Jump to content

Further evidence that we're headed for the end

Rate this topic


Guest SouthernCelt

Recommended Posts

Such a wonderful post and a moment, for me, of finally coming home. I had chosen to say so little on this subject, such interjection into a topic that had broadly represented a single cultural perspective was beyond my ability so it is comforting to hear my own thoughts expressed through another voice.

It is difficult, I believe, for British members to truly appraise the expressions above as our reference points rest fundamentally in a society that in its evolution saw fit to jettison state execution as a viable means of punishment. I am the last to proclaim an arrogant sense of British perfection and the last to assert that the opinions so saliently expressed are wrong but it is reassuring to know that the benchmarks that form my own moral matrix are still so strongly felt by my fellow countrymen.

My tentative understanding and consideration of this issue harks back to the old adage that knowledge not only engenders power but responsibility. I have nothing but respect for the 'Working Men's Club' morality that lingers in society and realise that this aggressive, reactionary subculture feeds the more alarmist sections of our existence and whilst the 'send them back' 'kill the lot of them' voices must be heard and given exhaustive consideration they must never inform law.

In the modern of age of due suspicion with regards to 'The Malus Maleficarum' and all archaic treatments of evil we have allowed science, psychology, sociology, biology, neuroscience et. al. to shape, feed and inform our philosophies with regards to those who challenge the norm. Our greater understanding of chromosomal influences, the neocortex and its role in impulse control and our due respect for behavioral psychology demands that we engender a solution to our ills more refined than 'hit it with a truncheon' or 'shoot it'.

There will always be the gloriously simplistic argument composed of the 'what would you do if your Mother was..' and so on and so forth and of course, God forbid, if such immorality such happen upon my doorstep ones animalistic urges within would demand a fate worse than death - but - such urges should not inform law, they should not shape, nor reason, nor construct the way an advanced society enacts is duty to its citizens. Theologians, biologists, sociologists, criminologists and so on should explore their fullest of understanding of their knowledge in order that society remains distant from aggressive solutions and utilises the best of modern practices and procedures in order to meter out rehabilitation and justice.

I for one will never agree to returning our country to the dark days when it dragged Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley and so many forgotten others to their unjustified death to satiate a baying crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
In the modern of age of due suspicion with regards to 'The Malus Maleficarum' and all archaic treatments of evil we have allowed science, psychology, sociology, biology, neuroscience et. al. to shape, feed and inform our philosophies with regards to those who challenge the norm. Our greater understanding of chromosomal influences, the neocortex and its role in impulse control and our due respect for behavioral psychology demands that we engender a solution to our ills more refined than 'hit it with a truncheon' or 'shoot it'.

Eloquently put. The more we understand, the more enlightened we become, the harder the answers are to define. We grow from angry children who simply want easy answers to their day to day struggles into adults struggling to find any answer to the tangled web we weave through our social politic.

In the wild its all simple. If a Lion rips an animal apart, but leaves it half alive dying in agony for days, there is no morality to judge either party. One isn't a good or evil; there is no complex arguments for the rights of one animal over the next. Even in circumstances where certain beasts "trick" their opponent into being baited, there is no law to say how unfair that is. It's only until we look to unnatural to define the natural status quo that we create the complications that nature ignores. It's only when we want the weak to have the same chance as the strong to survive do we begin the complex road to where we are.

And as E says, the more we start to look at the mechanics behind the magic, the magic of science all animals accept instinctively; the more we see behind the veil, the more we understand how even our simple social laws, built more to protect than destroy, are often fundamentally flawed. We protect the weak from aggressive with codes than inhibit certain behaviour, and punish "wrong doers". Severe wrong doers start to become classed as "evil", maladjusted and aggressive forces against the social righteousness of our order. After all, natural law doesn't frown on evil, but social law does.

However as social sects grow into larger, communities, now with enough safety and control over their territory to study and consider beyond their natural state, they see larger questions to answer. Eventually culture is looking into science, the whys and hows, and be it via psychology, chemistry or biology, we see how what we've have defined as "wrong doer" or "evil", isn't necessarily that.

