LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND ALL THE STUFF IN IT.I'm a little disconcerted that a government agency would sponsor a blatant appeal to a specific religious belief. You may or may not believe in the concept of karma. Like Christmas symbols, it's possible to water them down for public consumption so that they lose their religious significance and thereby are allowable under the Constitution. I don't see how this is good for either religion or the State. The young people at whom the ad is aimed are often enamored by the Dalai Lama and Eastern religions, so this is not just a figurative use of the concept. I think that the parents of these young people (and Thomas Jefferson) would be right to be outraged by the governmental intrusion supported by their tax dollars.
Karma is the universe's system of checks and balances. Wherein everything you do has a corresponding effect. It's pretty simple really. Do good things, earn some karma points and raise your chances of good things happening for you. Do bad things and the cosmos may just send a swarm of locusts your way. Or open a black hole above your front yard. Or something similarly unpleasant. Maybe. Possibly. Better to keep things straight.
Based upon my experience in first-grade classrooms in recent years, the broader philosophical question is this. To what extent should taxpayer dollars be used to support propagandizing children in a "good" cause? We probably all recall as children participating in fire prevention programs, not skating where the ice is thin, and being kind to one's neighbor. None of these are related to reading, writing and 'rithmetic, but were deemed non-partisan safety or character building issues. Now one sees non-smoking, anti-meat, and environmentalism creeping into the curriculum from kindergarten on. Are we at a tipping point? At what point is the state just doing its job and at what point are they operating as a state propaganda machine, using the power and resources of the state to force a belief upon children. Is there a bright line somewhere?
17 comments:
As an evolutionist I believe in the natural selection of ideas. I have no problem using my taxes to teach people about any ideas whatsoever as long as all variations are taught without bias. There must be no propaganda, doctrine, or ideology, and all ideas must be presented as the antithesis of dogma. [Dogma: the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.] I think comparative religion courses should be part of high school requirements just like history and biology. Of course, conservatives, by definition, want to preserve religious, cultural, or nationally established beliefs and customs, and are therefore against unbiased exploration of ideas.
Howard said:
As an evolutionist I believe in the natural selection of ideas. I have no problem using my taxes to teach people about any ideas whatsoever as long as all variations are taught without bias.
Joel responds:
How interesting! I'm an evolutionist also. In my understanding of evolution, there is "natural selection" not selection by God or any other outside force. The interference of government agencies in the free market of ideas means that there will certainly be bias. Evolution requires competition. When government subsidizes a particular point of view at a time when children are too young to question (i.e. kindergarten and first grade), how can you compete? Even at high school level, most kids are too afraid to contradict the teacher.
Your rant against conservatives seems to be irrelevent to this discussion. As far as I know, conservatives are open to all change that takes place democratically after full and fair debate in the free market of ideas. Liberals by definition are more likely to simply impose their will judicially. Now what did that accomplish? : ) Let's not do this sort of thing. With respect -Joel
I would not have used the word "rant" with respect to Howard's statement about conservatives. IMHO we conservatives are biased against willy-nilly throwing out established beliefs and customs in pursuit of untried alternatives.
Therefore, when a new idea is proposed, we start off with a bias against it. That new idea must prove itself before we will pursue it. We generally prefer "the devil we know" to the usually overblown promises of those who favor change for change's sake.
On the other hand, Joel is correct that we favor competition in the marketplace, with products, services, and yes, new ideas competing against the established ones. Most of us, after due consideration and with some semblance of PROOF are, in Joel's words "... open to all change that takes place democratically after full and fair debate in the free market of ideas."
I also agree with Joel that some liberals, when they don't get their way in the marketplace, seem to favor decision making by an intellectual elite, such as the judiciary.
Of course, as highly educated people with advanced degrees and long life experiences, most members of this Blog understand that there really are experts in many areas whose opinions should carry greater weight than the "ordinary Joe and Jane". However, some types of decisions should be made by the general populace, in the free marketplace of ideas, products, and services.
