Relationship, Values, and Integrity

Ayn Rand
The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 46

This can only be true if one values "love" as an "ultimate value". Relationship with those that have different values must be mutual compromise, or dissolving one's association to such a relationship. If the principle or value is too important to compromise without loosing "self-respect", then, compromise is asking the impossible. Self-respect is the foundation of integrity.

No one should be required to "help" in those areas they do not believe in. And no one that loves another would ask them to "help" in the areas they do not believe in.

How Can We Support the Deficit?

What is Moral or Responsible about continuing to enlarge our national debt? Do we really believe that responsible choices define moral value and virtue? Then, none of us should support  increases to our national debt!. This is the "ideal" of free societies, otherwise we become enslaved to our debt, which will determine overtly or covertly our policies.

If government continues to undercut private business, while cozying up to large corporations, then, I believe unemployment will continue to increase. And when unemployment increases,  on a large scale, then the practical needs at hand make for "collective demands for justice"! And collective demands for justice means government intervention with social programs that increase individual dependence on government as "provider". Or, such demands for justice means revolution, because human choice has been limited by government's partiality to corporate interests .Isn't this the means of totaltalirinism? The end of revolution is "social order", which won't be promoting human value or choice, unless government gets back to supporting the rule of law. Government will then, be a co-cercive means of controlling human choice and value.

Large corporations base their "need" on utility, which isn't based on the ethical or moral demands of responsible behavior, but what is most expedient to the needs at hand. Profit is the end. While profit is not immoral, it is only a necessary end to "good business". But, when profits outweigh any other considerations, human life becomes a means to the end of justifying enslavement of the employee.

Both profit of corporations, and employee agreement must be based on the interests of both parties, not an undermining of human choice and value.

The Church Justifies the Moral Ought

Groups must be identified by their collective goals, or purposes. This is how groups function, otherwise, their is no reason for groups to exist.
 Individuals, on the other hand, don't have to have a reason to exist, as the individual is to be the "end" in himself. The individual  must have the right to life and liberty, otherwise, his life is not his own. He becomes the slave to a "moral oughtness".
Therefore, while groups, such as the Church may demand "moral oughts", they must give room for individual choice, otherwise the "moral ought" has lost any values to it's "moral oughtness". Choice is the determinitive "end" of moral value. The individual must make the choice about moral value, not the Church.

A few posts ago, I wrote on the issue of abortion. I challenged my friend's post about "pro-life" on the basis of evolution. Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life. Will he obey the laws of his land, as a abiding and peaceful citizen, or will he become a criminal, a renagade? The "pro life" movement says that a person who chooses abortion has "sinned" against God, irregardless of what has been considered lawful according to the Constitution. So, the "Pro-Life Movement" has a "moral demand" over and above the legal requirements of Constitutional government.

Laws are what define moral behavior in a given society. Not every group will adhere to the same standards. But, in a liberal society, choice must be free association of chosen groups that uphold the individuals chosen values. Churches understand "the law" in their doctrines and their standards of behavior that supercede Constitutional government. This helps define the Church over against the Constiutional government..

The conservative church holds to a morality based on deontological ethics, meaning that "God's law" is to be upheld because it is "God's law".  What is considered "good" is what God wills, not good in itself. Humans, then, are ends to "God's will". "Good" is not defined by universal consensus, but by "sacred texts". It is an ethics based "outside of" the individual. It is a moral demand or "oughtness".

On the other hand, virtue and consequential ethics have different values regarding what is good. Virtue ethics, is determined by the individual's character. What is "good" is not an outside form, but an inside agreement as to what is "the good". The virtue ethicist would play out the "inside character" based on whether one believed that there was an objective standard whereby "morality" or "the good" could be judged.

The Church would judge man's character again on an "outside text" or an organizational goal. The individual himself would not be granted moral choice, but demanded to behave according to an approved "standard"! Obedience to that standard of behavior or goal becomes the judgemnt of the individual's character, as to "Christian character". The atheist/agnostic would agree that virtue is within the individual, but would not agree that the standard is determined by "the Church", but on social contract. The individual, himself, must choose his values within a free society, and be allowed to play these out in his life. Character then, is defined by what is "natural" to that particular person.