These days, our problem is social schism between progressive and traditional rationale. As always, the answer is probably looking to a bit of both. But unfortuntely, we have one group looking at the science of "evil", and looking to understand, empathise (not necessarily sympathise) with these social issues of discontent. On the other hand, we have a traditional philosophy which clings to old doctrine of "good" and "evil" probably distorted by popular media and their need to sensationalise and scare on virtually all our vital issues.

That's not to say that there are elements of traditionalism which are probably important when moving forward. Sometimes a firm hold on the reign is important when taking your horse into unknown territory, but I do firmly believe that as people we need to move away from emotional arguments - as the media enjoys - when it comes to the growing complexities of social issues and keep our perspectives clean and rational. That doesn't mean they have to be clinical, far from it. Get too clinical and you walk towards justification of horrendous acts, but logical, rational thinking and empathy are vital components.

We need to understand the problems from all sides (empathy), we need to look at the consistent and coherent solutions that bear from an issue (logic) and finally we need to keep the emotional tug on these problems clearly under control and not to overtly affect how we deal with them (rational).

IMHO, as a society we are hypocritical when it comes to most issues. It's in our nature because our nature was never meant to be governed by artificial social fairness. We expect of ourselves what we don't from others. Many who would be pro the death sentence wouldn't - understandably - be so ethically steadfast if they themselves were accidentally in the chair. Those who cry "big brother is after you!" for all the CCTV in the streets will be demanding the police use such equipment once they are victim of crime. We call the youth "yobs" or "punks", but only when they are other people's kids, not our own - then they are "being misguided by nasty boy X" or "simply a little confused, but generally a good boy".

So much of the complexities in social law stems from our inconsistency, our lack of logic, our lack of rational and very often, a lack of empathy - not seeing other people's situation through our own eyes.

Honestly, I don't think there is a definiate answer. We're flawed simply because we are trying to create a safe and fair rational system for irrational and unfair expectations. I guess if we did find it, we'd be little more than robots.

But for me the struggle should always carry empathy. Murders, abusers, terrorists. Doesn't matter. Even from the old military argument "know your enemy" it makes sense to understand and see what the problem person sees. Doesn't mean you sympathise or treat the with kid gloves, it means you look for solutions which suits the problem from a rational and empathic perspective. I don't think rejoicing in the murder of people carries either empathy or rationale, which is why I think any death sentence has to be clean, humane and rational. If its empathic, people would rejoice, they'll understand that the monster is often a victim to his own life path. Incareration/execution should be a way of preventing such social threats out of the social system, not about exacting personal dislike/hatred on those people.

I for one will never agree to returning our country to the dark days when it dragged Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley and so many forgotten others to their unjustified death to satiate a baying crowd.

Same here. Incarceration costs and has its own problems in itself, but we are intelligent enough to know these people are born of our social system. Their mess ups are more than likely our mess ups. As being a product of our social system they should be treated as people even if they are people we cannot tolerate within our culture for their threat they create. They are OUR problem, often born from our own failures (the drug system is a perfect example of that), and as such if it costs to keep them incarcerated and alive, so be it. It's the price we pay for our artificial, safe and fair society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion.

While the argument can be made that we do not judge the Lion which rips a gazel apart and lets it suffer, yet we judge our own "animal" selves as good or evil..... while nature doesn't judge using "Morality", I also wonder about where the lines cross between us humans, and animals. Humans find it perfectly acceptable to still be trapezing through the woods with a bow and arrow, piercing the mighty Buck until his blood spills upon the earth. Some use the excuse of "hunting for food", but others simply cut this magnificent animal's head off as a trophy, leaving the rest to rot into the ground. And, while we humans train dogs to rip each others throats out in a fighting ring, for our "entertainment", we also will take one of those same dogs and murder it if it dares to bite a human.

It's obvious where our values lie.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion.

