Saturday, November 27, 2004
Reclaiming moral ground
I find it interesting that the use of language in America is both appalling and telling. It is appalling because those who truly know how to use language use it to bludgeon their enemies and sucker-punch everyone else using the right buzz word or catch phrase to get elected and then make bad policy for the whole country. Frank Luntz and Karl Rove are cases in point. Extremists of any kind are another.
Unfortunately, the imprecision with which the average American uses words is telling in that the average American mind is highly undisciplined in the use of language to both express itself and to communicate with others. This imprecision and lack of discipline lends itself to easy manipulation thus making most Americans good targets for the likes of Rove and Luntz to shape the entire consciousness, direction, and political agenda of America.
To help correct this by following on the previous post, it is important to understand what is meant by the terms "morals" and "ethics." Both terms involve knowing right and wrong in relation to actions, behavior, volition, and internal motivation (intent). All these things are what determine one's character and integrity.
The expression "moral values" is a corruption of the meaning of "moral." To put this in context, since "morals" involves the distinction between right and wrong in relation to actions, behavior, etc., "moral values" becomes "the distinction between right and wrong behavior values." It looks kinda stupid that way to me. Not to mention that while one's "values" can inform one's behavior, it is one's behavior that is either right or wrong, good or bad. However, behaviors are not themselves "values."
On the other hand, one's behavior will speak volumes about one's values and whether those values rest on the common ones of honesty, fairness, sincerity, good faith, kindess, and treating others with dignity and respect. If these are not seen in a person's behavior you can be sure they are not part of that person's values. In other words, does the person walk their talk. If not, they are a hypocrite (not a hippocrit). And if they impose one standard for themselves and another for everyone else, then they are imposing a double standard and that makes them worse than a simple hypocrite.
Since morals are about right and wrong, we have a serious problem today understanding what is in fact right and wrong. Knowing what is right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Right is that which prevents harm, preserves life, and makes the heart glad. Wrong is that which harms, destroys life, and makes the heart despair. Unfortunately, a segment of the population led by a few very smart but immoral people have managed to put everyone on a false footing about what is right and wrong. The leaders of this movement know the difference but they don't care. The followers of such leaders do care but no longer know which is which. This becomes a case of the blind (eye) leading the blind (sighted).
Another situation are the extremists at both ends of the political and social spectrum becoming their own group and the vast majority in the middle are left scratching their heads trying to make sense of what has and is happening to our country, its people, its founding principles, and the everyday values of honesty and fairness that we grew up with. I blame the "liberal" extremists who pushed moral and cultural relativism down our throats for this one. I can see where the conservatives have a bona fide gripe. (See Hewlett & West's "The War Against Parents" for an explanation.)
On the other hand, the rigidity of the status quo invites smashing for want of some flexibility. The oak is indeed mighty and strong, but when the winds of change come blowing in, the bending willow is the one that remains standing in the end.
Somewhere in here is the path of human beings. The path that acknowledges our individual needs and finds a way to harmonize them all by continually emphasizing the common ground of our humanity and yet, respects each other's limits. Without this kind of acceptance and respecting of limits, there can be no basic sense of human decency and safety whether in our homes, out in public, or on the internet. Nor can there be any genuine appreciation for the variety in life that is the spice of life.
To illustrate the point from an Eastern perspective, the Confucian distinction between an inclusive harmony and an exclusive sameness has an obvious social and political application. There is a passage in the Discourses of the States (Kuo-yü), a collection of historical narratives probably compiled around the fourth century B.C., which underscores the kind of harmony that maximizes difference:
To be continued...
Unfortunately, the imprecision with which the average American uses words is telling in that the average American mind is highly undisciplined in the use of language to both express itself and to communicate with others. This imprecision and lack of discipline lends itself to easy manipulation thus making most Americans good targets for the likes of Rove and Luntz to shape the entire consciousness, direction, and political agenda of America.
To help correct this by following on the previous post, it is important to understand what is meant by the terms "morals" and "ethics." Both terms involve knowing right and wrong in relation to actions, behavior, volition, and internal motivation (intent). All these things are what determine one's character and integrity.
The expression "moral values" is a corruption of the meaning of "moral." To put this in context, since "morals" involves the distinction between right and wrong in relation to actions, behavior, etc., "moral values" becomes "the distinction between right and wrong behavior values." It looks kinda stupid that way to me. Not to mention that while one's "values" can inform one's behavior, it is one's behavior that is either right or wrong, good or bad. However, behaviors are not themselves "values."
On the other hand, one's behavior will speak volumes about one's values and whether those values rest on the common ones of honesty, fairness, sincerity, good faith, kindess, and treating others with dignity and respect. If these are not seen in a person's behavior you can be sure they are not part of that person's values. In other words, does the person walk their talk. If not, they are a hypocrite (not a hippocrit). And if they impose one standard for themselves and another for everyone else, then they are imposing a double standard and that makes them worse than a simple hypocrite.
Since morals are about right and wrong, we have a serious problem today understanding what is in fact right and wrong. Knowing what is right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Right is that which prevents harm, preserves life, and makes the heart glad. Wrong is that which harms, destroys life, and makes the heart despair. Unfortunately, a segment of the population led by a few very smart but immoral people have managed to put everyone on a false footing about what is right and wrong. The leaders of this movement know the difference but they don't care. The followers of such leaders do care but no longer know which is which. This becomes a case of the blind (eye) leading the blind (sighted).
Another situation are the extremists at both ends of the political and social spectrum becoming their own group and the vast majority in the middle are left scratching their heads trying to make sense of what has and is happening to our country, its people, its founding principles, and the everyday values of honesty and fairness that we grew up with. I blame the "liberal" extremists who pushed moral and cultural relativism down our throats for this one. I can see where the conservatives have a bona fide gripe. (See Hewlett & West's "The War Against Parents" for an explanation.)
On the other hand, the rigidity of the status quo invites smashing for want of some flexibility. The oak is indeed mighty and strong, but when the winds of change come blowing in, the bending willow is the one that remains standing in the end.
Somewhere in here is the path of human beings. The path that acknowledges our individual needs and finds a way to harmonize them all by continually emphasizing the common ground of our humanity and yet, respects each other's limits. Without this kind of acceptance and respecting of limits, there can be no basic sense of human decency and safety whether in our homes, out in public, or on the internet. Nor can there be any genuine appreciation for the variety in life that is the spice of life.
To illustrate the point from an Eastern perspective, the Confucian distinction between an inclusive harmony and an exclusive sameness has an obvious social and political application. There is a passage in the Discourses of the States (Kuo-yü), a collection of historical narratives probably compiled around the fourth century B.C., which underscores the kind of harmony that maximizes difference:
When harmony is fecund, sameness is barren. Things accommodating each other on equal terms is called blending in harmony, and in so doing they are able to flourish and grow, and other things are drawn to them. But when same is added to same, once it is used up, there is no more. Hence, the Former Kings blended earth with metal, wood, fire, and water to make their products. They harmonized the five flavors to satisfy their palate, strengthened the four limbs to protect the body, attuned the six notes to please the ear, integrated their various senses to nourish their hearts and minds, ... and selected ministers and counselors who would express a variety of opinions on issues, and made every effort to bring things into harmony ... There is no music in a single note, no decoration in a single item, no relish in a single taste (Ames, Sun-tzu, 60-61).
To be continued...
<< Home
