So far, the purpose of this journal has been to lay out the foundation of the "Poor Man's Philosophy".
The "Three Building Blocks" and "Universal Morality" won't be found in other philosophies...no other philosophy touches the themes upon which it is built.
Some may say the reason the themes haven't been touched is that they are too simple, or too foolish, or too easy to be true. I say it is simple, it is easy, and it makes sense.
The "Blocks" reconcile Nature, Man, and Mind. "Universal Morality" reconciles individuals, groups, religions, and governments.
Whether you agree with me or not is not important. The purpose of "the beginning" was to lay out what I believe, in the most honest and direct manner that I could.
From this point on, any further posts will be my opinions. You now know where those opinions are coming from.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Post #14 The Democratic Republic
The Constitution and Bill of Rights of our democratic republic were, and remain, the most original and revolutionary political and moral thought ever, in recognizing and protecting individual rights and limiting the power of the national government.
Many say our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. I say it was based on Universal Morality, recognizing that purpose of the government should be to protect the rights of the individual.
Even though Judeo-Christian values and ethics are compatible with our Constitution, and even though most of the founders were Christian, the Constitution was never limited to Jews and Christians. It covered believers of all religions, as well as non-believers. The Constitution was never exclusionary, it was the most accepting political document in history.
All governments limit individuals. The best government leaves as many choices as possible to the individual, limits its own powers, and protects all individuals equally. We will never find perfection, but the closer we come, the better we will be, both as individuals and as a society.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows you to believe and act as you wish...as long as you play by the rules and allow others the same freedoms you have. If you attempt to force others to agree with you, then the government is sworn to use retaliatory force in defense of the others.
Freedom does not guarantee success or happiness. It allows the individual the right to choose the path he wishes to travel, and the price he is willing to pay for it. When an individual makes a mistake or fails, only he, and those close to him, pay the price. Very few individuals succeed at the highest level, but those that do can take many with them.
Within a powerful central government, the many that do not succeed at the highest level can take us all down with them.
Within a powerful central government, politicians can offer favors and tax benefits to their benefactors, at the expense of others.
Within a powerful central government, interest groups can buy influence and gain benefits at the expense of others.
The beauty of the founders is that they knew this would happen, if they didn't limit the power of the national government...and the sadness is that, over the years, we let it happen anyway.
Many say our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. I say it was based on Universal Morality, recognizing that purpose of the government should be to protect the rights of the individual.
Even though Judeo-Christian values and ethics are compatible with our Constitution, and even though most of the founders were Christian, the Constitution was never limited to Jews and Christians. It covered believers of all religions, as well as non-believers. The Constitution was never exclusionary, it was the most accepting political document in history.
All governments limit individuals. The best government leaves as many choices as possible to the individual, limits its own powers, and protects all individuals equally. We will never find perfection, but the closer we come, the better we will be, both as individuals and as a society.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows you to believe and act as you wish...as long as you play by the rules and allow others the same freedoms you have. If you attempt to force others to agree with you, then the government is sworn to use retaliatory force in defense of the others.
Freedom does not guarantee success or happiness. It allows the individual the right to choose the path he wishes to travel, and the price he is willing to pay for it. When an individual makes a mistake or fails, only he, and those close to him, pay the price. Very few individuals succeed at the highest level, but those that do can take many with them.
Within a powerful central government, the many that do not succeed at the highest level can take us all down with them.
Within a powerful central government, politicians can offer favors and tax benefits to their benefactors, at the expense of others.
Within a powerful central government, interest groups can buy influence and gain benefits at the expense of others.
The beauty of the founders is that they knew this would happen, if they didn't limit the power of the national government...and the sadness is that, over the years, we let it happen anyway.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Post #13 Government and Individual Freedom
Throughout history, it seems to me that all governments have been founded on the premise that group rights overpower individual rights. Pure democracy, monarchies, theocracies, socialism, communism, and any other statist governments are based on the concept that the greater good of the group is unlimited in its power over the individual.
At their core, these governments believe that the state (or its representative) has the power to plan and decide what is best for the individual. Their decisions are based on the welfare of the state (or the welfare of the King, or of the dictator).