While the argument can be made that we do not judge the Lion which rips a gazel apart and lets it suffer, yet we judge our own "animal" selves as good or evil..... while nature doesn't judge using "Morality", I also wonder about where the lines cross between us humans, and animals. Humans find it perfectly acceptable to still be trapezing through the woods with a bow and arrow, piercing the mighty Buck until his blood spills upon the earth. Some use the excuse of "hunting for food", but others simply cut this magnificent animal's head off as a trophy, leaving the rest to rot into the ground. And, while we humans train dogs to rip each others throats out in a fighting ring, for our "entertainment", we also will take one of those same dogs and murder it if it dares to bit a human.

It's obvious where our values lie.....

Erin...good post and some very good thoughtful issues. The difference is, humans are SUPPOSED to have discernment and judgement of what is right and wrong. Animals react on instinct, humans are, (once again) SUPPOSED to act based on concepts of moral and ethical guidelines using their "higher" intellectual levels...yeah i know, we have done a wonderful job, havent we?

In re: hunting. I have never been an advocate of stalking prey with high tech weaponry as well. However, in instances where the population of a certain species has become so great that their food supply is not adequate enough to sustain, and living myself in a remote area at one time and witnessing the emaciated, yet still living (barely) carcass of a deer, buck, elk, or what have you, i am somewhat inclined to excuse the hunter in those particular cases. Encroachment upon our once pristine wilderness has now offered countless confrontations between man and wild animals. How many times are cougars, mountain lions (which i have had a personal confrontation with myself), or bears shot and killed instead of tranquilized and transported to another area? I know personally that unless the situation was extremely dire, life-threatening or starvation wise, i could never intentionally kill any animal. I used to live across the street from a guy whose living room was chock full of head trophies mounted on his wall. And the zenith was a full grizzly bear rug with head still in place in front of his fireplace. He went hunting every summer in Alaska for grizzly, and every year we would have arguments about the "morality", although i dont really think its a moral issue, lets just say the validity of his hobby. He would state his case, and i would state mine, and we would go nowhere.

As for dogs, most, and i mean most of us are responsible, caring, loving, dog owners who would never subject our pets to such cruelty. Saying "We as humans" is lumping the 99% of responsible owners in with the 1% of the Michael Vicks of the world. A dog or any pet is only a reflection of its owner.

4th Horseman....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larado,

"Empathy is the gift of enlightenment" Christian writings have this concept well before the enlightenment. You know "love your enemy" turn your other cheek" The enlightenment brought us many things some good and some bad, but I can't see how it gave us empathy?

"So much of the complexities in social law stems from our inconsistency, our lack of logic, our lack of rational and very often, a lack of empathy - not seeing other people's situation through our own eyes" We can not afford to assume that "rational" people will naturally conclude that they ought to care about others. The Islalmic facists have no empathy for those that don't see the world through their world view. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Caligula etc. were not stopped with understanding and rational discussion of ideas.

Sometimes events are just evil and wrong, and somebody has to fight it or it will grow. I prefer a Churchill to Chamberlan, not because one is clearly more moral, but because one actually did something about the evil that was harming others.

"These days, our problem is social schism between progressive and traditional rationale. " I very much agree that this is one of the large battles in western culture. You seem to place a high value on logic, reasoning, and empathy. Are you implying that these traits are not part of a traditional world view?

Man is a very complex creature. He tends to be very selfish, but can also love others and do wonderful unselfish acts. Yet, "man is so vain that when he does something humble, he wants to make sure everyone knows what he did" Blaise Pascal. Societies have built great institutions for good, but they have also murdered millions and millions in the name of the state.

Yet, when evil things happen in my neighborhood I would like the state to punish those that did the evil thing. I don't want them to send me to a class so I can better understand why Mr. So and So raped the little kid down the block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
Larado,

"Empathy is the gift of enlightenment" Christian writings have this concept well before the enlightenment. You know "love your enemy" turn your other cheek" The enlightenment brought us many things some good and some bad, but I can't see how it gave us empathy?

I'm not referring to a literal era of Enlightenment, merely that enlightened understanding brings empathy; as you look beyond the selfish desires of a natural social hierarchy where the strongest survive - be it physical or rich or merely the majority, and the weak did - be they physically weak, poor or merely a minority, and start seeing people as genuinely equal, then we are looking beyond self orientated natural selection philsophy and into a wider philsophical issue. Science and philosophy both bring enlightened social groups.

