For several years, I worked in a penal institution which housed inmates with an age range of about 15 years old to about 25 years old, young men as well adults. In conversation one day with one of the inmates, the talk suddenly turned to why he robbed homes.
His answer was as unexpected as it was bewildering: "I break into homes," he said, "because it's easy."
There it was, it wasn't just the money, the thrill, or the need to impress his homies, it was, as he put it, "easy."
In a world of moral relativism, this young man's candor stands out, a striking reminder that right and wrong is a constantly shifting concept, so many dunes, here today, but gone tomorrow, as the wind shifts, or we capitulate to the demands of a source, or we seek out our fortunes in a narrowing landscape of opportunities, seen more often as bare, than verdant with hope, infinite possibilities, and endless choices.
Under these perceived circumstances, like the young man who broke into homes, because it was easy, departing from our moral code, or breaking away from our ethical foundation becomes the "easy," convenient, and lucrative thing to do.
Greg L, and I, at his blog, exchanged posts exploring the edges of our moral boundaries, and why some in society behave the way that they do. Greg L, wrote:
"[T]he political system and all other forms of leadership, are ultimately reflection of the moral system that governs us."
Greg L. summed up his position, thusly:
"Morality, in part, involves the ability to objectively examine something to determine if it actually aligns with what you subscribe to. It's these judgments that are sorely missing and that's why we have what we have."
To which I responded:
True, but our morality isn't absolutistic, but relativistic, in as much as we subscribe to several, some of which obtain their relevance and their validity from a source--an existential morality dictated by that source, rather that subject to a morality to which we may all generally subscribe, and which we may all hold in common.
Let me illustrate: There's a political morality. Politics has established its own moral center, where almost anything goes--lies, deception, misrepresentations, flip-flopping, waffling, spin, and propaganda--and, by our actions, looking the other way, excusing it, downplaying it, justifying it, we often dismiss this moral laxity, or moral turpitude in our body politic by supporting and voting for those candidates who have clearly demonstrated that they play loose and fast with either the facts or the truth.
Politics, then, dictates its own morality, for which voters will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they rush to the polls and the voting booth in the hopes of installing their party's candidate into the office for which they're running.
There's an economic morality. Capitalism has shown time and time again that it doesn't subscribe to a moral correctness, saving that which the government imposes, an imposition which it doesn't often enforce, or enforce poorly. People in this country still buy iPads, and iPhones, and it doesn't matter to many that they're produced under almost slave-like conditions or not. Sure there are some who do care, and will put their money where their conscience resides.Capitalism, then, dictates its own morality, for which consumers will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they avail themselves of its various offerings.
There's an elitist morality. Congress has passed many laws from which it has exempted itself, one in particular as odious as they come--congresspersons can participate in insider trading, an act that would have anyone else arrested, and sent to jail for a time. Congress can be bought to vote against what's in the best interest of those who sent them to congress, and use brinkmanship to wrest from the opposing party concessions it cannot obtain otherwise, risking a potentially expensive downgrade in our national credit rating.
Despite its low approval rating, Congress dictates its own morality, for which its constituents will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they return incumbents time and again to the office which they held, deluding themselves into thinking that it's not their Representative that's inept and crooked, but the other guy's.
There's planned obsolescence, the use of psychology, and behavioral science, to seduce consumers, to trick them into buying--whether impromptu, or not; there're repairs that we don't need for which we're being charged, low interest rates for which we may qualify, but which aren't offered, loans we're said to qualify for, but which, in the end, will bankrupt us, or force our homes into foreclosure, product insurance which is too expensive, and useless, if we try to collect, health insurance with caps, and for which a preexisting condition may not be treated, advertisements, and commercials that don't live up to the hype, and a variety of other scams, designed to part us from our hard-earned money.
Because morality comes in many shapes and configurations, and oftentimes dictated by a source, life comes with many caveats--buyer beware, test drive before you buy, read the contract, especially the small print, live within your means, know the return policy, don't remove the tag, and, get it in writing.
8 comments:
>>>There's planned obsolescence, the use of psychology, and behavioral science, to seduce consumers, to trick them into buying--whether impromptu, or not; there're repairs that we don't need for which we're being charged, low interest rates for which we may qualify, but which aren't offered, loans we're said to qualify for, but which, in the end, will bankrupt us, or force our homes into foreclosure, product insurance which is too expensive, and useless, if we try to collect, health insurance with caps, and for which a preexisting condition may not be treated, advertisements, and commercials that don't live up to the hype, and a variety of other scams, designed to part us from our hard-earned money.<<<
I'd say the die is cast and it's inevitable that our systems will fall due to their own weight.
