It has been understood that the human always looks for causes to explain the world he lives in. Early in human history, humans understood the "cause" as "God" or Providence. Nowadays, science sneers at such beliefs, because science has understood itself as the tool to understand physical laws, not superstitious belief. But, what of human needs, as to the brain/mind?
The human not just needs to understand and explain the causes of the universe, which can be explained by the facts of science, understanding natural laws. But, humans need the ability to trust that certain results will come from their "world". That is, humans need consistance in some way to be predictable, so that humans can organize their life and "feel they are free" and not pawns of some natural force that is unpredictable.
Predictability begins to be understood by the child, as he grows to understand the world at his parent's knee. The parent is "god" in the sense that the parent trains the child to predict what will happen if certain behaviors are done or left undone. This breeds a sense of security in the child as the child understands himself and the world as a predictable place.
Humans do not fare well in natural disasters, human tragedy, or other types of "irregularity" in their "world". It traumatizes the human to experience such disruptions to the regularities fo life. It breeds anxiety and some experience the effects of Post Traumatic Stress.
When the child grows to be a teen, he begins to understand that the law, which guards the socety, which he is a part of, also is predictable. If you transgress, then there are costs. The law maintains social order, so the teen can understand what is expected from him in his society.
The adult comes to understand that though the law protects the social order, life isn't nice and neat, like reaping and sowing, but results , sometimes, in human tragedy that is unpredictable, and sometimes disorienting. Such tragedies should never be judged as getting what one deserves, but understanding that life isn't as predictable as one once thought.
Humans do need predictability, and this is when those that are prone to authoritarianism are prone to believe judgment is always the best way to treat such offenses. Otherwise, "the community" and soceity would go to "pot". These are anxious about protecting and defending what they deem as "absolute", and sometimes these people use 'God" to enforce their positions.
Others think that compassion is a better way to express solidarity in life. No longer is it necessary to protect oneself from unpredictability, by control, nor to defend "God's order", nor is it necessary to affirm oneself in comparison to another. One has come to a point of understanding that life, and living are much more than a certain choice, that causes certain consequences. But, that life has parallel universes that produce different realities, this is true, but that life can be embraced, no matter which "world" one has chosen.
Showing posts with label solidarity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solidarity. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Justice, Just Is
Justice just is. What do I mean by this?
Some view justice as transforming society into a 'new reality'. These are change agents, which view justice as a social construction. These social justice types view the law as a positive.
While the "social justice" types view the law as a positive, the "self-governing types" view the law as a negative. They view the law as protecting "rights". These view individual conscience and liberty of opinion as "moral".
Today on NPR, I listened to a Harvard professor, Sandel. He was discussing his book, "Justice". He had a number of terms that I disagreed with. Terms such as solidarity, and "the common good". His view sounded socialistic or communistic to me. He did acknowledge that there was another view; an individual and free market view.
As I consider myself an individualist, I do not value the terms of "solidarity" or the "common good".
Our Founding Fathers viewed the individual with "certain inalienable rights", the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think that defining these terms in a monistic way is allowing for individual differences of opinion and conscience. Our Founding Fathers granted us liberty of expression and differences of opinion in theBill of Rights.
Kohlburg in his stages of moral development understood that the convetional level of justice was defined by the "status quo" or social groupism. The "self-actualized" conscience is a reasoned or principled conscience. Don't we want the highest standard to represent our society?
Since we are a Representative Republic, we value the individual voter's opinons, or at least, in principle. We are a government for the people and by the people. Justice is reprentative, and not a "dictatorship". History has all kinds of examples of oppressive regimes that limit individuality based on solidarity or the 'common good'.
C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" viewed the human as having an innate sense of justice. Individuals know when they are being taken advantage of. Our laws protect these "rights" from other's greed, coveteousness, and unlawful confiscation. America affirm property rights.
I believe because humans are endowed with an innate nature of justice that doing injustice is what our country stood against. And this is why we are a country that is ruled by law.
I believe that there are many ways of "being good", and we should not define another's good for them.
Some view justice as transforming society into a 'new reality'. These are change agents, which view justice as a social construction. These social justice types view the law as a positive.