And I would agree in its broad philosophy early Christianity - was very enlightened. The more respected sources seem to agree that the most accurate teachings of Jesus was "love your God and love your neighbour".

But there is a big difference between walking the walk, and talking the talk. Religious crusades, justifed intolerance and of course, judgmental opinions on who is good and who is bad; who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, have all been common human urges way past Early Christainity. Many Christian groups looking away from Jesus refutation of the Judaic commandments for the simple compound he suggested on the Sermon of the Mount ("love your God and love your neighbour"), to focus on the more Judaic philosophies found in the likes of Matthew or more extreme notions of Paul; looking for reasons to justify homophobia, damnation and righteousness.

It's a great pity, for as you say the base philosophy of Jesus was VERY enlightened. He said to accept everyone, judge no one, love everyone. And how much of that can we see being actively followed today? How can executing someone painfully by accepting everyone, judging no one or even loving everyone? Yes, for society to exist we need to make judgments, I don't think that was Jesus' point, he was talking about emotional judgments; allowing your own personal dislike or fear of others affect how you deal with others.

Again, I'm not pro-death sentence, and I don't think Jesus would be either from his base philosophies, but I think if a death sentence is necessary for a culture, then it should at least be humane and within the philosophy of respect that Jesus called for in how we deal with everyone.

"So much of the complexities in social law stems from our inconsistency, our lack of logic, our lack of rational and very often, a lack of empathy - not seeing other people's situation through our own eyes" We can not afford to assume that "rational" people will naturally conclude that they ought to care about others. The Islalmic facists have no empathy for those that don't see the world through their world view. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Caligula etc. were not stopped with understanding and rational discussion of ideas.

Which again is why I suggested in that quote that empathy; the ability to relate and understand another's perspective is vital to go hand in hand with rationality. Stalin, Hitler et al, had no empathy for the people they were judging.

Sometimes events are just evil and wrong, and somebody has to fight it or it will grow. I prefer a Churchill to Chamberlan, not because one is clearly more moral, but because one actually did something about the evil that was harming others.

Both were merely protecting their own country. While I respect Churchill, I wouldn't give him such moral high grounds. Hitler was a threat. There were many atrocities going on around the world that Churchill did not quell the "evil" from.

"These days, our problem is social schism between progressive and traditional rationale. " I very muchagree that this is one of the large battles in western culture. You seem to place a high value on logic, reasoning, and empathy. Are you implying that these traits are not part of a traditional world view?

I'm not saying either group universally has these traits. However, its the progressives, not the traditionalists which brought gender equality, racial equality and - hopefully - equality for sexual orientation. If things are unfair, its rare for the traditionalists to force change - the very idea is an oxymoron. Broadly, traditionalists embrace the values that have been found and embedded in the culture. That can be VERY important in the right occasion, however to look beyond what is accepted as "right", it's normally the progressives that step into the minefield - not always to the best conclusion, but nevertheless the need to transcend what is generally conceived as socially correct is what brings a deeper social understanding. By definition, progressive mindstates are more open to seeing situations in a different light.

Make no mistake, I'm not looking to set up "them vs us", just a logical broad observation on two ideologies.

Man is a very complex creature. He tends to be very selfish, but can also love others and do wonderful unselfish acts. Yet, "man is so vain that when he does something humble, he wants to make sure everyone knows what he did" Blaise Pascal. Societies have built great institutions for good, but they have also murdered millions and millions in the name of the state.

Quite honestly, there is no such thing as an unselfish act. However the are acts which can be committed to work in the favour of others. Yes, some societies have been built for good, but have in turned befouled millions. I don't recall saying they didn't. However, blaise societies tend to be ones which are not looking to understand further than they've already discovered, falling into a swamp of arrogance and often traditionalism to their own morality. Again, the empathy and rationality are not in tandem.

