My 2 bits on this subject. Please do not confuse my comments as a defense for Bush or any particular leader. What do we, as rational thinking people, require in a leader during trying times? Is it truth? Heck no, the truth causes mass hysteria and runs on banks. Is it love, understanding or compassion? No again, you can't take love to the bank. Money then. Yes, yes I think we have a winner! I'll take your tax cuts and raise you two entitlements thankyouverymuch. We also want safety. Safety isn't cheap. Who pays for all this? That's right, rich people. And how do they afford it? They make lots and lots of money. Robbing the rich to reward the least productive among us seems highly unethical to me. Not to mention ruining those that are perpetually on the dole. Some genius referred to it as the soft bigotry of low expectations. We want our leaders to be tough and decisive. We want them 'nuanced' and above all we want them to not embarrass us with flubs and or bad behavior. The former Gov. of Ill. is liked and defended by no one but he just won't go away. Why won't he just go away?
Right now the rich are sitting on treasuries waiting on something to happen. I don't know what exactly but probably something decisive. Not being filthy rich, I don't generally hob nob with them. My exposure is relegated to the antics of celebs for the most part. Some of which seem highly socially responsible(Bono) and some less so(Hilton.) The Bill and Linda Gates foundation is a wonderful thing. Warren Buffet likes it so much he's giving the bulk of his fortune to them. The moderately wealthy people I do know personally I mostly know from church and are dedicated to improving our community. The nicest, most honest folks you'd ever meet. They tithe for crying out loud. I don't think I'd do that if I could. Obama is going to have to break some eggs to make his recovery omelet. Instead of punishing rich people I hope he starts passing out boot straps to the rest of us. Maybe lower the minimum wage, cut corporate taxes and offer up some sweet national park land for development in return for a little help. Lets turn these people, yes they are people, not villains for the most part, into patriots, not victims of Govt greed. dj On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think I've come to the conclusion that I believe the facts often > have a great deal to do with morality - in some sense that one can get > oughts from is. I'm led here by much experience with lying and human > incompetence. Much of what is involved is not suited to what is > taught as "rational" - this seems to me to involve a lying face of > dispassion before it starts. I think Francis gets somewhere near what > I mean about fact with "One of the major > problems in our modern societies, it seems to me, is the generally > accepted banishment of morality to the "private" realm and a > reluctance to demand its consequences in the public area (and by > this, > I don't just mean the conventional political, although the > [impossible] hopes and aspirations invested in Obama worldwide > suggest > some kind of common yearning for change here)". > Blair seems to think he can just take counsel with god, and this may > yet be the exit strategy of Obama if he leads us to more despicable > war like Bush and his poodle. It isn't that Obama is the millennial > hero that is fact, it's our desire for what he seems to represent that > is fact. Some of us are already twice bitten twice shy. What we seem > to lack is reliable education and reliable histories and any grip at > all on why it is wrong to let people grow obscenely rich in money > terms. I suspect my morality is actually very religious, > notwithstanding my atheism. I'd say Francis gets much we need to > address right and would perhaps stress we have made it very difficult > to consider anything morally in public - perhaps because the spectres > of hideous religious moralities linger on amidst a populace more > interested in who shagged whom than why we fail to put decent society > together. > On 1 Feb, 17:20, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> Fran, thank you for your thoughtful post…again! >> >> Since the majority of it was in no direct way associated with your >> last two, probably rhetorical questions, I'll address them quickly. >> Some of us don't have to worry about such funds, not holding any. And, >> if anyone in fact cares about the general ethos of humanity, one would >> do at least some cursory research before investing. >> >> Of course, when you mention 'consequences', yes, such an analysis can >> quickly drop many levels into complexity. Yet, as humans, other than >> mere survival, is there anything else (ethics) that is more worth our >> attention? Personally, I think not. >> >> Now, going to more of the meat of your presentation, when you address >> politics and business and associated justifications, of course this >> can be found. Again, on a personal level, rather than simple >> reactionary rhetoric alone, over the decades I've focused my attention >> on learning some accurate maps of the human psyche that help my >> analytical, analogical let alone empathetical sense when it comes to >> these things. Rather than resulting the all too common 'you are >> wrong', 'I am right' war here, more of a transcendental view into >> humanity and Mind can be achieved. Without some sort of integral >> theory and philosophy, thoughts, people, institutions, goals, ethos' >> etc. will all be seen as a war between 'sides'. This is pointed at, >> albeit possibly in slogan form, by the recent "We are one" theme. >> >> So, rather than any sort of 'should' when it comes to universal laws… >> it simply is. