What if science proves that there is probably no god? Would it make a difference in how man understands "Man" and/or society? How would man organize society? Would man structure society so that those that are "Not the Fittest" would have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, such as in our Constitutional Republic? Or would society be better off with allowing those that are not fit to die, abort, or euthanize? Would it matter if society would be "better off"?
Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?
Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?
And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?
What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?
Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society, our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?
We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Friday, February 4, 2011
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Interesting Media Program
Last night I turned on the T.V. to find a program discussing the issue of "news". The people were all associated in some way with the news media and they were talking about all the ways in which news was gotten and the implications for the media in general.
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"Animal Nature" and Human Values
The naturalists believe that humans must be trained, just like any other animal, to "do what is right". Their understanding of "right" is whatever they think will fulfill "ultimate value". And sometimes they seek to undermine another "right" (or another's "right") to justify what they consider "ultimate".
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Government's Intrusion Limits Choice
Government knows how to "give" at other's costs. They do it well, as they pay their contractors over and above the "local price". Such is the state of beauracratic governments that try to be "moral".
Governments cannot be "moral", as they do not have choice. People can only be moral, because they do or, at least, should have choice. Government binds choice in beaucratic "mess", so it limits the choices of individuals. Some seem to think that this "limitation of choice" is "good", because it will re-distribute wealth or "benefit the public". The "moral socialists" think it is "immoral" to make too much money! And countries that adhere to capitalism are culprits of corruption due to corporate greed.
Is it any less "immoral" to take from one to give to another? or to limit individual choice in giving or not giving? Those in powerful beauracratic systems do not seem to be "more moral" than the corporate world. But, what happens when govenment and the corporate world combine to "do good", or to "do business" for the "public good", at the costs of the taxpayer? I believe this is what we are seeing happen in our country today. Those in powerful positions are taking advantage of those who are dependent on the "power".
Americans used to be those who were independent, self-reliant and industrious, but now, it seems we have lost our "will" to be independent from government help. We depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, etc. and now, we are told that we cannot do without the government's "help" in our healthcare! I think we have become indulgent and "entitled", without even realizing what we give up when we do limt our "independence".
I agree that some system shoud be in place for the disadvantaged, disabled, and those who cannot help their situations. But, our country has become too lethargic in becoming informed and understanding the issues, so that they can be "good citizens".
I hope that the healthcare "transformation", or "takeover" will be America's "wake-up" call!
Governments cannot be "moral", as they do not have choice. People can only be moral, because they do or, at least, should have choice. Government binds choice in beaucratic "mess", so it limits the choices of individuals. Some seem to think that this "limitation of choice" is "good", because it will re-distribute wealth or "benefit the public". The "moral socialists" think it is "immoral" to make too much money! And countries that adhere to capitalism are culprits of corruption due to corporate greed.
Is it any less "immoral" to take from one to give to another? or to limit individual choice in giving or not giving? Those in powerful beauracratic systems do not seem to be "more moral" than the corporate world. But, what happens when govenment and the corporate world combine to "do good", or to "do business" for the "public good", at the costs of the taxpayer? I believe this is what we are seeing happen in our country today. Those in powerful positions are taking advantage of those who are dependent on the "power".
Americans used to be those who were independent, self-reliant and industrious, but now, it seems we have lost our "will" to be independent from government help. We depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, etc. and now, we are told that we cannot do without the government's "help" in our healthcare! I think we have become indulgent and "entitled", without even realizing what we give up when we do limt our "independence".
I agree that some system shoud be in place for the disadvantaged, disabled, and those who cannot help their situations. But, our country has become too lethargic in becoming informed and understanding the issues, so that they can be "good citizens".
I hope that the healthcare "transformation", or "takeover" will be America's "wake-up" call!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Responsibility, Respect, and Success
America measures performance, because America values results, goals, and productivity. The question should be, is America's values of production the best value? And according to whom and what? If these values are what is considered right and good, then who is setting the agenda, goal or result that measures the performance? America's value of work has been understood as the "protestant work ethic" and most Americans do not question this value, but assume it's value to our "common good".
People who value hierarchal leadership models, value submission, because then their goals can be attained in the name of training those who follow and perform their "duties". This model uses the other to benefit the organization, themselves, or both. I don't value those who think this way about themselves, as success should be measured by the muturality of the institutions and individual's attainment of their own goals. Of course, Americans can have the "luxury" of choosing their community, or job, because, we for the most part, are free to do so, as our country protects these values.