If only they (and all they appoint) were intelligent enough to make correct decisions for everyone.
If only they (and all they appoint) would never let their personal self interest (or their cronies self interest) overtake that of the interest of the public.
If only all those they appoint were brave enough to speak truth to power, when power isn't interested in hearing the truth.
As a Christian, I must admit that this would be a great system, if only we were all like Jesus. Unfortunately, most politicians I've seen seem a little more like Judas or Pontius Pilate...and we all know how well they worked out.
There are no perfect people to populate this version of a perfect world, just as there is no way to guarantee that the majority in a pure democracy will always vote to do the correct or just thing. If right-handers were out of work, and left-handers had jobs, would not the right-handers vote the left-handers out?
In the practical sense, what such systems have succeeded in doing is giving some few individuals the power to completely control the lives of all the others...and, if there is no commitment from the government to protect the individual rights of the others, there is no freedom.
The moral purpose of government should be to protect the individual from unwarranted invasion by the government itself, by other groups, or by other individuals. The government that is least invasive and provides the most individual freedom practically possible, governs best.
At their core, these governments believe that the state (or its representative) has the power to plan and decide what is best for the individual. Their decisions are based on the welfare of the state (or the welfare of the King, or of the dictator).
If only they (and all they appoint) were intelligent enough to make correct decisions for everyone.
If only they (and all they appoint) would never let their personal self interest (or their cronies self interest) overtake that of the interest of the public.
If only all those they appoint were brave enough to speak truth to power, when power isn't interested in hearing the truth.
As a Christian, I must admit that this would be a great system, if only we were all like Jesus. Unfortunately, most politicians I've seen seem a little more like Judas or Pontius Pilate...and we all know how well they worked out.
There are no perfect people to populate this version of a perfect world, just as there is no way to guarantee that the majority in a pure democracy will always vote to do the correct or just thing. If right-handers were out of work, and left-handers had jobs, would not the right-handers vote the left-handers out?
In the practical sense, what such systems have succeeded in doing is giving some few individuals the power to completely control the lives of all the others...and, if there is no commitment from the government to protect the individual rights of the others, there is no freedom.
The moral purpose of government should be to protect the individual from unwarranted invasion by the government itself, by other groups, or by other individuals. The government that is least invasive and provides the most individual freedom practically possible, governs best.
Post #12 On Government
There are various levels of government. National, regional, state, local, and municipal governments all provide services and require funding. In the United States, and in many (but not all, by a long shot) other nations, individuals are free to move from region to region or city to city, within the nation. The individual is accepted as a citizen where ever he moves.
The individual is not free to choose the nation-state where one wishes to live. One may be able to choose to leave the nation state, but there is no guarantee that any other nation state will choose to award the individual citizenship.
This discussion will be specifically on national government only. If one starts with the "Three Building Blocks" and the "Universal Morality", then one must accept that the purpose of the government is to protect individual freedom as much as possible. If not, why would an individual want to join?
Government is the group that we must join to protect us from other groups and individuals. There are many other groups, including religions, we may join for a specific purpose or goal that we choose, but only the government has the power to force our behavior.
If the purpose of the government is to protect the individual, where does the government cross the line between protection and oppression? If the individual wants freedom and the government wants control, how can these conflicting goals be reconciled?
A society is composed of individuals. Each individual, to fulfill himself, and live according to his nature, must have the freedom to act and feel as he pleases. The task of a moral government is to make and enforce rules that define fair play and ensure that all players play by the rules.
A moral government allows its citizens to follow their own dreams, set their own priorities, and decide how steep a price they are willing to pay for their dreams.
The individual is not free to choose the nation-state where one wishes to live. One may be able to choose to leave the nation state, but there is no guarantee that any other nation state will choose to award the individual citizenship.
This discussion will be specifically on national government only. If one starts with the "Three Building Blocks" and the "Universal Morality", then one must accept that the purpose of the government is to protect individual freedom as much as possible. If not, why would an individual want to join?
