The journey of "faith" or "discovery of self" has been excrusiatingly painful, at times. The struggle to "beome" a "self", independent and free, not from society, but for society. This is what evey human being does at different stages of their life. It is called human development.
Recently, on another blog, it became obvious to me, at least, that the choice and conflict between one's identification factors have been the basis of America's "culture wars". What do I mean by that?
Our "culture wars" are based on two distinct ways of viewing the world. One has an affirmation of "humanity" as the epitome of "the good". The other side fights for "individuality" and "the right". While humanity is where the universality of human rights is affirmed; the other is where the nation-state and Constitutional government is affirmed. Both are values Americans hold!
This morning on another blog site, bloggers were asked to choose whether they would affirm God's existance or not. It was an experiment, of sorts, to determine whether "good" exists apart from God. It is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma". One side, reason says "good" exists apart from "God". The other side says that "good" doesn't exist apart from "god". I could not choose, as it became evident to me that I affirm both! Why or How can I affirm both? Both are American values.
America affirms indivdiuality, personal choice, and protection 'under law". In our form of government, "self" and other" are affirmed. The "good" and the "right" are defined by "equal under law". I affirm that "self" and "other" exist and have a right to exist. "Self" is indviduality, choice, and value. And "self" has to do with "rights", while "other" has to do with "society" and government. So, both "self and other", 'individuality and society" have the right to exist, but where individiuals in a free nation such as ours will choose to affirm or value one side or the other, will depend on what they desire to do or be. This is a choice of value.
Showing posts with label indvidual choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indvidual choice. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
"Do Unto Others"
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you", is a universally acclaimed rule. But, do all people want the same things in life? That depends on one's needs desires, and values.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