American "success" has been based on a capitalistic economic system that desires the most for the least, which some would understand as "good stewardship", but can be nothing other than a inverted greed, not just of money but of another's labor, efforts and life. I find that leaders in positions of power many times use their power to benefit their own interests, even when it devalues another's life and choices. Congress does this all the time in salary increases, while legislating or defending their constieunites. These are the "pork barrel" increases of the elite's power. It is their agenda that moves and shakes the nature of our country's history or institution's future.
I don't believe that others should determine futures but allow an open culture for change, choice and negotiation...whenever those in power rule through power by maintaining how and what is expected for their underlings to attain a "voice", without giving a "voice" to the "vision", there has already been an abuse of power because basically, it is not a free choice, but choices pre-determined...
Pre-determining another's future without fair open disclosure is not based on understanding any variable of opinion, value or position toward these goals, which only looks at and judges the specific behavior. No one would or should expect there to be a submission to abusive, or controlling leaders, whether spouses, supervisors, or governments. In our free society, we have the priviledge of leaving, questioning, and preventing further abuses of power.
People who value hierarchal leadership models, value submission, because then their goals can be attained in the name of training those who follow and perform their "duties". This model uses the other to benefit the organization, themselves, or both. I don't value those who think this way about themselves, as success should be measured by the muturality of the institutions and individual's attainment of their own goals. Of course, Americans can have the "luxury" of choosing their community, or job, because, we for the most part, are free to do so, as our country protects these values.
American "success" has been based on a capitalistic economic system that desires the most for the least, which some would understand as "good stewardship", but can be nothing other than a inverted greed, not just of money but of another's labor, efforts and life. I find that leaders in positions of power many times use their power to benefit their own interests, even when it devalues another's life and choices. Congress does this all the time in salary increases, while legislating or defending their constieunites. These are the "pork barrel" increases of the elite's power. It is their agenda that moves and shakes the nature of our country's history or institution's future.
I don't believe that others should determine futures but allow an open culture for change, choice and negotiation...whenever those in power rule through power by maintaining how and what is expected for their underlings to attain a "voice", without giving a "voice" to the "vision", there has already been an abuse of power because basically, it is not a free choice, but choices pre-determined...
Pre-determining another's future without fair open disclosure is not based on understanding any variable of opinion, value or position toward these goals, which only looks at and judges the specific behavior. No one would or should expect there to be a submission to abusive, or controlling leaders, whether spouses, supervisors, or governments. In our free society, we have the priviledge of leaving, questioning, and preventing further abuses of power.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Proof-Texting of a Life
We all have understandings of why we want to live a certain way, that is, if we live in free societies. People who do not live in free societies do not have choices about their lives.
Christians understand that their life is one that is valued and valueable because we are brought up with the Christian adopted "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that Christians need to understand, especially for the more sectarian or fundamentalistically inclined, that life has meaning and meaning is ultimate value. We must decide for ourselves based on our personal value system and why those values matter. We must decide where we want to commit and why we want to commit where we do, as unto the Lord...
I find that those who hold power in these sectarian environments are not always balanced in their understandings of the complexity of issues, or ideals. They see their goal as an ultimate one, but do not limit their power in asserting their goals running over civil liberties in the process. It is never ethical to choose the purpose of another's life, no matter what the cause, or goal.
Christians understand that their life is one that is valued and valueable because we are brought up with the Christian adopted "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that Christians need to understand, especially for the more sectarian or fundamentalistically inclined, that life has meaning and meaning is ultimate value. We must decide for ourselves based on our personal value system and why those values matter. We must decide where we want to commit and why we want to commit where we do, as unto the Lord...
I find that those who hold power in these sectarian environments are not always balanced in their understandings of the complexity of issues, or ideals. They see their goal as an ultimate one, but do not limit their power in asserting their goals running over civil liberties in the process. It is never ethical to choose the purpose of another's life, no matter what the cause, or goal.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Repent, Do Penance, OR Perish
Interestingly, our Founding Fathers understood the necessity of separation of powers, as otherwise, religious conviction could subscribe duties that were beyond conscethe individual's conscience, in fact, in spite of our conscience.
The civil government was to bring order and structure, but was not to mandate how one lives one's life. When "social realities", which are created by those who rule, are driven by absolutist' s opinions, traditions, or values, then the individual looses his own personhood in the name of and for the sake of the "Almighty" ( who just happen to be those in power).