Since time immemorial, political systems have arisen in an attempt to reconcile the unbridled greed of a few with the abuses heaped upon people. Revolts arise and new systems are put in place only to arrive at the same point and creating the need to do it all over again. History seems like an endless loop at times in this sense with mankind not advancing very much.
Greed is a heck of a thing as it never knows any limit and is inherently unstable and creates unsustainable situations. I'd argue that it's the primary source of political, social and economic instability. In a way, each of us has a choice as to whether we want to participate in some of this. I suppose it gets down to being able to have some sort of self reference point outside of what someone tells you that you must have or do.
Near to my local area, we have groups of people known as the Amish. For religious reasons, they've eschewed modernity and have hung on to their old way of life which involves use of a horse and buggy for transportation and an agarian lifestyle. I'd guess they live a life similar to that lived by many people during the 1800's. It's not a life that'd be attractive to most of us, but it is one that leaves them very insulated from the conditions we've encountered and those in the process of unfolding. They have no credit cards, foreclosures or job layoffs to contend with. They're totally self contained.
My point is that much of this stuff requires our cooperation and our behavior has been shaped to benefit someone else at great cost to ourselves. It's like immorality has been sold to us and since we've accepted it, we also have to deal with the vagaries of the economy that arise from it. We need to develop another point of reference about how we can function independent of what's being sold to us and through that we might be able to remove the power the system holds over us. Our survival will depend on that.
One
@Greg L: "I'd argue that it's ['greed'] the primary source of political, social and economic instability."
Indubitably so!
Yet, we're told that "greed is good." Our economic system (capitalism) not only celebrates greed ("one is not enough"), but actually need it for its survival, and spends an inordinate amount on ads and commercials to foster a "shop until you drop" mentality and value system, where we conclude happily, and with much acclaim: "The one who dies with the most toys win."
I'd argue, further, that capitalism, and its values (its morality), infiltrates our social and political systems--and is responsible for the creation of the political movement that we refer to as "conservatism," with its emphasis on "small government," and "self-reliance," a morality that benefits capitalists, at the expense of the collective good, and a unity of purpose that supports people interest, rather than corporate interest.
Without government interference (laissez faire capitalism), and an emphasis on self-reliance (where very little is own or done in common), buttressing the notion of "every one own one," and "every person for him or herself," greed can run amuck, unfettered by those Christian values of "Good Samaritanism," and "we're our brother's keeper."
"We need to develop another point of reference about how we can function independent of what's being sold to us and through that we might be able to remove the power the system holds over us. Our survival will depend on that."
Our democracy was that "point of reference," before it was allowed to be tainted, almost from the beginning, by "greed," that forerunner of capitalism, where the monied class used the government to secure its wealth, some of which was tied to that peculiar institution known as slavery, an institution which our government, initially, accommodated and embraced.
Two
Any cooperative system (socialism, for example) where people come together collectively for the "general welfare," is condemned as bad for capitalism, and therefore bad for the country--where the values (morality) of capitalism are generally seen as incontestable, and sacrosanct.
Even now, the Republican wet dream is to strip government of any power that might hamstring the greed of capitalism, and to use its political influence to privatize everything--penal institutions, Medicare, what have you--and concentrate power in the hands of the few, the haves--corporations and the 1%, dismantling any countervailing force such as unions, and collective bargaining.
Our ultimate "survival" will depend on humans evolving to a degree that the "point of reference," to which you allude, takes us beyond a worldview that Republicans generally hold, especially the view that "self-reliance" is the same as seeking the collective good.
I contend: It's "greed" that thrives on separation and disunity.
If we're to survive as a species, we must redefine the self, where the definition of the self is expanded, and enlarged, to include all things--having in that definition, not only humans, but the environment, and all creatures who make their home in that environment.
We can't continue with the misguided notion that, for our survival, we must subdue all life on the planet, make all life subject to us, and our survival alone, and treat the environment which embraces all life, as though we can do without it--that in the larger scheme of things, the environment doesn't matter, or contributes little to our continued existence on this planet.
That's a definition of insanity.