Ira Glickstein
Joel's initial posting in this thread asks:
"At what point is the state just doing its job and at what point are they operating as a state propaganda machine, using the power and resources of the state to force a belief upon children. Is there a bright line somewhere?"
The context of Joel's question is the www.getgoodkarma.org website and TV advts sponsored by the Ad Council and the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
Joel, and orthodox Athiest, is "a little disconcerted that a government agency would sponsor a blatant appeal to a specific religious belief." [I.e., karma.]
I'll admit karma is, at root, a faith-based idea. I certainly do not think there is some sentient agent (e.g., a personal God) keeping track of good and bad points and sending cosmic retribution. On the other hand, I definitely do believe "what goes around comes around", and that something like karma operates in a totally natural way.
Humans with big brains have been around some 100,000 years and we have lived in relatively large social groups for 10,000 years or more. That evolutionary process has honed the brains of those of us who have survived and reproduced to spot, almost immediately, others who have good karma. We observe the facial expresions, the body language, and the words and deeds of everyone we meet. Subconsciously, we develop like or dislike for them. We collaborate and help those we judge have good karma and avoid and discriminate against those with bad.
Of course, our instant karma judgement is not perfect by any means. Perfect judgement would require a long period of controlled testing of each person we meet, which would be way too costly in time and resources.
Evolution favors traits that are as economical as possible, while yielding results that are good enough to beat the competing alternatives. For a small survival and reproductive advantage our karma-judgment need only be better than chance, and I think it is actually a lot better than that.
Thus, without an external cosmic point counter, evolution has given us the equivalent at lower cost. "What goes around DOES ACTUALLY come around."
As for the government sponsoring this type of faith-based teaching, if it is for a "good cause" I have no problem with it. We've got to "keep our eyes on the ball" and recognize the purpose of social organization, including the federal government. It is to promote education, good family life, hard work, honesty, reduced drug dependence, and all the other things that make life worth living and strengthen our country. In many cases, the most effective way to accomplish these daunting tasks is to appeal to the faith the majority of the population shares.
Joel, as an Athiest, is, in the area of religious faith, far to the "left" of most of his conservative allies. (To some extent, I, as a Pantheist, am also to the left in this area.)
I think the best for Joel and non-literal believers like me is to "believe in belief" and exploit it among the majority of the general population that are more or less literal believers. Humans have been "wired" by evolution to believe in things larger than themselves. Generally accepted customs and beliefs (even if not literally true) have also evolved over thousands of years and are not going to be changed completely in our lifetimes or even our grandchildren's.
Therefore, just as the Greek Saturnalia exploited the Pagan Winter Solstice, and Christians set Jesus' birth to co-op Saturnalia, and Jews inflated Chanukah to major proportions to cooperate and compete with Christmas, I think government, in pursuit of improving things, should piggy-back on religious faith.
Ira Glickstein
PS: I am not that happy about government efforts to get everybody to vote. Members of this Blog, whether L- or C-minded, pay attention to the news and are informed voters. Why should those who are uninformed be urged to vote if they are not self-motivated to do so? A mutual friend of Joel and mine worked with inmates at a mental institution. She proudly told us how she "helped" them vote. Her political views are far to the left. Any guess how they "voted"?
My comment was not in disagreement with Joel’s complaint about government using words that imply a religious bias. I thought that particular use of karma, commonly used to mean fate or destiny, seemed rather innocuous. To me it was not a “blatant appeal to religious belief,” however I appreciate that conservatives tend to be more sensitive than liberals to imagined threats to their established beliefs.
I think there is a good reason for this. My view of elemental biological conservative and liberal behavior is illustrated in the cell and the brain. The genes and memes’ function is to conserve whatever has survived in the past. Genes and memes’ conservative function is to resist change. The liberal mutants and creative ideas contain the elements that will survive in the future, although most mutations and liberal ideas fail to survive. That explains why almost all well-established conservative principles or policies were first considered liberal when they were proposed, while most “wild” genes and liberal ideas are rejected when proposed.