Separation of power was not only the intent of the government to separate ruling by religious tradition, it was also to balance the civil powers, so that there was accountability. I find that this is a necessity especially in today's climate of "leadership" driven models, where power is sought at the costs of rationality and moderation.
I think that both separations should be maintained to uphold the individual's right and the rule of law, which supports decent order and structure.
Otherwise, it is Repent OR Do Penance.....OR Perish!
The civil government was to bring order and structure, but was not to mandate how one lives one's life. When "social realities", which are created by those who rule, are driven by absolutist' s opinions, traditions, or values, then the individual looses his own personhood in the name of and for the sake of the "Almighty" ( who just happen to be those in power).
Separation of power was not only the intent of the government to separate ruling by religious tradition, it was also to balance the civil powers, so that there was accountability. I find that this is a necessity especially in today's climate of "leadership" driven models, where power is sought at the costs of rationality and moderation.
I think that both separations should be maintained to uphold the individual's right and the rule of law, which supports decent order and structure.
Otherwise, it is Repent OR Do Penance.....OR Perish!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Government is Man's Best Friend
Lately, I have been thinking about dogs, as dogs have been a part of my life since childhood. Dogs are considered man's "best friend", but government is a better friend. Government allows the freedom to enjoy dogs and other such "unnecessaries".
Why are dogs considered man's best friend? Dogs, if trained properly, protect thier owners and families. Properly trained dogs do not demand or dominate. Dogs are companions that benefit man's life as a social animal. The same is true of good government. Government protects and provides the freedom to choose how one lives their life.
Government is only as good as the leaders who lead. Leadership should be trained in the necessary characteristics of a "well trained dog".
A local advertisement in our paper a number of years ago bragged on "top dogs" and their advantage over 'underdogs". This type of thinking is based on market driven economic structuring and evolutionary thinking of survival of the fittest. It is nothing other than "dog eat dog". Our justice system is not based on such inequality. Justice is equality under law, no matter what class or ethnicity. Our laws protect and our government upholds those laws for the protection of our freedoms. No such freedoms are understood in evolutionary thinking, as natural selection will justify those who "rise to the top". Justification of the elite class was what the monied and powerful sought early in our country's history.
Leadership should not protect their own interests at the costs of the "underdog". Worker's rights activists sought to bring about a balance of power in these situations. While unions have brought about "justice" in certain instances, they have also brought about an attitude that undermines mutual gratitude between the owner and worker when it comes to capital. Each party vies to "win" over the other without understanding the mutual benefit of co-operation. The atmosphere of our "market-driven" economy has benefitted many, but has also led to a greedy competitiveness that has lessened the conscience of leadership in accountability. This must change, as our nation's future prosperity depends on it.
Just recently, I went to the American History museum in D.C. and was moved by our nation's history of seeking justice for those whose cause was not represented in our government! We must continue to seek this kind of justice for all within our borders, for it is only when justice rules at home that we can represent our values abroad. Americans have a history of seeking "freedom and justice for all". Let us not rest while there are areas of injustice that are protected by a priviledged class, that disregards all ethical limitations on power.
Why are dogs considered man's best friend? Dogs, if trained properly, protect thier owners and families. Properly trained dogs do not demand or dominate. Dogs are companions that benefit man's life as a social animal. The same is true of good government. Government protects and provides the freedom to choose how one lives their life.
Government is only as good as the leaders who lead. Leadership should be trained in the necessary characteristics of a "well trained dog".
A local advertisement in our paper a number of years ago bragged on "top dogs" and their advantage over 'underdogs". This type of thinking is based on market driven economic structuring and evolutionary thinking of survival of the fittest. It is nothing other than "dog eat dog". Our justice system is not based on such inequality. Justice is equality under law, no matter what class or ethnicity. Our laws protect and our government upholds those laws for the protection of our freedoms. No such freedoms are understood in evolutionary thinking, as natural selection will justify those who "rise to the top". Justification of the elite class was what the monied and powerful sought early in our country's history.
Leadership should not protect their own interests at the costs of the "underdog". Worker's rights activists sought to bring about a balance of power in these situations. While unions have brought about "justice" in certain instances, they have also brought about an attitude that undermines mutual gratitude between the owner and worker when it comes to capital. Each party vies to "win" over the other without understanding the mutual benefit of co-operation. The atmosphere of our "market-driven" economy has benefitted many, but has also led to a greedy competitiveness that has lessened the conscience of leadership in accountability. This must change, as our nation's future prosperity depends on it.
