What Is Moral?

There are many needs that are pressing upon our globe today, which ones will make the "cut" as the ultimate need? Moral sentiment usually drives what people claim are the moral imperatives. Such sentiment is one's personal desired outcomes. And these are driven by prioritizing personal values, even the "objective ones".

Humanists value human rights as a universal standard. These people have chosen to universalize Western cultural values. But, the United Nations has made exception to Islam, giving them the right to Islamic law. How can two conflicting values be held by an organization? Don't we have to make discriminations about what is of ultimate value and how do we do that?

Neuroscientists have argued that our brains determine much of what we desire and value. Is the brain determined by one's cultural experiences or is the brain innatedly endowed with certain desires?

Obviously, all humans have the need for sustenance. Physical needs are not choices of value, but are objective needs. Humanists would be driven to meet these needs as of foremost importance. But, what of emotional needs and attachments? Are these just as important?

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such needs are secondary to physical needs. And this is where we find America today, debating what is needed in our nation's budget. One politician claimed that we could not cut entitlement spending, as it was "immoral". And that there are some things that are moral imperatives. These moral imperatives are driven by moral sentiment. Emotion drives such "entitlement" speak. Whereas, our budget deficit cannot be ignored. This is a moral imperative driven by reason, not sentiment! Isn't this more important than particular situations that might call for intervention? Our nation's viability is at stake! But, what is to come of a budget, when elected officials can "walk out" of negotiating and perservering in a job they were elected to do?

Those that want to play on moral sentiment, play upon religious values and emotionally driven goals by appealing to the "Golden Rule". Those that get their desired outcomes are those that have planned on using such emotional appeal to sway the "common man" to to their bidding. And usually their bidding is not chosen "up front" in the full light of day, but driven by the need to control or manipulate the "mob" so social order can be maintained. Such "Systems" are totaltaliarian. They are driven by elites for the "common good", but not the personal good of those under them. "Personal" ceases to have meaning or value, because it is independent of "theWhole", which is more valued than the "Parts".

Scientists value the physical universe. Its resources are of ultimate concern. But, physcial resources must be prioritized as to ultimate value, don't they? And what of the conflicting ways in which to approach limited resources and how to use them and create alternatives that might benefit "the Whole"? Who determines what policy will be made? And what outcomes will be of ultimate value or concern? Are Americans allowed to drill for oil, as other countries? Are we going to be allowed to drill for oil irregardless of environmental concerns for wildlife? Is the individual human of more value than other life forms? Or are all life forms or equal value?

If one values the nation-state, then there are priorities that must come first, irregadless of sentiment. Our nation's security is at stake, if we cannot maintain viability! Who will be at the helm of power then? Will we dissolve the nation-state for good, for a "common government"? Hasn't experience taught us that Bigger Government leads to more corruption because of an inability to make accountable such a "system"? Wasn't our Constitution even debated in our early years, because of such a belief? How then, can we think that liberalizing the world will bring about a "better way of life" for all? How do we know? What has history taught us?

My husband was expressing his desire for a certain endeavor that he felt would not be appreciated, acknowledged or valued by others. I encouraged him to attain his goal, irrespective of anything else, as such a desire was a matter of integrity and his own "honor and sense of being true to himself". Such "self-affirming" choice could not be made in a totalitarian system, because such "self affirming" ways of thinking and being in the world would be considered "selfish" , by those that want him to do "their bidding". But, I think such "selfishness" is a point of character. "Character" must be defined within the context of the "self", for there to be a "grounded self". Character that is evaluated by others might be applauded or dissapproved based on some other value, outside of "principled character". One might not value what he chooses, but they must applaud his commitment to it, IF they value a liberal democracy and human rights.

It seems that what is "moral" has been a useful term for many reasons. An ultimate and important value  is the individual's right to exist and choose his own way of life, which is what a Democracy allows, and our Republic demands its Representatives uphold those values in it legislative powers!

On Freedom

Ayn Rand


‎"There is no such thing as 'the public interest' except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of 'the public interest'—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation."
“The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 111.

Universal Healthcare Is Universalized Medicine....

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday on our way home from S.C. The guest was a health specialist of sorts, believing that the body's innate nature is to heal itself given the proper nutrients and environment. His view was "preventative medicine", but what was more interesting was his analysis of the drug companies, healthcare, and special interests...

He thinks that the special interests of the lobbyists for the pharmecudical companies were committed to drugging as many Americans as possible. Every ailment would and has been taken care of by a drug. Many of these drugs have dire side effects. But, the drug companies are happy as long as they can buy off governmental agencies, Congressmen and doctors.

I started thinkiing that maybe this was the reason for universal healthcare, as universalizing healthcare takes care of any "lone ranger" doctors that can't be paid off by freebies. Now, they can just use government force to prescribe the drug of choice. Is this how and why our economy is being pilfered through corporate excess? The common person sits by to pay his dues to those in seats of power that undermine his interests to support "Big Interests".

All I can say is that we need another revolution to take back the country from those who assume too much about and for the American people. Little businessmen are going to go out of business or be forces to choose a public option to meet any profit margin whatsoever in today's economy. Is this the intent?

