologists understand human behavior to be connected to identification factors. If an individual identifies with a certain group that has certain behavioral standards, then the individual is likely to conform. This is part of accepting the 'social norm" of the group. But, the group has a reason why they believe a certain behavior to be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate behavior is considered "moral". "Immoral" is inappropriate behavior. These are cultural norms.
America's "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based more on ethics, where the individual can choose his "own way of life". These ideals cannot be chosen in a way that impinges on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without legal ramifications. We believe that individuals have rights to form their own way of life, as individuals are equal under law. This radical individualism terrorizes the religious because of their fear of anarchy or immorality, as they see an outside authority as necessary.
Character is not understood in specified belief systems, or affirmation of outside authority, but in respectful behavior. Repectful behavior is demonstrated in our tone of voice, and our way of interacting with another. So, while minds reflect our ultimate values, behavior reflects our heart.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Universalization and Cultural Misconceptions
Tonight we had a college student over for dinner. In talking to them about thier "intercultural requirement", she said that she would like to go to Africa. But, she was hesitant about staying in "nice" dorms as she felt it would be "wrong" to live differently than the native. As these live in abject poverty, she felt she needed to experience the same living conditions.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