While the "social justice" types view the law as a positive, the "self-governing types" view the law as a negative. They view the law as protecting "rights". These view individual conscience and liberty of opinion as "moral".
Today on NPR, I listened to a Harvard professor, Sandel. He was discussing his book, "Justice". He had a number of terms that I disagreed with. Terms such as solidarity, and "the common good". His view sounded socialistic or communistic to me. He did acknowledge that there was another view; an individual and free market view.
As I consider myself an individualist, I do not value the terms of "solidarity" or the "common good".
Our Founding Fathers viewed the individual with "certain inalienable rights", the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think that defining these terms in a monistic way is allowing for individual differences of opinion and conscience. Our Founding Fathers granted us liberty of expression and differences of opinion in theBill of Rights.
Kohlburg in his stages of moral development understood that the convetional level of justice was defined by the "status quo" or social groupism. The "self-actualized" conscience is a reasoned or principled conscience. Don't we want the highest standard to represent our society?
Since we are a Representative Republic, we value the individual voter's opinons, or at least, in principle. We are a government for the people and by the people. Justice is reprentative, and not a "dictatorship". History has all kinds of examples of oppressive regimes that limit individuality based on solidarity or the 'common good'.
C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" viewed the human as having an innate sense of justice. Individuals know when they are being taken advantage of. Our laws protect these "rights" from other's greed, coveteousness, and unlawful confiscation. America affirm property rights.
I believe because humans are endowed with an innate nature of justice that doing injustice is what our country stood against. And this is why we are a country that is ruled by law.
I believe that there are many ways of "being good", and we should not define another's good for them.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Worldviews, Culture, and Questions
Man is a questioning animal. We seek to understand. And in thinking about how to organize my thoughts about questions concerning the "Ultimate", I started to understand why it is important to allow for diversity.
Our globalized and technologically connected "world" has exposed us like not other time in history, where we can know about differences in culture. But, while we are exposed to these differences, we are also challenged to bring about "unity" of some kind in our understanding of the economic realm, as this realm determines how our interconnectivity is to be managed for everyone's good.
We cannot live isolated, if our country wants to engage a larger world, which we must. But, my question is where do we draw or make distinctions about "the good"? We are a country that allows for diversity, but how is diversity allowed in a larger world, where diversity is not embraced, for fear of dissolving "culture"?
Culture is a defining characteristic of an environment. It maintains a sense of "solidarity". Our country's defining or solidifying "culture" is "individuality". The individual has grown and flourished in some respects in this free and open culture. But, freedom without responsibility has disadvantaged our culture from its moral "sense". We are committed to individuality at the expense of "solidarity".
So, in asking myself questions this morning, I found that while "we, the people" are the definition of the United States of America, "we, the people" lacks a solidifying "culture" to maintain a cultural identity. And this is where our politicians, as well as the individual citizen is indebted to our nation's past value of "liberty and justice for all", which is a universal value and should underline our nation's commitment to further human rights abroad.
Our globalized and technologically connected "world" has exposed us like not other time in history, where we can know about differences in culture. But, while we are exposed to these differences, we are also challenged to bring about "unity" of some kind in our understanding of the economic realm, as this realm determines how our interconnectivity is to be managed for everyone's good.
We cannot live isolated, if our country wants to engage a larger world, which we must. But, my question is where do we draw or make distinctions about "the good"? We are a country that allows for diversity, but how is diversity allowed in a larger world, where diversity is not embraced, for fear of dissolving "culture"?
Culture is a defining characteristic of an environment. It maintains a sense of "solidarity". Our country's defining or solidifying "culture" is "individuality". The individual has grown and flourished in some respects in this free and open culture. But, freedom without responsibility has disadvantaged our culture from its moral "sense". We are committed to individuality at the expense of "solidarity".
So, in asking myself questions this morning, I found that while "we, the people" are the definition of the United States of America, "we, the people" lacks a solidifying "culture" to maintain a cultural identity. And this is where our politicians, as well as the individual citizen is indebted to our nation's past value of "liberty and justice for all", which is a universal value and should underline our nation's commitment to further human rights abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