I'm a firm believer in middleground answers; that extremes - be they progressive or traditional - are as dangerous as each other. A society should remember its mistakes and failures, the very cautionary outlook of traditionalism, but needs to look forward and refuse to accept what we are is what we should be.

Yet, when evil things happen in my neighborhood I would like the state to punish those that did the evil thing. I don't want them to send me to a class so I can better understand why Mr. So and So raped the little kid down the block.

Well again you are now rooting a tabloid personal nature into a debate which has evolved into a larger commentary. Mistakes and errors of society are always present, and I don't think anyone is trying to justify them. However there is a danger to be like the media and group a philosophy based on the mistakes make in its name. There are many atrocities done to black, gay and minority groups in the name of maintaining a safe middle class white background, but that doesn't mean we should throughout all the notions of traditionalism.

To centre ones philosophy on a set of mistakes or social injustices is very dangerous for it polarises the greater message.

Again, empathy is not sympathy. Too little rationality and empathy WILL become sympathy. People will feel too much to those who have done horrible things at the detriment of practical social safety.

The point is its an undeniable fact that "evil" things are born from "evil". So many abusers are born from abusers themselves. As soon as we look and understand that abhorrent social acts are born from the abhorrent neglect or misunderstanding, we take the emotional anger out of a problem. We also remove this - IMHO - simplistic notion that there is an absolute for good and evil, and look at problems for the situations they present, and not what they make us feel.

If rapists are dangerous, then they should be incarcerated away from society, but as soon as we simply label them as monsters, we loose sight of trying to understand what creates and motivates these people. To control any situation you have to understand it. labeling something as evil doesn't control the problem, in fact, it's a very easy way for cultures to simply hardline a situation into a simple answer, and in my life on this planet I've seen very, very, very few simple answers.

Again, I'm talking about the philosophy of looking beyond "evil" and understanding fully the problems that create immediate problems and using a balance of rationality and empathy to understand any such issues and deal with them with humanity. Jesus said not to judge, he said we have to love and I would say Christian societies need to do that more. Yes we have to make judgments, but lets make sure they are compassionate and rational, that protects our children and citizens - but doesn't give into our own emotional responses to fear and the need for vengeance.

Sorry for the long answer, and let me assure you I'm not trying to eulogise, just explain what I mean. I'm not making commentary on topical issues in the US, just an ideology I truly believe is required from all - and rational empathy is a very hard path for us to follow, but I believe its the one which will bring us the greater, dare I use it, "good". :)

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the long answer, and let me assure you I'm not trying to eulogise, just explain what I mean. I'm not making commentary on topical issues in the US, just an ideology I truly believe is required from all - and rational empathy is a very hard path for us to follow, but I believe its the one which will bring us the greater, dare I use it, "good". :)

Peace.

Laredo - although there is some disagreement with a few minor issues, i concur wholeheartedly. We are very lucky to have someone as eloquent as yourself here, although a bit long-winded (just kidding)...

"Talking the walk, and walking the walk" - a great metaphor for a vast majority of society. "Do as i say, not as i do" i used to hear as an excuse from not only those whose connection with myself was clouded, but at times, from my very parents themselves. So many epitaphs, so much relevance to a society whose moral and ethical cultivation continues to spiral downward, as the Bible says in 2 Peter 2:2 "as a dog returns to its own vomit, or a sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in its own mire".

In my 49 years in the mortal coil, and having been brought up from an extremely religious heritage, your comment about

"Many Christian groups looking away from Jesus refutation of the Judaic commandments for the simple compound he suggested on the Sermon of the Mount ("love your God and love your neighbour"), to focus on the more Judaic philosophies found in the likes of Matthew or more extreme notions of Paul; looking for reasons to justify homophobia, damnation and righteousness."

is what i see as one of the greater problems shared amongst not only believers, but non-believers as well. I am a literalist, always have, always will be. Either you take it, whether it be the Bible, religion, or what have you as a whole or you reject it completely. Too many of us like to what i call "supermarket" our beliefs. We race to judgement in isle 10, yet avoid forgiveness in isle 15. I know it sounds a bit silly, but i am trying to give you an example of how many of us "pick and choose", holding one issue close to our hearts, while completely rejecting another, yet both are essential for an understanding, neither one alone completes the puzzle, each possessing their own requisite qualities.