The poor are being a useful tool in the hands of the rhetorticians for the "common good". Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess...

Naturalism is Just Another Name...

Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.

Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.

I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.

Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?

So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!

Cultural Wars and "Winning the Game"

Yesterday, I heard an interview with Jim Leach on NPR. He is heading up a "humanities" project that wants to educate Amerians on philosophy, history of the U.S., politics, and there may be some other issues that I don't remember. His intent is to bring about a more "peaceful" solution to the present culture wars.

War occurs when there are two opposing views that "collide". Both think they need to "win the game". Both think they are justified and "right". And to win the game, it is believed that it is important to "stay the course" at all costs! But, is this cause worth it? I'm afraid American culture lends itself to the "ideal" of winning at all costs, without considering the ultimate costs to our civil discourse in the public square. We all need to learn to express our views with passion, but without personal attack, understanding that the very expression of political views were won by our Founders garuanteeing that America "wins" when "both sides", win. It is a balancing of power, when we have a "tug of war".

America's culture wars are about political goals, who will win at policy-making, and who will have to live their lives accordingly. These are issues that cannot co-exist peacefully because of their immense diversity and the impact that the "other side" thinks will transpire because of it.

It is unfortunately the case that for the most part, we are a two party system. The nuances of political philosphy are not important to "discover", as muh as maintaining the course of whichever agenda has been appealing. This is why I think that Congressman Leach has a noble purpose.

The conservative side, which believes in free markets and pro-life, have gone so far as to re-create scripture to further and sanction their political views. The political left, on the other hand, believes that the social concern and moral duty of Americans goes beyond their "own doorstep", so to speak. These two views have a vastly different politial philosophy, which certainly cannot co-exist, if one believes that "God" is on "your side". "Winning the game" because all important then, because of the feared consequences of the cultural impact at "home" and the world at large.

These views could be discussed more civilly, if one did not mix "god" into the "pot". But, holiness causes are prone to justify any means in the attempt to defend "God's honor", or "God's purposes", while the left would be more prone to defend the "greater good" for the "world". But, do we really know what the 'greater good" is for the world, really? Both sides sound presumptuous and arrogant, in their own way, whether about understanding "god", or about man having an omniscient and ominpresent view.

Jim Leach was a Republican Congressman from Iowa, so, I would imagine he has some "insight" into the conservative viewpoint. And beause he has been in politics, he understands the left. I wish him well on his journey, as the nation needs this type of "calming" influence.

And Americans need to understand their neighbor, as well as understanding their right to speak.

Literalizing Text, Tradition, and Science

For the past number of years, people have been analyzing Scripture as if "every dot and tittle" is true. The analysis assumes that the message is literally and universally true. The problem is that literalizing the life of Christ is absurd if one wants to have people that live in the "real world". The fundamentalists/evangelicals are pruod of this endeavor. But, no less proud are the literal scientific types.

These scientific types think that bringing about the "real Jesus" movement will bring in the Kingdom of God. These are the theologically and eschalogical literalists.

Others are more open to experiment upon actual "case studies" so they can further their speicific Christian disicpline to prove scientifically the "facts" of faith. And still others, are interested in building the church.

International business minds find they can "get a cut" out of the deal, as their are so many fundamentalists and evangelicals in the U.S. Play the game and get the benefit.

So many, the believers, un-believers and the ambitious are all "on board" to bring in the Kingdom of God.

But, what about those who have been so pre-ordained? How do they think and feel about such a method of crucifixion or "usefulness"? Is this loving? No, but it will train or teach or form the person into "God's image", the very image of Christ. The pietists and Kantians are enamored.

But, is this methoc kind and considerate? No, but the greater good will benefit and the "guinea pig" will learn to be "selfless". The educators and utiltarians are "lured".

And what about the poor, who are "useful" for political ends? Are they truely cared about by those that use them as a "means"?

You get the message. "Doing justly and loving mercy" is not about planning the Kingdom, or carrying out specific purposes of others. A man or woman of character cannot objectify another life in such a way, as the means de-means the very image of God. The means controls, manipulates, assumes, presumes, and thinks of an 'apology". And yet, these think they "do God's work" and "co-create with God". What they create is a monstrosity. It is evil itself, not "good".

This morning I was sent an e-mail from a friend about Shaine Clayborn, who wrote "Irresitible Revolution". This was the 'primer" of this "entry". Our university used it in thier "World Changers" course. My husband and I tried to use it to help these students understand that their lives could be used just as pursposefully, in a different way, than Shaine's "radicalism". That anything they choose to do can be useful in the world for God.

Shaine's premise is the love of God for the poor, which has become the politically and religiously correct view these days. His interest in the poor is because God is love. He has obviously experienced this love, to be able to know and share it. Fine. But, for those who do not have that "message" to impart, then what is the "Kingdom" for them?

Are others allowed to have different lives and not be "judged" as lacking commitment? Maybe this is a good "weeding out" as the radicals like to say, of those "chosen" and those "not chosen". That is fine, too. I just know I am not going to share what is not "reality" to me. And who should?

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.