Just recently, I went to the American History museum in D.C. and was moved by our nation's history of seeking justice for those whose cause was not represented in our government! We must continue to seek this kind of justice for all within our borders, for it is only when justice rules at home that we can represent our values abroad. Americans have a history of seeking "freedom and justice for all". Let us not rest while there are areas of injustice that are protected by a priviledged class, that disregards all ethical limitations on power.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Education My Daughter Gave Me On YouTube!
This afternoon my oldest son, his girlfriend, and my daughter sat around our table discussing the political decisions that are facing us on Tuesday. The coversation came around to Obama and what he stood for. My daughter had happened upon two YouTube videos of Obama at campaign rallies and was relaying the information to us at the table. I could not believe my ears, so I asked her to inform me through my eyes!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Identity, Power, and Law (justice) in American Internationalism
All of us live in the "real" world. What do I mean by this? We exist within contexts of national and personal realities that define who we are. These realities are defined by the social structures of family, community of faith, and nation. These structures bring order to our lives. All humans need these frames of reference for identity and meaning to their lives.
Many in our world do not have these meaning-making structures, due to dysfunction in the family, community of faith on the personal level or war on the national level...
Our form of government, in its balance of power, as well as its representation, is most reflective of "natural revelation". The balance of power represents the need for parties to submit to one another at an international level, while the representative aspects of our government represents the proper balance of power between the "leader and follower" relationship. Domination of another (individual or country) or subversion of resources for profit are the proper limits to individuals and governments. An "ordered" and "proper" government should be limited if it is to respect proper boundaries around others... This breeds a proper attitude toward others (inidividual and national) that builds trust, which is of major importance in diplomatic efforts.
As Americans, we need to understand that individuality, "the self" is not understood within other contexts, as clearly, as it is within our borders. Western Europe still have the seeds of "tradition" that maintain certain cultural behaviors that have long been lost on America's soil. While this is so, we should affirm the uniqueness of American identity of the individual and their pursuit of "happiness", while disaffirming American consumerism. Individual gifting should not be used to subvert or dominate another's. And when these giftings collide or are at variance in "vision", there needs to be a formulation of addressing the "differences", without disaffirming the values and goals of each individual. This is based on "social contract". American values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unique identifying factors and should be promoted universally.
Therefore, the Govermental structure of America affirms the proper order and structure for human flourishing, while America's affirmation of the individual "self" is also a proper value to affirm in "social contract".
Many in our world do not have these meaning-making structures, due to dysfunction in the family, community of faith on the personal level or war on the national level...
Our form of government, in its balance of power, as well as its representation, is most reflective of "natural revelation". The balance of power represents the need for parties to submit to one another at an international level, while the representative aspects of our government represents the proper balance of power between the "leader and follower" relationship. Domination of another (individual or country) or subversion of resources for profit are the proper limits to individuals and governments. An "ordered" and "proper" government should be limited if it is to respect proper boundaries around others... This breeds a proper attitude toward others (inidividual and national) that builds trust, which is of major importance in diplomatic efforts.
As Americans, we need to understand that individuality, "the self" is not understood within other contexts, as clearly, as it is within our borders. Western Europe still have the seeds of "tradition" that maintain certain cultural behaviors that have long been lost on America's soil. While this is so, we should affirm the uniqueness of American identity of the individual and their pursuit of "happiness", while disaffirming American consumerism. Individual gifting should not be used to subvert or dominate another's. And when these giftings collide or are at variance in "vision", there needs to be a formulation of addressing the "differences", without disaffirming the values and goals of each individual. This is based on "social contract". American values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unique identifying factors and should be promoted universally.
Therefore, the Govermental structure of America affirms the proper order and structure for human flourishing, while America's affirmation of the individual "self" is also a proper value to affirm in "social contract".
Monday, July 21, 2008
Law, Power, and Ethics
This past week in a conference on "the Human Being", the introductory talk pointed out the crisis in our postmodern world of finding a universal understanding of how law, power and ethics interface. The question is not merely an academic one, but one profoundly, practical in our dangerous and fragmented world.
I understand some are forging the discussion around "tradition", as tradition is the arena of culture. Is the Eastern and Western split ever to be resolved? And can it be resolved by reference to tradition, where it is just a matter of a "way of life", language, text and understanding? If so, then, it presupposes that tradition's "social structures" are the necessary task to address.