Hippyroo is correct when he said that man is capable of both extremely selfish AND charitable acts at the same time. What does that say about us? That we are capable of some of the worst atrocities ever recorded, yet also capable of coming together at times of crisis to lend assistance to those in need. Its something that i dont think any of us can rationally explain. It just is.

RE: Churchill....its very difficult to say that he "allowed" evils to go in the world unregarded. All leaders have thru time. Even our current administration is guilt of ignoring atrocities occurring around the world. Basing their actions and responses on what is considered the "greater evil" is, unfortunately where the line has to be drawn. Churchill, along with the Western Axis considered Hitler to be the greatest threat or "evil" at the time, and chose to focus their resources on defeating him. Yes, all the while, i am sure somewhere in the world there were atrocities being committed, but one has to draw the line between the "greater of two evils".. deal with the greater issue first. Its a similar situation when my son, who is a black belt in tae-kwon-do, competes in a tournament. He has to fight up to three people at the same time, and has been taught to attack the strongest first, then deal with the weaker ones after. That philosophy holds true as well in national affairs. Deal with your greatest threat. Once that has been eliminated, point your efforts at lesser ones. Moral leadership is judged on an individual basis.

I am a civil war buff, as is Southerncelt, and i think some of the greatest moral leadership or our time, even currently, came out of that particular era. Yet, it was at a time when brother was pitted against brother, casualties that today would be inexcusable occurred on a regular basis. 7,000 men killed in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor, 23,000 men killed or wounded at Shiloh, 24,000 lost in the Wilderness, 51,000 lost in 3 days at Gettysburg. If you add just those totals, it comes to a mind blowing 105,000 casualties (deaths/wounds) in what was actually less than A SINGLE WEEK OF FIGHTHING total. We lost a total of approximately 55,000 in several YEARS of fighting in Vietnam. The difference is staggering. Yet still, some of the greatest individuals came out of that era, and to this day are revered for their moral positions. Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, (sorry Wayne), and several others.

Since WW2, perhaps the driving reason behind "ignoring" the numerous atrocities committed half a world away are driven more by economics than by action. We all have sympathy when we hear of savagery committed on an innocent population in some remote part of the world, whether it be Uganda, Darfur, or anywhere else. Most of us "wish" we could do something about it, but it is what it is. Its not perceived to be of a "greater threat" to our society, and thus judged, right or wrong, as so. So the question is, then are we all immoral in considering our safety and security as a higher priority?

4th Horseman..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If rapists are dangerous, then they should be incarcerated away from society, but as soon as we simply label them as monsters, we loose sight of trying to understand what creates and motivates these people. To control any situation you have to understand it. labeling something as evil doesn't control the problem, in fact, it's a very easy way for cultures to simply hardline a situation into a simple answer, and in my life on this planet I've seen very, very, very few simple answers.

This is it. This could not have been put more concisely. Yes, we are all allowed feelings of anger, and desiring vengeance. But, the root problem with the governments of the world is that they all react with those same, base impulses. Forgive me for talking "down" to society, but we are governed by children. When one child hits another child on the playground, the child who was hit gets up, and hits the first child back. "How dare you??? You can't treat me like that!!!" is what his emotional state is saying. It takes a mature person to be in a situation when you are hit (or raped, as I was) or whatever, and rather than wanting to hurt the other person in retaliation, try to find out WHY he did what he did. And, it takes a mature society/government to try to understand their enemies, rather than just try to blast them off the face of the planet, along with whomever happens to get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
Laredo - although there is some disagreement with a few minor issues, i concur wholeheartedly. We are very lucky to have someone as eloquent as yourself here, although a bit long-winded (just kidding)...

Thank you. I know I can go on, and I wouldn't want that to appear as steamrolling. Nothing that's been said in this thread - in my opinion - doesn't have validity, and given none of us are exactly rooting for those who commit severe social injustice to be free to willing commit more of the same - we are all on the same side of the coin, maybe just feeling different edges...

