Collectivism Leaves Us Demoralized

“The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others.” -- George H. Smith

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand



I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?

Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.

Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.

We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!

Paul (as well as, Jesus) As a Useful "Tool" of 'Tradition".

I have not read a lot of N.T. Wright, but I am pre-supposing that he understands Paul's use of "law" as a formation of society. It is now speculated, in some circles, that "Paul" was not a historical figure, but a "form of moral modelling" and forming the "world" according to his "tradition".

The Christian tradition is the context of "Paul's" mission. And his life exemplified Jesus' life "for all people". But, his life is not the epitome of Truth, but is "true". His "life" was for the proptiation of society's values and order.

So, while tradition forms society around the values most important, let's remember that tradition is not to be absolutized in individual cases. Otherwise, one may limit another's life and choice, and value, in and of itself, which is where Luther's "law and gospel" comes to the "rescue".

Personal Identity and Political Reality

Political Reality is where we live, work and play. These contexts breed the social aspects in one's life. But, these contexts also include how we understand our faith.

Some have separated the sacred and the secular aspects of life, as they represent different "domains". But, the separation of the sacred and secular dissolves religion into belief systems. While belief systems do underlie our behavior, the Church was "committed" to "political reality", or the real world. These realities were not to be separated according to "orthodox faith". Faith is known by behavior, but faith based behavior is not based on rationale, or reason. Faith and Reason have always challenged the Church.

Religious communities have tried to identify how they "help" or what "role" they play in the political realm, where real reality is played out within history. Some of these communities have attempted to "connect" the sacred and secular together within a "moral model". These 'models" which became wholesale theological systems were not based on real history, personal experience, or reason, but on faith. Such is the case in Christian faith with Jesus of Nazereth. These "models" represent certain attributes or universals that might be "missing" within political realities in a given situation.

But, while such theological terms as "incarnation" and "emergent properties" try to "connect" reality to God, as if God exists "outside of time and space, others try to dissolve the distinction of the sacred and secular altogether. I think that this is more healthy, as whenever we signify distinctions, then we separate over issues that divide, instead of unite.

Any and everything is given, so we should not be about the business of making such fine distinctions between the "spiritual and the non-spiritual". There is enough "reality" for anyone to "fit". We must be about the business of allowing the freedom of religious expression of all kinds (and that includes atheism) within the political realm without dissolving the differences of value commitments. This is what the American experiment is/was about. As long as religious freedom does not demand allegience, or subversion of the rule of law, then there should be full expression of religion in the public square.

A Follow-up on the Cross

In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?

On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....

If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....

I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.

The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.

Moral Models, Faith and Values

There are many moral models that have impacted history in religion, education, society and politics. All of these models represent different values, but are useful for educational means and ends. Education within a religious tradition should not dissolve understanding of all moral models, as this would attempt to form students into one form. Tradition holds many understandings of faith and should affirm diversity. Moral training should be understood in larger terms than a "unified theological" text, as even Scripture attests to diverse views of one person, Christ. The person, themself, is the focus of educational goals, developing the person's own giftings and values, without limitation.