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> On Feb 1, 8:45 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time >> > will that it should become a universal law." >> > —Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals >> >> > In my last posting on the "Capitalism" thread, I expressed the need to >> > think a bit about the issues the thread had led to in the area of >> > morality, issues which Orn has very usefully moved into this >> > (relatively) new thread. In the past few days I've been doing that bit >> > of thinking and coming to the conclusion that it would probably take a >> > book to really deal with them - something I don't see myself writing >> > any time in the near future! But then, Neil and Molly made some useful >> > comments about the re-invention of the wheel and I realised that >> > Kant's Categorical Imperative actually expresses my position pretty >> > completely (or, more realistically, that I've been an adherent of the >> > Kantian position ever since I became acquainted with it during my >> > study of philosophy nearly thirty years ago). >> >> > The beauty of the Categorical Imperative is that it offers the >> > possibility of overcoming the dichotomy between general norms and >> > relativism. While Kant argues that we should be able to universalise >> > our choices if we want to morally defend them, it still leaves open, >> > indeed demands, examination of the individual circumstances >> > determining our choice before making that choice. What is right in one >> > situation may not be right in another. At the same time, it >> > presupposes that the individual choosing has some kind of freedom in >> > making that choice and implies that the individual choosing then takes >> > responsibility for the choice made. >> >> > The ideal expressed in the Categorical Imperative is a very high one >> > and implies the ability to to reflect on one's situation as well as >> > demanding a fair proportion of self-knowledge and honesty. If we >> > regard it as desirable that a society should be inspired by moral >> > principles, then this implies that a society should be consciously >> > educating with the goal of increasing such values as reflection, self- >> > knowledge and honesty. This, I think, is the kind of thing involved in >> > the concept of Paideia (you see, Orn, I haven't forgotten :-)). A >> > practical idea for schooling in this area was proposed by Mortimer >> > Adler twenty years ago and offers some good ideas (even if my >> > philosophical position otherwise differs considerably from Adler's). >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paideia_Proposal >> >> > I do, of course, realise that such a fundamental starting point for >> > morals is far removed from the actuality of our society and is >> > something in practical life we may continually fall short of. >> > Notwithstanding, it seems to me to be a goal worth continually >> > striving for. A starting point might be to examine our societal values >> > and role models with regard to their moral value. One of the major >> > problems in our modern societies, it seems to me, is the generally >> > accepted banishment of morality to the "private" realm and a >> > reluctance to demand its consequences in the public area (and by this, >> > I don't just mean the conventional political, although the >> > [impossible] hopes and aspirations invested in Obama worldwide suggest >> > some kind of common yearning for change here). >> >> > Business, in particular, seems to have abandoned fundamental moral >> > positions, substituting some kind of bastard corrupt notion of >> > "ethics". An example which strikes me here are the managers of asset >> > stripping organisations who justify their destruction of of viable, >> > mostly profitable businesses with their ethical duty to maximise >> > shareholder value, at the cost, often, of thousands of jobs and untold >> > misery. They justify themselves with the arguments that their >> > individual actions are always legal and ethical within the remit for >> > which they have contractually obligated themselves. Not to act the way >> > they have done, they argue, would be to fail in their duties to those >> > who are paying them. This line of argument reminds me of the self- >> > justifications offered by those who organised and carried through the >> > Holocaust at Nurenberg. >> >> > The problem is that we are all frequently caught up in such >> > mechanisms. How many of us know, for example, how the private pension >> > funds on which we are depending, at least in part, for security in our >> > old-age (insofar as they have survived the crash) have really been >> > investing our money? Or what the consequences are? >> >> > Francis >> >> > On 29 Jan., 21:04, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of morality in >> > > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase him, here >> > > are his words: >> >> > > "…Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including >> > > your >> > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the >> > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a >> > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me >> > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty (and >> > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of >> > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve >> > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in society/markets/ >> > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, >> > > most >> > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems >> > > of >> > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, >> > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? >> > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the >> > > others ... ;-)" – fran >> >> > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by morality, how to >> > > educate for it etc. My responding post: >> >> > > "Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter… >> > > ethics. >> > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it is >> > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social systems >> > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. >> > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, of >> > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of empathetical >> > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses function >> > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my >> > > personal ethos/morality shines through. >> > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I'll wait and see if >> > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more fruitful >> > > discussion. " – orn >> >> > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include >> > > contradictions to this notion, I'm starting a new one to address it >> > > for those who wish to explore rather than reject.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