"Talking the walk, and walking the walk" - a great metaphor for a vast majority of society. "Do as i say, not as i do" i used to hear as an excuse from not only those whose connection with myself was clouded, but at times, from my very parents themselves. So many epitaphs, so much relevance to a society whose moral and ethical cultivation continues to spiral downward, as the Bible says in 2 Peter 2:2 "as a dog returns to its own vomit, or a sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in its own mire".

I agree so far as the ethos that people continue to adhere to is more eulogy than practical. That said, I'm not sure we're "spiralling downwards" as you suggest, only so far that our population is increasing and our environment that sustains us is rapidly failing to uphold our preferred status quos. As moral beings, I think we are getting closer to - what I see - as the teachings of Jesus; the West is a great deal more tolerant than it ever has been, and far more fair. The law represents more of us and we are people who are far more understanding of the complexities and problems in life. Things are seen in much less absolute eyes. Of course the downside is the wider our eyes, the more we see; the world becomes more complex, and the bigger the population, the greater the growth of problems.

I think spiralling is a mix. I think in someways we are in a practical spiral of resources and population - something will eventually break, but as morality goes, I'd say we're a little closer to what is considered quintessential to Jesus' teaching, though we all have a long way to go.

In my 49 years in the mortal coil, and having been brought up from an extremely religious heritage, your comment about

"Many Christian groups looking away from Jesus refutation of the Judaic commandments for the simple compound he suggested on the Sermon of the Mount ("love your God and love your neighbour"), to focus on the more Judaic philosophies found in the likes of Matthew or more extreme notions of Paul; looking for reasons to justify homophobia, damnation and righteousness."

is what i see as one of the greater problems shared amongst not only believers, but non-believers as well. I am a literalist, always have, always will be. Either you take it, whether it be the Bible, religion, or what have you as a whole or you reject it completely. Too many of us like to what i call "supermarket" our beliefs. We race to judgement in isle 10, yet avoid forgiveness in isle 15. I know it sounds a bit silly, but i am trying to give you an example of how many of us "pick and choose", holding one issue close to our hearts, while completely rejecting another, yet both are essential for an understanding, neither one alone completes the puzzle, each possessing their own requisite qualities.

Absolutely. I'd be fascinated to learn more at - as a literalist - you recouncile many of the seeming contradictions. I totally agree. It's a human ideology that isn't just in our moral philosophy, but in our day to day patterns. I wonder how many can honestly say they've not done a stupid maneuver in their car, yet hold other cars accountable for similar poor judgments as being worse drivers? How many consider their child's bad behaviour as a chip of the 'ol block, but someone else's child's similar characteristics as bad parenting? How many have cursed pedestrians in their cars, "this is a road, hurry up and get off it!" and then gone and done the same to cars as pedestrians "oi, my walking feet were walking this ground way before you lousy drivers, I'll take as long as I like to cross the road!"

We don't just talk the walk, we are people who judge in our favour, which is where the "Do as I say, not as I do" becomes so pertinent to this observation; I can justify MY behaviour, but I don't expect you to justify YOURS." Before we even look at morality, we see it in human behaviour.

RE: Churchill....its very difficult to say that he "allowed" evils to go in the world unregarded. All leaders have thru time. Even our current administration is guilt of ignoring atrocities occurring around the world. Basing their actions and responses on what is considered the "greater evil" is, unfortunately where the line has to be drawn. Churchill, along with the Western Axis considered Hitler to be the greatest threat or "evil" at the time, and chose to focus their resources on defeating him. Yes, all the while, i am sure somewhere in the world there were atrocities being committed, but one has to draw the line between the "greater of two evils".. deal with the greater issue first.

I would agree with that, if he ever dealt with the other evils afterwards. :) I guess we may just disagree with this, but as a human being whose mandate was to protect the welfare of his country, I think Churchhill was more concerned about the potential damage to his territory than the "evil/good" of the acts Hitler was invoking. And I support that - a leader should be concerned more with his people than his own personal morality. I'm not saying he wouldn't see Hitler as evil, I'm sure he probably did, just that I think we have to be careful at labelling his actions as ones simply to draw a line against evil rather than to defend his country from the threat of an expanding counter ideology.