Government is the group that we must join to protect us from other groups and individuals. There are many other groups, including religions, we may join for a specific purpose or goal that we choose, but only the government has the power to force our behavior.
If the purpose of the government is to protect the individual, where does the government cross the line between protection and oppression? If the individual wants freedom and the government wants control, how can these conflicting goals be reconciled?
A society is composed of individuals. Each individual, to fulfill himself, and live according to his nature, must have the freedom to act and feel as he pleases. The task of a moral government is to make and enforce rules that define fair play and ensure that all players play by the rules.
A moral government allows its citizens to follow their own dreams, set their own priorities, and decide how steep a price they are willing to pay for their dreams.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Post #11 The Implicit "If"
Most of us who are religious believe that our core values and principles apply to all.
The first commandment of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". The Jew or Christian believes this (and the other commandments) came directly from God.
So, lets examine this declarative further. First, it is based on a belief in God. Then, it is based on direct instructions from God. Then, implicitly, it says that if you believe in any other God, or do not believe in God at all, you are wrong.
From such an imperious starting point, good intentions would lead one to attempt to convert the heathens (for their own good, of course), and might even justify forcing obedience on others.
Most, if not all, religions start from this point, where a Supreme Being has revealed the light to the chosen few, and, over the centuries, millions have suffered and died at the hands of those whose religious zeal overwhelmed their humanity.
Religious proclamations should be read with an implicit "If". For example, the first commandment would be approached as IF you wish to be Jewish or Christian, THEN "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
This may seem to be nothing more than semantics, but it leaves the choice to believe or not with the individual. It changes the situation from one where God commands obedience from all, to a situation where God commands obedience from His believers.
The implicit "If" could lead to a world where religions live in harmony. For centuries, true believers from various religions have battled to impose their beliefs on others. It is time for all religions to accept that the individual has the right to decide for himself.
If one starts from the concept that each individual has free choice to believe in religion, or God, or not, then one must reject the concept that any religion has the right to force its belief on others, or to force obedience to its precepts on others.
Religions are free to attempt to convince individuals that the individual's life would be enhanced by joining the religion. Religions should not be free to use the "God told me I can force you to do this" pretense.
View religion as a spiritual advisor. Never allow religion to become a spiritual oppressor.
The first commandment of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". The Jew or Christian believes this (and the other commandments) came directly from God.
So, lets examine this declarative further. First, it is based on a belief in God. Then, it is based on direct instructions from God. Then, implicitly, it says that if you believe in any other God, or do not believe in God at all, you are wrong.
From such an imperious starting point, good intentions would lead one to attempt to convert the heathens (for their own good, of course), and might even justify forcing obedience on others.
Most, if not all, religions start from this point, where a Supreme Being has revealed the light to the chosen few, and, over the centuries, millions have suffered and died at the hands of those whose religious zeal overwhelmed their humanity.
Religious proclamations should be read with an implicit "If". For example, the first commandment would be approached as IF you wish to be Jewish or Christian, THEN "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
This may seem to be nothing more than semantics, but it leaves the choice to believe or not with the individual. It changes the situation from one where God commands obedience from all, to a situation where God commands obedience from His believers.
The implicit "If" could lead to a world where religions live in harmony. For centuries, true believers from various religions have battled to impose their beliefs on others. It is time for all religions to accept that the individual has the right to decide for himself.
If one starts from the concept that each individual has free choice to believe in religion, or God, or not, then one must reject the concept that any religion has the right to force its belief on others, or to force obedience to its precepts on others.
Religions are free to attempt to convince individuals that the individual's life would be enhanced by joining the religion. Religions should not be free to use the "God told me I can force you to do this" pretense.
View religion as a spiritual advisor. Never allow religion to become a spiritual oppressor.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Post #10 On Religion
If one rationally accepts a Universal Morality, where does religion fit in? A religion is a voluntary group an individual may join in order to add meaning and direction to their life.
Almost everyone wants to feel there is a purpose, meaning, and value to their lives.
A religion answers the myriad questions asked by the arational mind. How did life begin? Is there a God? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Questions that cannot be answered rationally, and can only be answered by faith.
