Ayn Rand
"Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t."
“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17
Showing posts with label political action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political action. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thoughtless Actions Pave the Road to Hell
Yesterday, another blog site had quoted Chesterton. I picked up on "hell is paved with good intentions" and proceeded to ask the question about what makes for "heaven". Was it action? Another comment was made that Dante had understood the division of heaven and hell was action versus merit and grace. Purgatory was paved with intention.
As Dante was Roman Catholic, one can understand his thoughts and how he divided his understanding of moral action. But, is this true? How one answer that question, depends on how one understands their values, priorities and commitments.
The first question that stands out in my mind is, how does one determine what is an action that paves hell versus one that paves heaven in merit? Our country defines right action by our laws and does not define or determine "merit", as this term is useful in religious communities. Grace and merit is not based on obligation, but choice. Grace gives, without return, whereas, moral obligation is "duty-bound".
Religious communities determine "what is best" according to their source of authority, goals and purposes. One must determine for themselves what and where their understanding of "right" is. Everyone must determine whether they can support the goals, purposes and vision of certain organizations before their commitment. Thoughtless action leads to nothing other than mindlessness. And thoughtless mindlessness is what I would call "hell". Humans are not to be "machines" that turn out a product for those who impose thier vision upon another. Humans are to be motivated by inner desire, passion, and vision that motvates. This is the grace and merit of giving back the gifts of life.
Unfortunately, the political realm does not allow in some areas of the world the freedom to pursue one's own interests. These lives are lived under oppressive rule that prohibit and limit human choice. The ability to choose one's way of life is one of the primary rights that should underwrite human rights. This is a non-negotiable.
While our free society allows choice, for the most part, we must not neglect thinking through our choice of action, otherwise, we may be making foolish choices and foolish choices pave the road to hell.
As Dante was Roman Catholic, one can understand his thoughts and how he divided his understanding of moral action. But, is this true? How one answer that question, depends on how one understands their values, priorities and commitments.
The first question that stands out in my mind is, how does one determine what is an action that paves hell versus one that paves heaven in merit? Our country defines right action by our laws and does not define or determine "merit", as this term is useful in religious communities. Grace and merit is not based on obligation, but choice. Grace gives, without return, whereas, moral obligation is "duty-bound".
Religious communities determine "what is best" according to their source of authority, goals and purposes. One must determine for themselves what and where their understanding of "right" is. Everyone must determine whether they can support the goals, purposes and vision of certain organizations before their commitment. Thoughtless action leads to nothing other than mindlessness. And thoughtless mindlessness is what I would call "hell". Humans are not to be "machines" that turn out a product for those who impose thier vision upon another. Humans are to be motivated by inner desire, passion, and vision that motvates. This is the grace and merit of giving back the gifts of life.
Unfortunately, the political realm does not allow in some areas of the world the freedom to pursue one's own interests. These lives are lived under oppressive rule that prohibit and limit human choice. The ability to choose one's way of life is one of the primary rights that should underwrite human rights. This is a non-negotiable.
While our free society allows choice, for the most part, we must not neglect thinking through our choice of action, otherwise, we may be making foolish choices and foolish choices pave the road to hell.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Social Responsibility Within a Political Frame
Politics drives what policy is heard, considered and how and if it is implemented. Our free society allows any and every voice to be heard, at least in theory. This is important not just for self-interest, but also for the interest of "freedom' in the political realm. Without all being represented, then there will be an oppression of a voice, or a people.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