But I suppose we're nitpicking somewhat. I guess this is why I dislike absolutes; they remove the relevant grey. I don't believe Churchhill's action were anything related to evil, but defense of the realm. I think that placing mandates of good and evil distorts the honest truth of actions on both sides.

But that's me. :)

Its a similar situation when my son, who is a black belt in tae-kwon-do, competes in a tournament. He has to fight up to three people at the same time, and has been taught to attack the strongest first, then deal with the weaker ones after. That philosophy holds true as well in national affairs. Deal with your greatest threat. Once that has been eliminated, point your efforts at lesser ones. Moral leadership is judged on an individual basis.

Or tactical rationality. Whether you see this as moral or tactical judgment, whether we see the Nazi's as a force which had to be eliminated for its atrocities or simply an expanding threat that needs to be curbed when strong enough, it all leads to the same practical logical measures. Churchill didn't have long enough to gone on and prove or disprove whether he would have moved onto other "evil" threats of a lesser variety. I guess that is just left up to the squabbles of history.

Call me jaded, but I've seen historically so many campaigns fought so selectively against "evil", and often that "evil" is a territorial threat or an ideological difference. Yes, call me jaded. :)

I am a civil war buff, as is Southerncelt, and i think some of the greatest moral leadership or our time, even currently, came out of that particular era. Yet, it was at a time when brother was pitted against brother, casualties that today would be inexcusable occurred on a regular basis. 7,000 men killed in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor, 23,000 men killed or wounded at Shiloh, 24,000 lost in the Wilderness, 51,000 lost in 3 days at Gettysburg. If you add just those totals, it comes to a mind blowing 105,000 casualties (deaths/wounds) in what was actually less than A SINGLE WEEK OF FIGHTHING total. We lost a total of approximately 55,000 in several YEARS of fighting in Vietnam. The difference is staggering. Yet still, some of the greatest individuals came out of that era, and to this day are revered for their moral positions. Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, (sorry Wayne), and several others.

Those are some incredibly educating stats!

Since WW2, perhaps the driving reason behind "ignoring" the numerous atrocities committed half a world away are driven more by economics than by action. We all have sympathy when we hear of savagery committed on an innocent population in some remote part of the world, whether it be Uganda, Darfur, or anywhere else. Most of us "wish" we could do something about it, but it is what it is. Its not perceived to be of a "greater threat" to our society, and thus judged, right or wrong, as so. So the question is, then are we all immoral in considering our safety and security as a higher priority?

It's a fair question. I think your point is valid. In the end, regardless of our example of Churchill, no leader can take a country to war which doesn't believe in it and expect to be carry the same power for long. Unfortunately, people don't care of the atrocities in Africa as they do those on their doorsteps.

This is precisely the complexity of moral complexity which is a perfect example of how grey the world is, and why I don't like stark absolutes of black and white being applied to situations of so many different shades.

My only answer is that there is no "right" answer. Which I guess has been my point here (if there was one), that everything is so disputable, with so many valid perspectives, we need to shrug off what's "good" and "evil" and accept the more simple social notions of what is "right" and "wrong" for our communities; accept that because we're not perfect absolutes, that one man's evil is another man's good; that really we have to stand up and accept the burden of OUR choices and not try and carry them comfortably on the flag of Good Vs Evil.

That's not to say our Faith cannot dictate to us what we see as universally good and evil, but we should appreciate in an imperfect world, with imperfect, hypocritical, confused beings as we are, the best we can muster is what is socially acceptable and what is socially abhorrent. Unfortunately our world isn't blessed with the application of universal truths. The sooner the world realises it, perhaps the better chance we can find rational and caring answers to our problems that don't involve blowing things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using our website you consent to our Terms of Use of service and Guidelines. These are available at all times via the menu and footer including our Privacy Policy policy.