I strongly second Howard's motion! He wrote:
"Genes and memes’ conservative function is to resist change. The liberal mutants and creative ideas contain the elements that will survive in the future, although most mutations and liberal ideas fail to survive. That explains why almost all well-established conservative principles or policies were first considered liberal when they were proposed, while most 'wild' genes and liberal ideas are rejected when proposed."
To which I would add: AND MOST DESERVE TO BE REJECTED!
Howard has applied well-accepted biological evolutionary truth (most mutations are destructive) to L- and C-memes of societal or social evolution.
Most C-memes have stood the test of time. We mere humans may not fully understand why they work, but we discard them at our peril. It is the societal function of C-minds to defend established memes as long as possible.
Most L-memes are of recent conception and very few deserve to survive and reproduce. We mere humans may not fully understand why they will not work, and we adopt them at our peril. It is the societal function of L-minds to champion these mutant memes until they "crash and burn" -or- in the odd case, until they turn out to be positive and beneficial, and are recognized as such by nearly all, L- and C-minds alike.
At that point, after the new memes have been proven and are adopted by most of the population, the cycle begins anew. Most C-minds defend them and many L-minds challenge them with yet more harebrained ideas, most of which are doomed to failure.
That is how both biology and society work. Both conservative processes in biology and C-minds in society AND mutational processes in biology and L-minds with radical new ideas in society are necessary.
For me, a Pantheist, the "mind of God" is no more and no less that the biological and societal "push and pull" between conservational and disruptive genes and memes. That is how my "God" THINKS and comes to decisions by the well-accepted processes of gene and meme evolution!
Ira Glickstein
Ira, while we agree in principle, I sense in your choice of words a strong ideological bias against liberal ideas.
So here is an unscientific poll (for anybody, not just Ira):
A. Which of these current liberal ideas (rejected by today’s conservatives) do you think, in your words, “deserve rejection,” and are “harebrained” and “doomed to failure”?
B. Which of these ideas do you think will be established memes in ten years?
1. tax supported universal health care
2. separation of church and state
3. separation of scientific evidence from political policy
4. abortion rights of the individual
5. non-discrimination by sexual orientation
6. tax policies helping the poor more than the rich
7. less government support for religious or home schooling
8. increased law-based reduction of pollution
9. adherence to more international treaties (e.g., Kyoto, Geneva Conventions)
Thanks, Howard, for sticking with this GREAT discussion.
You say you "sense in [Ira's] choice of words a strong ideological bias against liberal ideas." Well, according to your excellent analysis, that is the job of C-minds and is necessary to balance the unfounded optimism of L-minds. (The job of L-minds is to come up with mutants and liberal ideas although, in Howard's words "most mutations and liberal ideas fail to survive".)
Together we make societal evolution work!
You ask which of the following will be established memes in ten years:
1. tax supported universal health care
[Ira: Yes, but I hope it is more like the Republican plans retaining private health plans and subsidizing the poor, rather than the Democratic plans where government takes over health care as the "single payer". If the government was put in charge of the Saraha desert, withing ten years there would be a shortage of sand :^)]
2. separation of church and state
[Ira: The strength of traditional religion will decline over the next ten years but most people will still retain their "wiring" (by thousands of years of evolution) to have some faith-based beliefs. Therefore, government and faith can never be separated, nor should they be. Belief in something bigger than all of us, and more majestic than government officials, is necessary for the survival of freedom.]
3. separation of scientific evidence from political policy
[Ira: No. This has and will continue to get worse and worse as government pays for more and more research. By definition, if tax dollars are the major support of basic research, political policy will bias scientific research to find "evidence" that supports government policy. It is a vicious circle. The alternative that has been successful is independent research undertaken for the primary purpose of developing new products and services, where decisions are made in the harsh light of the marketplace and not by politicians with agendas.]
4. abortion rights of the individual
[Ira: I hope abortion is rationalized as follows: trimester #1 - OK for any reason or no reason, #2 - OK if medical professionals certify serious physical or mental danger to mother, #3 - Only to save life of mother, or if baby is very seriously defective. I think my ideal will be approximated with laws that uphold states rights to forbid late-term abortions unless the mothers life is in the balance.]
5. non-discrimination by sexual orientation
[Ira: Yes.]