Believing in God does not prove God exists, but believing in God can be enough.
Religions attempt to provide meaning to life. They do not offer proof. They offer belief. They offer comfort.
They also provide guidance to more mundane questions, such as how to relate to others, what is moral behavior, should I worship God, and, if so, which God and what is the proper manner of worship?
Organized religions have been immensely important in providing meaning to the lives of millions over the centuries. There is great satisfaction in believing one is leading a useful and moral life.
But, there is a danger there as well. All religions are based on an unprovable, arational concept. However fervently a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any other believer or atheist states his belief, it is still an opinion and not a provable fact.
And, while one may feel a religion comes from God, earthly men have been the ones who have preached and interpreted what God's words mean. While there may have been many holy men with good intentions, they are still just men with foibles such as hubris and arrogance, and appetites for power and vengeance. Men of God still remain men.
As long as the religion accepts that each individual has the right to believe or not...and accepts that religion does not have the power of the government to force belief or behavior, religion can be a powerful and righteous force in peoples lives.
The power of a religion is derived from within the individual who chooses to believe it. If one believes in the Universal Morality, then a religion that attempts to force its beliefs on others becomes immoral, corrupt, and nothing more than just another political power group.
Even though I am a Christian, I believe that what Christians did during the Crusades was wrong. I believe that Christians should never get in bed with government. I thought the Enlightenment was about getting beyond forced religion, but still a so-called Christian felt entitled to kill a doctor who performed abortions.
Whatever your religion, if your religious leaders are telling you you have the right to force others into compliance, if they are telling you your religious laws should be the laws for all, or even go so far as telling you you have the right to kill someone who disagrees with you, run for the exits. Your leader is manipulating you for earthly power, not for heavenly results.
The Universal Morality accepts and co-exists with all religions, as long as the religions accept and co-exist with each other. When a religion adopts force as an acceptable tool, the religion loses moral standing It becomes a threat to all other religions and individuals..
Almost everyone wants to feel there is a purpose, meaning, and value to their lives.
A religion answers the myriad questions asked by the arational mind. How did life begin? Is there a God? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Questions that cannot be answered rationally, and can only be answered by faith.
Believing in God does not prove God exists, but believing in God can be enough.
Religions attempt to provide meaning to life. They do not offer proof. They offer belief. They offer comfort.
They also provide guidance to more mundane questions, such as how to relate to others, what is moral behavior, should I worship God, and, if so, which God and what is the proper manner of worship?
Organized religions have been immensely important in providing meaning to the lives of millions over the centuries. There is great satisfaction in believing one is leading a useful and moral life.
But, there is a danger there as well. All religions are based on an unprovable, arational concept. However fervently a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any other believer or atheist states his belief, it is still an opinion and not a provable fact.
And, while one may feel a religion comes from God, earthly men have been the ones who have preached and interpreted what God's words mean. While there may have been many holy men with good intentions, they are still just men with foibles such as hubris and arrogance, and appetites for power and vengeance. Men of God still remain men.
As long as the religion accepts that each individual has the right to believe or not...and accepts that religion does not have the power of the government to force belief or behavior, religion can be a powerful and righteous force in peoples lives.
The power of a religion is derived from within the individual who chooses to believe it. If one believes in the Universal Morality, then a religion that attempts to force its beliefs on others becomes immoral, corrupt, and nothing more than just another political power group.
Even though I am a Christian, I believe that what Christians did during the Crusades was wrong. I believe that Christians should never get in bed with government. I thought the Enlightenment was about getting beyond forced religion, but still a so-called Christian felt entitled to kill a doctor who performed abortions.
Whatever your religion, if your religious leaders are telling you you have the right to force others into compliance, if they are telling you your religious laws should be the laws for all, or even go so far as telling you you have the right to kill someone who disagrees with you, run for the exits. Your leader is manipulating you for earthly power, not for heavenly results.
The Universal Morality accepts and co-exists with all religions, as long as the religions accept and co-exist with each other. When a religion adopts force as an acceptable tool, the religion loses moral standing It becomes a threat to all other religions and individuals..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)