The social contract forms a society by agreement. The Constitution is the 'standard that the West holds to be of value in maintaining a free society. Constitutional standards are created to protect the society from anarchy or from abuses of power. These are not hierarchal in nature, but are to be "democratic" in intent. Our government is "not sent from above", but granted from below. It is the political sphere where men adhere to the same standards of behavior because this is our cultural value, civilized behavior. Civilized behavior is expected to be ethical, or moral because it regards another's boundary.

Consequentialism would value the end as an ultimate, by whatever means. This position is utilitarian and does not value the human as an ultimate value, but the goal. There are no standards for behavior in this ethical frame. So, while the deontological sees the "moral ought" as ultimate value, isn't this really consequentialist in the Church's view of "ends"? The secular humanist would value the human, not the ends as ultimate value.

God cannot be the ultimate end, because "God" cannot be understood apart from human speculation. And ends, canot be based on what cannot be agreed upon, unless one wants to live under oppressive rule of "Tradition" or Text, as defined by an "outside source".

Virtue of character means that the human being, himself determines his own values and he allows that same liberty to others. The individual chooses to make his life's choices within a free society of free assosiciation, not moral demands of "oughtness". In such a society, there is liberty of conscience, and free debate as to ultimate ends, because each individual chooses his life, as to happiness!

So, I don't value the Church or God as to an end, because the human distinction of choice is dissolved before authoritative demands of obedience of one kind or another. Life must be enjoyed as an offering IF one want to value Chruch or God, at all. Otherwise, life is dissolved of independent value, because life becomes consumed by something "other" or "outside" of life itself. And the individual ceases to "exist" in all practical terms, because he is determined, instead of a Moral Agent.

When the Egoist Is Challenged By Virtue

The Egoist believes that "self interest" is an end, as he is a end in himself. But, what if the Egoist is challenged by virtue?. That is, the needs of the community, the world or the "other".

This is when the Egoist must grapple with his own priorities, life values and goals. It is when the Egoist is approached by another with a proposition. The Egoist understands that it is his right to consider the proposition or reject it outright. This is the basis of social contract and business ethics.

The Categorial Imperative and the Golden Rule is an "ideal", but the real world does not work on these values, principles or ideals. And our Founers knew this. This was why they balanced power between the branches of government. And it is also the basis of upright dealing in business. Full access to what is expected and required in a givern job is the basis of "life's" stability. It is the basis of transparency in government. And the basis of a free society. Government is not to intrude into the private lives of the individual and make demands. Individual have the right to challenge such investigations and intrustion into their life by "Big Brother", or moral busybodies!

The whole basis of Obamacare is based on the assumption that people are entitled to certain guaruntees. The government is to guaruntee in a positive way those that are less fortunate. Others disagree. These believe that the individual must have the priority of choosing about his life and this is based on a limited government, not the positive rights of government.

We must not be ignorant of how totaltalitarian governments gain ground and footholds in society. Or we will be paying the price of that ignorance. We must not allow or ignore such behavior that is disrepectful and dishonoring of "The People"!

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?

Values Come Before Virtue

Values are defined as beliefs that we have an emotional investment in. Our beliefs underwrite our practices. And our practices are the public realm of "living in the world". Thus, politics is the arena that values plays itself out.

In a free society, values should be discussed in an open-ended way, with no discrimination toward the religious or the atheist. All should have voice in the public square to voice their opinion and allow all to come to some resolution, or to a consensus. There should not be propaganda, but investigative reporting, which should lead those who hear to investigate themselves. A free society does not remain free, if its freedoms are ignored, or under-valued, whether the error is in an ultra right-wing religious beliefs, or a radical left-wing secular view.

I just read on "Exploring Our Matrix", that conservatives are re-writing the Bible. These believe that the political agenda of Obama supporters was too liberal for them. Was this decision made because of some specific conservative values, such as abortion? Or a political stance on the economy?

It saddens me that conservatives do not think they have a voice or that they must segregate themselves from others who may be more informed than the wider population. And, as always, those who think that their "purity" values are being undermined have separated themselves to "form a new group". This is the Protestant Principle at work.

I agree that our society seems to be more politicized than it ever has been. But, does this mean that conservatives should withdraw to another part of society, which they create to form their own values without "outside information"?

