A Proper Ethical and Moral Code, Has America Lost its Bearings?...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
As the election draws ever closer it is becoming quite evident We the People are destined to get another screwing no matter which candidate prevails. I find myself just shaking my head and acknowledging the battle for liberties lost and ever again realizing the full natural rights of man is now but a fading and ever more distant dream of what once was.
We have slowly and willingly allowed the forces that propelled us to achieve greatness as a people and nation to be turned into a force that will ultimately destroy us. Witnessing the forces at work that have torn, and continue to tear at the philosophical principles this nation was founded on I no longer have the stamina or desire to describe that which should be clear to all. So I will allow another to say it. And say it with clarity, accuracy, and boldness...
Profound truths. However, until such time as the educational system, the business community, our corrupt politicians, and the general electorate understands these moral and ethical principles, and begins to respect and practice them this nation will continue it's reactionary slide back to the tyrannical past from which it initially rebelled.
Sadly, neither major political party and by extension neither candidate has a clue. At this point in the game I wonder how many Americans really have a clue any longer as well.
For more information on the above quoted work please visit here.
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
As the election draws ever closer it is becoming quite evident We the People are destined to get another screwing no matter which candidate prevails. I find myself just shaking my head and acknowledging the battle for liberties lost and ever again realizing the full natural rights of man is now but a fading and ever more distant dream of what once was.
We have slowly and willingly allowed the forces that propelled us to achieve greatness as a people and nation to be turned into a force that will ultimately destroy us. Witnessing the forces at work that have torn, and continue to tear at the philosophical principles this nation was founded on I no longer have the stamina or desire to describe that which should be clear to all. So I will allow another to say it. And say it with clarity, accuracy, and boldness...
Man's Rights - If one wishes to advocate a free society-that is, capitalism-one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today's intellectuals, one must gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted, and seldom discussed, most conspicuously by the so-called "conservatives."
"Rights" are a moral concept- the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individuals actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others- the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social-context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of of a society, between ethics and poliics. Individual rights arev the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominate ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accident of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter-and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotions to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man's earthly existence.
Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to the traditional rituals, they held total power and extracted blind obedience-on the implicit principal of: "The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler's edicts are its voice on earth."
This was true of of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. "The Divine Rights of Kings" summarizes the political theory of the first- "Vox populi, vox dei", of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaohs as an embodied God-the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens- the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome- the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages-the absolute monarchy of France-the welfare state of Bismarck's Prussia-the gas chambers of of Nazi Germany- the slaughterhouses of the Soviet Union.
All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. {Emphasis mine}
Profound truths. However, until such time as the educational system, the business community, our corrupt politicians, and the general electorate understands these moral and ethical principles, and begins to respect and practice them this nation will continue it's reactionary slide back to the tyrannical past from which it initially rebelled.
Sadly, neither major political party and by extension neither candidate has a clue. At this point in the game I wonder how many Americans really have a clue any longer as well.
For more information on the above quoted work please visit here.
I know you'll disagree, but you can't have ethics or morals without an ultimate authority. We deny that ultimate authority without understanding that only opinions remain. We both know the old vulgarism about opinions.
ReplyDeleteReason and logic, combined with respect for all is the ultimate authority. Belief in the ultimate authority you refer to has been responsible for more mayhem and bloodshed than almost any other cause or reason.
DeleteBut as man has free will, the ability and choice to reason, or not, the human race will continue to evolve and likely to have these discussions until the light in the world burns out. Whether it be by the sun burning out our we end up destroying ourselves in the name of Allah, or God, or whatever.
That's just your opinion, Les, and you know what they say about opinions. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI certainly do, ;-)
DeleteMaybe I'm just getting old, Les, but I don't see the industriousness and personal responsibility that I used to see in my dealings with people. Charles Murray wrote (yet another) controversial book about this (I think that it's called "Coming Apart) and, while it may be kind of impolitic to agree with the dude, I kinda have to do.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them."
ReplyDeleteThat is just silly. There are many interconnected layers of systems that uphold rights, and, if at all, capitalism is simply a system that can make the life of individuals in a liberal society more enjoyable.
"Since there is no such entity as "society,"..."
That's just silly.
Not only is there definitely such an entity, as abstract as it can be, but it has an obvious and massive impact on the "individual men."
"...since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law;"
Any student of history (or really any politically aware adult) knows this isn't always so. Yes, often it is. But it is not a hard set rule, and it is avoidable and has been just as often avoided.
"The dominate ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority..."
That's not true. Again, any student of history, (or really, again, any politically aware adult), knows that the ethics of all societies often have been quite incongruent with altruism or collectivity.
For example: Today's conservative movement in America, to quote John Kenneth Galbraith; "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." That hold ever truer for most Libertarians and most all Objectivists.