6. tax policies helping the poor more than the rich
[Ira: No. Follow the money! The rich have and will always have "the best government money can buy :^) Public welfare programs mostly help professionals working in the welfare sector and politically-connected companies they give contracts to, while keeping the poor as an underclass to vote for and keep the former in power.]
7. less government support for religious or home schooling
[Ira: No. I am the satisfied product of public schools as are my children and grandchildren. However, I support the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated, with minimal government interference. If public schools in a given district are not doing their jobs for whatever reason, it is in everybody's interest to use marketplace competition to improve both public and private schools. Within the next ten years I believe we will see general acceptance of what I call "shrinking vouchers". If private school cost is less or equal to public school cost, vouchers will cover private school. If private school cost is X% higher, value of vouchers will drop by X% such that, if private school costs twice public school, voucher will be worth $0. Taxpayers will not support fancy private schools for the wealthy, but will support innovative private schools - including parochial schools - to put some competition into the system.]
8. increased law-based reduction of pollution
[Ira: The biggest source of "air pollution" is phony "environmentalists" spouting nonsence. Yes, they will pass laws against pollution, but they will be ineffective on a global scale due to the emergence of China and India and other less developed countries as their standards of living approach ours. More people will recycle and drive hybrid cars (as I do), but this will be a drop in the bucket against worldwide increased use of energy. If you live near the ocean, get ready for rising tides :-(]
9. adherence to more international treaties (e.g., Kyoto, Geneva Conventions)
[Ira: Yes, next US President, probably a Democrat, will sign Kyoto, but we, like some EU countries will not make goals. China/India/other less developed will not (and reasonably can not) sign on to Kyoto goals. Global warming, probaby about half due to human activities and half natural cycles, will continue. Our only "hope" would be a genetic engineering disaster that kills lots of people or a mini-nuclear war that causes a mini-"nuclear winter" - not very encouraging - -OR- a change in natural cycles of solar radition.]
Ira Glickstein
I like Ira's description of the way that liberals and conservatives function within the meme scheme. However, there's an element that's not quite right in my experience. It has to do with the nature of the innovative idea, but I'm not sure how to discriminate. Perhaps if I describe what I've experienced, you might be able to help.
I was having lunch with some social workers at the university. They were discussing the problems they were having with a program designed to help Hawaiian kids who were behind in elementary school. It was an weekend school tutoring program, that was effective, but they had a hard time getting Hawaiian adults to bring their kids into the program. They talked about writing a proposal for additional funds to promote an interest in education among the parents. In my experience as a PTA chairman, the parents least likely to attend such programs are the ones whose kids are the most deprived. Besides, it seems like compounding the problem to have to go through parent education in order to get to the kids. I suggested that the give the parents a small number of Green Stamps each time they deliver a kid to a tutoring session. Collecting stamps, filling books and collecting merchandise is addictive and it's very cheap to implement as many a merchant can tell you. The unanimous verdict of the liberal social workers was "No! It takes away human dignity from the parents."
They had a constraint in their minds that didn't allow them to think outside the box. There seemed to be many faults with their thinking. One was that they seem to lose focus on the goal of educating the next generation out of poverty. Two, they seemed to favor a proliferation of programs, thereby adding complexity and the chances of failure. Third, they seemed to be completely blocked by an very vague notion that they called human dignity. They couldn't tell me specifically what it was. It was more of a feeling.
So, what I'm saying is that liberals can be very "conservative" if a new meme conflicts with an old social constraint that they have formed or been educated to accept as a sort of religious precept of their creed. Somehow the crass commercialism of this solution and the appeal to parental greed, made them forget that the children were their main objective. I have other such examples. What is this tendency?
Joel said, “I suggested that the give the parents a small number of Green Stamps each time they deliver a kid to a tutoring session. [snip] The unanimous verdict of the liberal social workers was "No! It takes away human dignity from the parents. [snip] They seemed to be completely blocked by an very vague notion that they called human dignity."