Virtue is a response to values that differ. Virtue has to have a "context" to express itself. And usually that context is defined by the "sacred or secular", that has erred on one side or another. This is where difference can "make a difference" in virtue ethics.

"Good sports" know how to loose. And loosing does not have to mean that one become passively submissive or dependent on the winning view. Politics demands that we do not give up. Losers seek a way around the views they disagree with. But, to re-write Scripture without any scholarship, seems a little misguided. This is how cults are started. Shouldn't all conservatives be open to those with understanding about these areas of interest?

Values have become so concretized, that one cannot differ in anyway from the "party line". "Party lines" limit critical thinking, education, and a broader understanding of the issue. Broader understanding of a value is mandantory unless we want to "follow the leader" without questioning why these are values that should be maintained.

The Bible. after all, was not the focus of religious life in the Church's early history. Possibly the Bible is too much of a "value" of conservitism. Is this the "problem"? Surely these conservatives kow that the Trinity was not even formulated until the Church had existed for several hundred years.

American Conservatives should be a little more nuanced than narrowly focused and formed "group think"!

Being Human, as an ART

I read an a blog entry on "Christian art" today. The argument that I think is more palatable when it comes to art, is that any art is a representation of the human who "made it", just as the natural world testifies to God. The meaning is there and by it's very proximity to the human being, it is sacred, as it is communication.

In the Reformation, early Reformers destroyed many works of art, thinking that they were being obedient to the commandment to have no images of God. However, all images are representative, so, it is not reasonable to say that we must do away with images. And since man is made in God's image, we cannot destroy man, can we?

The argument in Christian circles centers around cultural values and virtue. All of us would agree that pornography is not appropriate for anyone. However, there are variations in our abilities to tolerate certain art forms. Some Christians have forbidden dance, as sexually titilating or T.V. as "worldly". All of these convictions are based on a false fear of the "world" and a hyper vigilence to not be associated with the things of the world. The things of the world are not "sinful" in and of themselves, it is what we do with those things, and what those things do to us. Virtue is not just about what we don't do, but what we do do. Are we tolerant towards those who have differences of opinion, Do we allow them freedom to worship as they deem fit? Is there a proper form of worship? And how do we determine these things? Scripture, when scirpture was written before certain "modern inventions"? Church authority, when Church authority are falliable human beings? or science?

Modern psychology has proven that certain art forms have an effect on people. Is this wrong, and is it understood as "sin"? If so, why? Where are the "lines" of a tolerant attitude to those who differ? Of do we only define virtue as conformity to a certain way of life?

Certainly, society's best interest, as well as the individual's good is in view when discussion is made about these issues. And as I mentioned earlier, pornography would certainly not be beneficial to either society or the individual. But, what about nude art forms? Is the body seen as beautiful as a form, or is the body seen as evil and suggestive in and of itself? I find it hard to argue from reason that the body is evil in and of itself.

Back in 1990, when my husband was attending a conference in southern Germany, the spouses were touring all of the churches in the area. There was a particular Jewish lady that asked me a question that I will never forget. She asked why the Church would spend all the money on the extravagence to embellish the churches, when there were people starving. I told her that if someone has the gift of painting as Rafael, or Micheangelo, should they be stewards of their gift in worshipping God through it, or should they feed the poor? She agreed that it would be a terrible loss to culture if they had inhibited their gift for what she had understood to be virtuous.

Virtue is seen in many forms and should not be limited by religious understandings, but is most understood and experienced in our government's unity in diversity.

A Critique of Spirituality

I have yet to meet or know a "spiritual person" that I want to emulate. But, there are many who do not claim to a superior spirituality that I would like to emulate.

"Spiritual people" always have to keep their appearances up. Who knows who might think they were "unspiritual"? Spiritual people have to perform things they don't like or care (really) about doing, because, well, they are "supposed" to be spiritual. Spiritual people like for you to know Scripture and verse to support their understanding of spirituality. Spiritual people are more than human; they are "like God". Spiritual people like to be followed, as they are exempliers of the faith sent down from the saints. Spiritual people like to make distinctions, so they can preen over their spirituality. Spiritual people always have an agenda for you and your life, for they think that they are to take Paul's admonition to Timothy as theirs, be "imitators of me". Spiritual people don't like to show their faults, questions, doubts, struggles, or failures, as that would be admitting their human-ness, which is unspiritual. Spiritual people are focused on their spirituality, first and foremost and the more radical their spiritualty, the more committed they gauge themselves. Spritual people like to set "standards" for others to follow which are curious to other humans. But, spiritual people believe that these 'boundary marker' make them "set apart", so that others know that they are believers.