It's not that we must suppress individuality, or differences. Actually, we can elevate both in this new paradigm, and still find room in it for a new concept of the self.
As you've observed, capitalism, for all its supposed good, is an "evil."
I concur.
>>As you've observed, capitalism, for all its supposed good, is an "evil."<<
Yes, this is the only conclusion one can arrive at from the fruit this economic system has borne. But I must say that there are few alternatives that have fared any better as no matter what lofty notions have been expressed as reasons to develop alternative systems, there is always that favored few who derive the lion's share of the benefits.
The movement to strip mine the taxpayers with privatization initiatives is wholly a function of greed. The call for small government is nothing more than a call for profits many of which are derived from the black community as regards the prison industrial complex and the move to privatize education.
As dismaying as some of this stuff is, in reality much of it represents the dying gasps of a failed system. The death throes are measured by resource wars and the outright theft of resources. There may be some short term success at this, but the system is moving inexorably towards its demise and as that occurs, those who possess the wealth and power now will be displaced. To a certain extent, they recognize this which is why we're seeing the certain behaviors IMO.
I just think the rest of us are on our own. (Of course, it's not as if it's been otherwise) and to an certain extent, decentralization or small government set up the right way, will help us re-establish democracy. Of course, this isn't what those on the right really want.
"[T]here is always that favored few who derive the lion's share of the benefits."
This is because these systems have been modeled on a definition of the self that encourages greed.
They're developed without enlightenment, where, as you've observed, our human needs become captive to their greed, setting up a system of exploitation that benefit those who can control the source of those things we need to survive--food, clothing, housing, to name a few.
"The movement to strip mine the taxpayers with privatization initiatives is wholly a function of greed."
True, but it lends itself to an affirmation of the conservative principle that insists that government is bad, and, the bigger the government, the worst it is.
Until adherents of this and similar principles can extricate themselves from the conservative grip around their minds to think clearly about what they believe, and who it is that really benefits by a conservative mindset, these same folk will operate in the interest of the gluttonous, rather than their own, placing ideology above self-interest, as though the maintenance of that ideology is the same as their self-interest, when it fact it's not.
"[T]he system is moving inexorably towards its demise and as that occurs, those who possess the wealth and power now will be displaced."
You can see it; I can see it; it's only a matter of time, as we run out of options. But isn't it telling that we, and a few others like us, are the only ones who can see this?
Has the propaganda machine, and the distraction apparatus in society worked so well that we're like the proverbial frogs in water that's quickening to a boil without our noticing it?
I'll say it again: We need more Occupy Movements to keep this eventuality (our demise) front and center in the minds of the American people to offset those whose purpose it is to keep us from noticing that the water is heating up around us, and it's only a matter of time before we're parboiled.
"[T]o an certain extent, decentralization or small government set up the right way, will help us re-establish democracy. Of course, this isn't what those on the right really want."
No, this is not "what those on the right really want." They're autocrats: they want to dictate our social standards, where women won't have control over their bodies, where gays can't marry or cohabitate, and where every other element of society with which they disagree is outlawed, and punished severely if indulged.
They want a plutocracy, where the rich and powerful have a greater say than the electorate. They want a military that's equal to none, where no competing power will dare threaten our superiority, but bow to our demands and our threats.
To survive, this nation, and, indeed the world, need a new paradigm, the old one having outlived its usefulness (if it ever served a real use) to replace the one that is hastening our demise because it's based on a number of assumptions that aren't viable anymore.
Knute said...
Guess what Knute (Knute Rockne?), you're history! When you actually have something to say to advance the argument, or provide a reasonable counterargument, perhaps I'll find the benevolence to air your argument.
Until that time, "Grow up. Get a job. Get in the game."
This Knute guy is clueless and it's just as well that you hit the delete button. Amazing how folks are just ready to make ASSumptions and get ready to run their arguments and slogans against their strawman opponent while actually knowing very little who's actually posting.
Yeah, sometimes censoring is the only sensible thing to do in response to fools.
Greg L: "Yeah, sometimes censoring is the only sensible thing to do in response to fools."
I don't do it lightly, but he had nothing to offer, but insults. (Besides, I'm protecting him from himself.)
Even off the web, I walk away from such provocation; I'm certainly not going to suffer such tomfoolery here, especially when he's attacking, in addition, a visitor in good standing on my blog.
Post a Comment