This is a good illustration of a difference in L/C feelings. Joel’s assumption that the end justifies the means is a common conservative utilitarian point of view. But the liberal social workers in this case knew instinctively the importance of “human dignity.” Naturally a C-mind who does not comprehend the feeling of dignity would see it as “a fault in their thinking” rather than a difference in values.
The term "dignity" is defined as "the state of being worthy of honour or respect" (The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, New York, Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 403). When this concept is associated with the adjective "human", it is used to signify that all human beings possess inherent worth and deserve unconditional respect. This intrinsic worthiness is widely recognized by international law as the source of all human rights. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Preamble).
Kant says the expression “human dignity” is used to indicate that persons should always be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as means to an end. According to this anti-utilitarian approach, there is nothing, neither pleasure nor common interest of society or science, nor other good consequences, for which it is morally acceptable to treat persons merely as a means to an end. Kant presents “dignity” as exactly the opposite of price (“Green Stamps”)
Many conservatives, especially the rich, do not recognize that the world is populated largely by oppressed peoples who have nothing left but their dignity.
How heart warming to remember collecting Green Stamps - thanks Joel (and Howard)!
"Human dignity" - cherished by every human being. I get my card punched at the local McDonalds (free meal after six punches) and collect and use frequent flier miles, and other customer loyalty programs. I don't think that is undignified at all.
Howard closes his Comment with "...the world is populated largely by oppressed peoples who have nothing left but their dignity."
True, but they have children who -given educational opportunities- could have a less oppressed life and more reason to feel dignified.
Perhaps the L-minds opposed Joel's idea of rewarding needy children's attendance at tutoring sessions worry because they thought the scheme might work, destroying their middle-class conceptions of dignity.
Would they have accepted the scheme if the rewards were for children's toys rather than for the parents direct benefit?
As I wrote in an earlier Comment - "keep your eye on the ball". In this case the goal is to rescue children from a vicious cycle of lack of educated parents and thereby enhance human dignity.
My grandparents lacked formal education and my parents were not college grads, but they had genuine human dignity that was enhanced when my brother and I did well in school and graduated from college.
Ira Glickstein
I think we're getting into some very interesting stuff here. Even Howard, who is not a social worker professional, seems to feel the same way that the social workers do. So, I think I was wrong that it was a result of their professional education. It seems that it might be as Ira indicated in his terminology, another L/C Mind factor.
Parenthetically, might I add the following material that I found surfing around the getgoodkarma website. Also, I have a response by a Christian to the television ads, demonstrating that at least some people see it as a religious issue.
Title: What goes around......
But wait- what's that you say? You're not so sure you believe in karma? You say too many good things happen to not-so-good people? True, true. Lots of rotten folks seem to be be doing just fine, but don't be fooled. The universe has it all on video. Run around like a villain and you'll get yours. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next week. Maybe not even next year. But believe, it's a comin'.
Take Civic Action
As shown below, civic action is the most potent form of karmic goodness in the known universe.
Bar Chart
-------------long bar for civic action
-------medium bar for common decency
--short bar for random acts of kindness
The universe smiles big time on the civically active.
Why? Because it's all about the big picture - helping your neighborhood, your country, your world. Thing is, it doesn't take much time. Even the smallest acts can have far-reaching effects. Like an afternoon of volunteering, registering to vote or even just keeping up to speed on current events. So step up. What are you doing to make the world a better place?
http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2007/07/3988-this-ad-has-bad-karma-and-it.html
This ad has bad karma!
And it should go down in the Annals of Stupid Ads. Have you heard (radio) the ad where the guy and girl are splitting up because he has grown lobster (or crab) claws. He accuses her of discriminating against him because she doesn't like his hands (claws), and she accuses him of being a non-volunteer who isn't contributing to society, so he has grown claws. Stupid, your name is the Ad Council. It gives new meaning to Dumb and Dumber.
A nationwide study among 18-24 year olds conducted by the Ad Council and Lightspeed Research in March 2007 found that 95 percent of 18-24 year olds believe “what goes around comes around” and the vast majority (69 percent) believe in “karma.” Additionally, young adults are more likely to attribute the positive experiences in their lives to their positive behaviors (75 percent) as opposed to having “good luck” (56 percent).