I find that whenever someone has character, (which is a "common virtue" in man, although certain attributes must be developed), humans are naturally attracted. Take my husband, for instance. He can be critical, this is true, as he is a perfectionist. But, he tempers his perfection, with gentleness and meekness. My husband is kind and forbearing and tender. I love to see him play with our grandkids. It reminds me of when our kids were young. His eyes twinkle with delight, as he tickles them or plays "ride a little horsey". He is direct, but he can be direct with humor and grace. He can compromise, though he is firm when he thinks that I am trying to "play him for a fool". He loves me, and this I know, for his life tells me so!

The Relative and Absolute

Before I begin my remedial exploration of the above subject, please see kenschenck@blogspot and exploringourmatrix@blogspot and antiquitopia@blogspot.
I am amazed at how God has made us. We can develop beyond where we are today, thanks to the educators that have taken the time.

I recognize that the limited understanding I have as a human being within a certain context, is not to determine who I can become. Education is necessary for this.

Those who believe that the religious realm is the epitome of Truth are really at a disadvantage, for they are allowing an outside Source to determine their "fate". An outside Source, may be needful for the child, but the adult needs to develop beyond dependence on these limited frameworks. Responsibility must begin with the individual and must be developed within the social structures. Reason is man's friend, as it is only reason that develops the individual's gifts most clearly. While reason is necessary, reason is no absolute, as Job understood, "things that are too wonderful", things beyond man's ability to comprehend. This is wisdom and humility. And it is what the ancients called the "good life". A life of virtue.

Concern for America

Today is Constitution Day. I love my country, but have not been taught enough about it. This brings me to my blog entry today.

The Constitution says that we are a government that is "By the People and For the People"! This is Good News, as all men (gender neutral) are created equal. But, the bad news is that because we live in the land of the free, we Americans have sought our own lives at the costs of the nations. We have not been engaged in the public's business. And because we have become callous to our freedoms and allow other people to take care of it for us, we are becoming an enslaved nation!

Our enslavement is to our lavious lifestyles, where we live beyond our means and the creditors are knocking on our doors. The market is what drives our economy, which is fed on our greed and lust for power, money and stuff!

It is not just in economic concerns where we are enslaved, but we are also enslaved by our lack of engagement. Our government's framers created a government where all could be engaged. But, because of our lack of interest, those who hold the reigns of power have become the ones who run our country. Instead of our country being by the people and for the people, we are being led by others and for others' self interest.

Our news media on the major networks do not even cover news in depth, because most of us are not interested. We get a few dribbles about the economy, so we can complain about our government, but we don't get involved. We hear about things that concern our own pockets and have little interests in anything other than where it concerns our own domesic policy. I'm not arguing for a "one world "government, but only that our eyes would be opened to a larger engagement in our world. When the rulers become unaccountable and have conflicted interest, these rulers will choose their own self interest above the interst of the people! This attitude is not one of public service, but of self-indulgence.

We Americans need to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. We are a free nation because of public concern and engagement. We are relying too much on our rulers to make the decisions for us and then we complain again if they use the military for interests that we would not approve.

We (I) need to care and become informed and involved.

Is Peace Possible?

My husband presented his experinece at the State Department this afternoon at one of the local "civic" clubs. He said it went well....

When I asked him if there were any questions, he mentioned one that started me thinking...

The question was; Do you think we should engage the moderate Muslims in hopes of "peace". My husband said that 90% of the Muslims are Sunnis....whereas the moderates are part of the 10%...that means that the majority 12 million are radical types... this is an enemy to freedom. Their "worldview" is an absolute one with no consideration of moderation in rationale, and is not confined to one country, it would be hard to modify.....it is an ideological battle, that must be fought on many fronts..political, spiritual, moral....that unfortunately, does not make for "peace"in the present.....

Moderation is the language of the ancients of virtue. It is also part of the Buddhist tradition. But, moderation is not in the vocabulary of radicals of any tradition. And radicals are against peace...and at any cost....