The "Hope" of the Human Heart and Negotiating on Difference

Last post, I recognized that negotiation of differences, is an "ideal". Negotiation assumes mutual respect and trust. Mutual respect and trust does not exist among nations, nor does it exist in many personal relationships. Nations are self-interested, just as individual humans. Nation-states justify their actions to citizens depending on their ultimate values, just as indiviudals do. The "ideals" of the human heart are the material for "world politics".

America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.

Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"?  (the hope to be remain free).

There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.

The I-It in Ethics

Philosophers have had quandaries on what to value and what is of value. Ayn Rand values the individual, and liberty, and capitalism, as a outgrow of that position (at least from what I understand/know now about her philosophy). Her philosophy is called Objectivism. Its morality is based in Ethical Egosim. Self interest is of value in itself, as it is the limiting of collective demands.

Ethical Egoism is in opposition to virtue based ethics, which would value moral obligation or moral duty. And virtue based ethics is based on societal value, as an end, not the indivdiual themself as an end! This means that the individual's life is of no value apart from its utility or function within society. Human rights is based on individual value or personhood. Virtue Ethics is based on  moral examples, heroes, etc. It is not based on self-interest, but individual sacrifice. It is a Jesus as "moral model" example mode of life.

But, just as I would not want to be treated as an "It" or the commodity to meet someone else's "need" or a function of society, as evaluated by some "leader (ship)", I do not think we should treat others as "ITs" or means to our ends, as this devalues individual life, as well!

So, though I don't know much about ethics, per se, ethics was what got me to change my major from sociology to religion/philosophy. And I believe firmly that the individual, his life, and his values are ultimate ends in themself. Just as well, I do not believe that we can live in the world as an "island", without considering "the other" as a person, or society as a value. The other also has  interests, life values, and pursuits. So, I would not want to treat the other "I", as a means, or an "It". Isn't that virtue? It is the basis of the Golden Rule, or the Categorical Imperative, isn't it?

Our government is the best form, as it allows for the indivdual Egoist, as well as the Virtue based ethicist. Our society values the individual, which promotes societal flourishing, as that particular individual pursues their "self-interest". And isn't society about the I-Thou relationship? The social contract agreement of  equal protections under law?

Leaders of a Wrong Order

No budget, at least that is accountable to public scrunity.

"Good ole boy" systems that cover for one another. Whistle blowers are shunned, and black-balled. One must tow the "party line".

Ethics are self-referential, they are not for the "common man". Leaders are above the law, because they make, and interpret the law.

Control of public information becomes necessary because the public can't be trusted to know what in their best interest. All the while, leaders are acting as self-interested parties.

Public office is not viewed as a public trust, but as public "control". Social control is affirmed where "self-governance" was the founding frame.

Public welfare is invested in public officials, because the public doesn't care anymore.

Public monies can be manipulated to promote personal promotion, through earmarks.

No longer can the public trust representative government when their representatives are self-invested in government's interests.

Self-Interest Is Important to Acknowledge

Self-interest is an important value to acknowledge and affirm. Self-interest protects boundaries of personal  values and concerns. If self-interest is not acknowledged, then there is a more likely occasion of "sin". Sin being defined by missing the mark of affirming both self and other.

Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.

Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?

Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?

The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.

I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped  if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".

Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.

Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".

And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.

Rape in the Name of Religion

Those of us in the West believe that rape is wrong. Why do we believe it is wrong?

1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity.
2.)We believe that humans are not property.
3.)We believe that humans are not commodities.

1.)We believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity because we believe that there is no difference between male and female, as to "rights" of personal boundaries.

2.)We believe that humans are not to be considered another's property. We believe that humans in relationship do not give up their human rights. Relationship serves the humans involved in mutuality, not in hierarchy.

3.)We believe that humans are not commodities. Humans have value in and of themselves, therefore, they must not be a means to an end.

Religion has sometimes dismissed these values in the name of "god". God sanctions authoritarianism and the use of humiliation to "break the will" of those who resist "His Will'. This is "proper discipline" and teaches or trains those resistant the "costs" of rebellion.

Discipleship means that one does not use reason, but submits to authority without question as this demonstrates a "heart focused on loving God" above "self". This behavior shows that one is surrendered to do "His Will" no matter the costs, and give up everything for the cause of "god" and "his Kingdom".

Denying self means that one does not seek one's own interest, in fact, one must annihlate "self". Self must die, so that others may live. Your life is not your own. You are a slave to "god" and are to serve "him" alone.

Virtue is required in the midst of horrendous abuse of power, as this illustrates one's trust in God, as well as affirming one's commitment "unto death" for the "cause of Christ".

This is "God rape" of the human heart and spirit. And it leaves a damaging view of "god and religion" impressed upon the brain.

The Ideal on Earth Will Bring Defeat

I am beginning to think that any attempt to create an "ideal" or "utopia", will end in defeat and much suffering. But, pragmatism is functioning in the real world, with "real world" solutions, which is what philosopher kings do in formulating policy. The battle of ideas within our nation's think-tanks, in the halls of Congress and in the judicial chambers, all must go into the mix of the "stuff' of reality in the real world.

Historically, we have seen much suffering come from Hitler or Mussolinni's facism, or Stalin's communism. These ideological frames of political functioning are based on racism, economics, or government. All of these forms are not our form and should not be seen or understood as necessary policy.

There has been discussion whether a minority rights law should continue to be renewed, as it protects the rights of minoirities in discrimination, as to the job market. Others have thought that the time for unions is over, as our economy changes. All of these laws and policies are understood within the larger frame of what kind of policy will express our government in today's globalization, while furthering our needs for diplomatic relations.

Self interest is not a bad thing, it is only when policy has been decided without any consideration and/or input from those who will be impacted. This is only acting justly and we should value ourselves as a just nation. Even with good intentions, America has been misunderstood, when others have miscontrued our intent, with abuse of power. Although we have not, nor can we act completely free from self-interest, our self-interest has to be revealed, while acknowledging to the other what would benefit them in the treaty or at negotiation stage. This is just good diplomacy as it behaves respectfully toward the other nation.

What do we do with situations that undermine treaty, or does not breed trust when it concerns foreign policy? This is a good question for Obama and his cabinet to consider in his new open government policy.

I will be looking forward to hearing about it!