While most would agree that this aspect of universiality is important, is it the "most important" or is it "a priori "to the reason of the individual, like we would find in a democracy? Equal justice under the law is what our democracy is about. Isn't our democracy what human rights is about? And wouldn't human rights affirm the individual and the individual's desire for freedom and justice within their own personal value system, as long as the value system was "lawful"? Is affirming personal values too expensive for the "sake of the common good" and traditional values? I don't believe this has been the case in many of the issues facing "mankind". Americans have seen and experienced the "crisis" of slavery, and women's rights. All of these "changes" have been "progressive" in "traditional terms". So, is there no "progress", but only a circularity of the rise and fall of empires and cultures based on undermining tradition's values and tradition's "god"?
Tradition's values are important to understand, as far as a culture's values, but, is affirming "freedom and justice" for the individual or group too costly for a culture? Does it innately undermine culture's very foundations? If so, on what foundation can we argue that culture is based? Is culture based on "god" or reason? If on "god", whose god? The transcendence of God presupposes agnosticism, which is an untenuable way of struturing or forming government. If culture is based on reason, then it is inevitably going to be conflictual in nature, for different cultures have different values. And these values are represented by the laws that define that culture. Is it "God" or "man" that should be the ultimate and define the laws of a particular culture?
The question will be answered differently depending on how one approaches the problem and what presuppositions one has and how one resolves the dilemmas. If one approaches the problem with "Law", there will never be "unity", for one will have to define what basis the law is known or understood and then how the law will be implemented, which is the domain of nation states, values, and ethics. And Law and Power can never be the resolution of the problem in ethics for it demeans the very process, in circumventing justice (this is why our "balance of power" was a brillant idea).
While ethics cannot be resolved through absolutized power or law, neither will we find a universalized ethic when it comes to values, because there will always be "conflict and disagreement" about the goals and purposes of value. Is human life more valuable than "god"? Is it justified to "take a life" in the name of "god" and if so, on what basis? Is human dignity a universal value?
These questions are not about academic question of law, power and ethics, but is the very substance of "world politics", nation states, cultural identity, and human rights of the individual. and groups....And our very democracy! How we understand and address them will determine the future of our globalized world.
I understand some are forging the discussion around "tradition", as tradition is the arena of culture. Is the Eastern and Western split ever to be resolved? And can it be resolved by reference to tradition, where it is just a matter of a "way of life", language, text and understanding? If so, then, it presupposes that tradition's "social structures" are the necessary task to address.
While most would agree that this aspect of universiality is important, is it the "most important" or is it "a priori "to the reason of the individual, like we would find in a democracy? Equal justice under the law is what our democracy is about. Isn't our democracy what human rights is about? And wouldn't human rights affirm the individual and the individual's desire for freedom and justice within their own personal value system, as long as the value system was "lawful"? Is affirming personal values too expensive for the "sake of the common good" and traditional values? I don't believe this has been the case in many of the issues facing "mankind". Americans have seen and experienced the "crisis" of slavery, and women's rights. All of these "changes" have been "progressive" in "traditional terms". So, is there no "progress", but only a circularity of the rise and fall of empires and cultures based on undermining tradition's values and tradition's "god"?
Tradition's values are important to understand, as far as a culture's values, but, is affirming "freedom and justice" for the individual or group too costly for a culture? Does it innately undermine culture's very foundations? If so, on what foundation can we argue that culture is based? Is culture based on "god" or reason? If on "god", whose god? The transcendence of God presupposes agnosticism, which is an untenuable way of struturing or forming government. If culture is based on reason, then it is inevitably going to be conflictual in nature, for different cultures have different values. And these values are represented by the laws that define that culture. Is it "God" or "man" that should be the ultimate and define the laws of a particular culture?
The question will be answered differently depending on how one approaches the problem and what presuppositions one has and how one resolves the dilemmas. If one approaches the problem with "Law", there will never be "unity", for one will have to define what basis the law is known or understood and then how the law will be implemented, which is the domain of nation states, values, and ethics. And Law and Power can never be the resolution of the problem in ethics for it demeans the very process, in circumventing justice (this is why our "balance of power" was a brillant idea).
While ethics cannot be resolved through absolutized power or law, neither will we find a universalized ethic when it comes to values, because there will always be "conflict and disagreement" about the goals and purposes of value. Is human life more valuable than "god"? Is it justified to "take a life" in the name of "god" and if so, on what basis? Is human dignity a universal value?
These questions are not about academic question of law, power and ethics, but is the very substance of "world politics", nation states, cultural identity, and human rights of the individual. and groups....And our very democracy! How we understand and address them will determine the future of our globalized world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