Greed is not good. It is the excessive demand for more and more, even at the expense of the rights of others. This isn't about "altruism," a lovely human trait that unfortunately has little to do with the workings of today's world, but rather about real, long-term, fore-sought ethics. About making the world a better place for your family and kin.
To me? Really? It seems this disdain for altruism and collectivism is a little psychopathic (I don't mean that in as terrible a way as it may sound, though, and I'm looking forward to reading a couple of new books on the subject of psychopathy, one from Sam Harris).
JMJ
Who's talking about greed jmj? Other than you.
DeleteI really hope you publish that. This is a good discussion.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Published.
Delete.
ReplyDelete"The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law."
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to a wisely written living document, supreme secular law of the land, known as the Constitution. Freedom and liberty are protected _because_ of the people's belief in the grand secular constitutional government system of USA.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
ZZZZZ
DeleteEma, my apology. The constitution, the bill of rights, and the structure of the American government designed by giant thinkers is what subordinated society to moral law. Sdly we are rapidly evolving away from that foundation.
DeleteI hope you noted the comment by the author of the work with respect to conservatives.
Your free will leads you to be a condescending ass. Imagine what others free will would lead to without ruling authority authorized by the people.
ReplyDeleteRyan is the representation of Rand. Vote for him. If you say Ryan is not a real representation of Rand. then you understand that all political philosophies get corrupted in implementation.
What an egotistical failure you are. Only YOU have the correct answer. Which is why Rand never has and never will catch on.
You sound like the Obamamaniacs of 2008. Preaching a political messiah.
Since Rand is followed by a miniscule percentage of people, we call that a cult.
Pull your head out of your ass. There is no one philosophy that has all answers. This country's success is a result of many ideologies working together.
But of course YOU are correct and everyone else is wrong; proof that your thinking is absent the ability to lead 100's of millions of people.
Go to some South American country and start your own society, Jim Jones.
Did you write this from Hugo Chavez's bedroom? Ass...
DeleteA belief in an ultimate authority, as spoken to above, is an opinion itself. And as the blog author stated, that paradigm of an ultimate authority has been no bulwark against chais and the oppression of rights.
ReplyDeleteWorld history is full of those, like you, who also thought everyone should live under one ruling ideology; Hitler, Stalin, Mao. No wonder you feel comfortable in your egotistical, bigoted thinking.
ReplyDeleteRand grew up in Stalinist Russia. No wonder she thought ANY government program for the masses would only lead to Socialist domination over people. She never was exposed to "the people" (permission) allowing government rule to make their lives better.
The only thing Johnson and Rand have in common is the tiny percentage of people that follow them. Gee, no lesson in that.
Sounding more like the TAO of old. He must be your buffoon teacher.
DeleteTAO kicked your ass, daily.
ReplyDeleteHa, Ha, Ha...
DeleteI read your post and the comments, and I thought of responding, but when I saw how you replied to a perfectly reasonable and thoughtful comment by Ema Nymton:
ReplyDelete"Rational Nation USAMon Oct 08, 07:59:00 AM EDT
ZZZZZ"
I immediately understood that if someone wrote a comment you disagreed with, all you would do is mock them, so why the hell bother?
Ema is being responded to in kind. Ema is a drone for the extreme left and I have tired of what I consider to be her broken record comments. Therefore the Z's.
DeleteYou on the other hand Shaw generally have something more interesting and with more depth. I'm sorry you chose not to comment, I'm sure I would have enjoyed your comment.
I do not mind a comment I disagree with. Honest disagreement is good.
Of course with Wolfie Boy stevie, RR, and occasionally one of the Anon's that like the other two engage in slander, lies, and name calling I will responded with mockery as they deserve nothing less. Or, they don't bet published at all. Like your Therasites I respond appropriately as needed.
I do find it interesting when the left is as guilty of, or more so than those that disagree with them with respect to comment response.
"Ema is being responded to in kind. Ema is a drone for the extreme left and I have tired of what I consider to be her broken record comments. Therefore the Z's."
ReplyDeleteBut, my friend, how many times have you come to my blog and deposited the "off the cliff" comment, and the "frick and frack" comment, and the promotion of Gary Johnson?
Answer: A lot.
The particular comment by Ema was not snarky. But you answered it in snark.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's your blog, and you can run it as you please. Mine was just an observation.
"...the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social-context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of of a society, between ethics and poliics. Individual rights arev the means of subordinating society to moral law."
Whose "moral law?"
Note my second response to Ema.
DeleteThe ethics that determine moral law will be argued over for the next millennium. Or until the raw power of a tyrannical state run by power hungry dictators eradicates the right to property (capitalism) and individual rights. Until people become the property of their government and thus begin serving the government rather to further "society."
I here Venezuela is nice this time of year.
I'm patiently waiting for some fair and balanced coverage from Ema on the latest polling data. That, Les, should be very interesting, huh?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Will, quite sure.
Delete