The real world is the poltical, as we are material and historical beings. 'We live and move in our social contexts, which the political reality creates. It is cruel to tell those who have no voice in their government that things will work out "for good". Or, worse, that God is doing something for character development!
American government is created by the voices that inspire "hope". These are political leaders that make life in free society an environment where the individual can create his own destiny. This is a hope for development, as it does not limit by caste system, or pre-determination. Our government allows for free choice.
Free choice is a value of American society because we believe that ethical complexities disallow "one size fits all", except for the laws that protect these values.
I have fear that our government's very foundations are being undermined by those that think they are the "shapers" (formers) of another. These do not value independent thinking, behavior or questions, because they do not really believe in liberty. They believe that their responsibility is to create the "proper environment" for another. They do not believe that an individual can determine, and choose for himself. They know best. These forms of governing are aristocratic and the attitude is controlling. Information is only given to create of control another's opinion and thinking.
Aristocrats believe that they have special priviledge and entitlement in thier positions of authority. The people are to be "useful" for their purposes of governing. Patronage was a servile mentality and stance toward another. Americans believe that "all men are created equal", therefore, we determined that slavery was immoral and our government was a limited one.
A limited government is necessary in upholding the values of human equality, as it does not impose itself upon individual liberties. Americans all have a voice in their government, if they care to. If we cease to care for and protect these liberties, then we are doomed to fall into hands that create our realities for us. And these realities are not free ones.
I think the Real World of Hope is a world that is a free one.
Showing posts with label free choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free choice. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What I Find Interesting in Language
As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Moral Choice, Moral Responsibility, and the "Greater Good"
I was cleaning out my purse and I came across a synopsis of a lecture I attended Fall '07 about Free Will. I decided to blog about it, since it really "fell in line" with my previous recent posts.
C.A.Campbell in "Has the Self Free Will" (On Selfhood and Godhood, 1957), says that relevant acts for moral responsibility are "free acts of choice" rather than outer acts. These are acts that the moral agent is the sole author and are not "necessary acts of character". He argues that acts are choices of the "self" and are "creative acts". He is libertarian, as he believes that the nature of the "self" is not reducible to the "character" of the self. And I think with the little that the synopsis had about him, he may be thinking along similar lines that I am presently.
Religion presupposes what we "should be", as if what we are fall short of some "standard". What standard? a moral model? which one? a moral text? which one? Character is an absolute? Then, what is being gauged? Was Luther's questioning of the 'moral authorities of his day something that was deemed "bad" character? At the time, it was.
I think this is the primary point of our free government, "we are all created equal, with certain inalienable rights". The "greater good" argument is determined by someone outside of another's "self". This is why limited government is the ideal.
Perhaps, because we have become disconnected personally in our social interactions and in our business transactions, we have become less and less "identified" with the "other", as the "other has no "face". It is easier to dismiss and disengage our "self" from the other when that happens. Then, "self" is "free" to "do what it wants/wills". This is the loss of moral responsibility due to social/psychological disengagement. Leaders are especially prone to do this, as their position most times distances them from the "common man". It is imperative that leaders "give room" to those "under them" to have "free choice".
What is the solution? Perhaps, just as I saw in the Newsmuesuem, the media should be about the business of keeping the "other's" real face before our eyes. And we, all, personally, should hold each other accountable in our relationships.
C.A.Campbell in "Has the Self Free Will" (On Selfhood and Godhood, 1957), says that relevant acts for moral responsibility are "free acts of choice" rather than outer acts. These are acts that the moral agent is the sole author and are not "necessary acts of character". He argues that acts are choices of the "self" and are "creative acts". He is libertarian, as he believes that the nature of the "self" is not reducible to the "character" of the self. And I think with the little that the synopsis had about him, he may be thinking along similar lines that I am presently.
Religion presupposes what we "should be", as if what we are fall short of some "standard". What standard? a moral model? which one? a moral text? which one? Character is an absolute? Then, what is being gauged? Was Luther's questioning of the 'moral authorities of his day something that was deemed "bad" character? At the time, it was.
I think this is the primary point of our free government, "we are all created equal, with certain inalienable rights". The "greater good" argument is determined by someone outside of another's "self". This is why limited government is the ideal.
Perhaps, because we have become disconnected personally in our social interactions and in our business transactions, we have become less and less "identified" with the "other", as the "other has no "face". It is easier to dismiss and disengage our "self" from the other when that happens. Then, "self" is "free" to "do what it wants/wills". This is the loss of moral responsibility due to social/psychological disengagement. Leaders are especially prone to do this, as their position most times distances them from the "common man". It is imperative that leaders "give room" to those "under them" to have "free choice".
What is the solution? Perhaps, just as I saw in the Newsmuesuem, the media should be about the business of keeping the "other's" real face before our eyes. And we, all, personally, should hold each other accountable in our relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
