Our individual lives are infused with groups. Groups based on ethnicity, geography, vocation or common interests. Groups based on family, religion, or any number of potential commonalities.
In a free country, most groups are free to choose the members they accept, and set the rules that govern their members. Most individuals are free to accept membership (or not). Once they become members, if they desire, they can attempt to change the rules, and are free to leave the group if they wish to depart.
In short, most groups are voluntary. Some are less voluntary that others, but even those that seem most difficult to leave (say, employment or location) are still choices that individuals have the power to make.
Some groups are not voluntary. Ethnicity is one example of an involuntary grouping. You cannot change your ethnic heritage, but neither does your ethnic heritage limit you. In a free society, you can make of yourself what you will...in a closed society, you will be limited by your ethnicity.
Another example of an involuntary group is the nation you were born into. If you were born in the United States, you can move from city to city or state to state at will. Within the United States, you will become a citizen of the city or state that you move to, but you cannot declare yourself a citizen of another country.
Each nation state reserves the right to offer or reject citizenship rights to those individuals who choose to move within its borders. The special situation of the national government will be discussed much more in future posts.
Modern life is a tapestry of conflicting, sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing, individuals and groups. It is difficult to understand what is happening in such a confusion of agendas and egos, if one does not know how to cut through the fog of vanity and polemics.
The purpose of the "Poor Man's Philosophy" is to offer an understanding why things are as they are, and to encourage a new way of thinking about how we can change things.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Post #8 "Universal Morality" #2
Unrestricted individual freedom leads toward anarchy. The group can control and limit individual freedom, but unrestricted group control leads the individual towards repression, servitude, and totalitarianism.
Left to their own devices, groups tend to use individuals as pawns, as means to the group ends. The group tends to concentrate the power of choice to a few leaders and remove the power of choice from the many.
The larger and more powerful the group, the fewer choices left for the individual.
Rule Two of the "Universal Morality". The more freedom of choice the group allows each individual, and the more the group protects all individuals equally from other individuals and groups who would unfairly limit personal choice, the more moral the behavior of the group becomes.
The Universal Morality is really based on the conflict between the individual and the group. It is based on finding that "sweet spot" where the individual is willing to give up some of his free choice in order to secure his right to other, more important choices. It is where the group is willing to cede some of its control in order to allow each individual the right to choose for themselves.
Finding the "sweet spot" is a never ending, constantly evolving, battle. Each generation must renew the fight to define the balance between group and individual.
But, if you believe in the Three Building Blocks and in the Universal Morality, they will lead you to the modern concepts of individual liberty and the rule of law...and I believe they will get you there whether you believe in a Creator or not.
Universal Morality is the benchmark by which all other moral codes can be evaluated. Its purpose is to evaluate the behavior of individuals and/or groups.
Are agreements between individuals and groups entered into willingly and knowingly, or are they done under duress? Are the agreements done in a fair, open, and honest manner, or are they based on cheating, lies, or force?
The relationship between Universal Morality and how it relates to religion, politics, and government, will be discussed more fully in future posts.
Left to their own devices, groups tend to use individuals as pawns, as means to the group ends. The group tends to concentrate the power of choice to a few leaders and remove the power of choice from the many.
The larger and more powerful the group, the fewer choices left for the individual.
Rule Two of the "Universal Morality". The more freedom of choice the group allows each individual, and the more the group protects all individuals equally from other individuals and groups who would unfairly limit personal choice, the more moral the behavior of the group becomes.
The Universal Morality is really based on the conflict between the individual and the group. It is based on finding that "sweet spot" where the individual is willing to give up some of his free choice in order to secure his right to other, more important choices. It is where the group is willing to cede some of its control in order to allow each individual the right to choose for themselves.
Finding the "sweet spot" is a never ending, constantly evolving, battle. Each generation must renew the fight to define the balance between group and individual.
But, if you believe in the Three Building Blocks and in the Universal Morality, they will lead you to the modern concepts of individual liberty and the rule of law...and I believe they will get you there whether you believe in a Creator or not.
Universal Morality is the benchmark by which all other moral codes can be evaluated. Its purpose is to evaluate the behavior of individuals and/or groups.
Are agreements between individuals and groups entered into willingly and knowingly, or are they done under duress? Are the agreements done in a fair, open, and honest manner, or are they based on cheating, lies, or force?
The relationship between Universal Morality and how it relates to religion, politics, and government, will be discussed more fully in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)