I'm a Christian. We don't believe we are good because of what we do, but we do believe in one who was good on our behalf. Karma is a hindu belief--you get to come back, and come back and come back until you get it right. In that faith, you get what you deserve. In Christianity, you get what you don't deserve--mercy and forgiveness and a new start. With "karma" if you're bad, or don't pay attention, well, you just might end up with claws instead of hands. It's sort of works Christianity without the cross.
1. God's plan made a hopeful beginning
2. But man spoiled his chances by sinning
3. We trust that the story
4. Will end in God's glory
5. But at present, the other side's winning-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
I agree with Joel that the getgoodkarma site is offensive as are almost all the numerous religious web sites. However, his associating my views with his social workers is unjustified.
Joel said, “Even Howard, who is not a social worker professional, seems to feel the same way that the social workers do.”
I have no idea, nor do you, from the sparse information you gave whether I would feel the same way as the social workers or the parents you are complaining about. I do know from experience that to convince people to accept the help they need often requires some personal intuitive persuasive skills that defy rational analysis. My wife worked for many years in the Home-Based Head Start program, She was a teacher, not trained as a social worker. Her approach was non-ideological and entirely pragmatic ― whatever works! One thing she learned is that any form of what amounts to bribery will often backfire. On the other hand, dignified or not, almost everyone has his/her price. I think it is quite obvious why a cheap Green Stamp bribe might be counterproductive.
I thought we were reaching some fair-minded symmetry between L and C minds, but what I’m reading now is just biased denigration of L-minds. Joel claims that L-minds are “blocked by the notion of human dignity” and suffer from “faulty thinking.” Ira goes even farther. He speaks of L-minded “middle-class dignity” and compares it with the “genuine human dignity” that he finds in himself and in his ancestors. Do you C-minds believe you have a special sense of whose thinking is faulty and whose human dignity is genuine? If so, this kind of chutzpah is not worth a reasoned response.
Sorry for the confusion over what I wrote about dignity.
Dignity was first mentioned in this thread by Joel, who wrote: "The unanimous verdict of the liberal social workers [regarding giving Green Stamps to encourage parents to bring their children to tutoring sessions] was 'No! It takes away human dignity from the parents.'"
I, like those middle-class social workers would be insulted by a reward for giving my child an educational opportunity. However, it is always dangerous for one group to judge or try to appreciate the situation of another quite different group.
I was not denigrating the sense of dignity of oppressed peoples. It is as genuine as mine or my lower-class ancestors. I was questioning if we middle-class folks, L- and C-mind alike, could understand the sense of dignity of lower-class folks, or how they might react to a reward scheme.
I found a facinating report of an experiment with students. A reward based on "points" that could be traded for ice cream gave more incentive than a simple reward of ice cream! See Green Stamps and frequent flyer rewards . The results defy reason because, when points were involved, students worked harder to get a less desirable flavor of ice cream!
Joel's idea for rewards is still quite current. I found a facinating December 2007 cross-discussion, see The REACH Program , where virtually all education professionals opposed used emotional arguments ("insults their integrity", "bribery") while those few in favor appeared to me to give fact-based opinions.
Howard earlier wrote about his wife: "... a teacher ... Her approach was non-ideological and entirely pragmatic ― whatever works! One thing she learned is that any form of what amounts to bribery will often backfire. On the other hand, dignified or not, almost everyone has his/her price. I think it is quite obvious why a cheap Green Stamp bribe might be counterproductive."
I have great respect for Maryellen (who once drove me and my bicycle to Binghamton University for a meeting with Howard after I had mistakenly bicycled to their house) but it is not obvious to me how a reward program might backfire. I'd appreciate informed opinions on this issue.
Ira Glickstein
Ira says, “. . .it is not obvious to me how a reward program might backfire. I'd appreciate informed opinions on this issue.”
One simple answer to Ira is that the end does not always justify the means to the end. A reward might “backfire” if it gets a person to do one right thing but teaches him to do it only for the reward. That is, it might teach him NOT to do the right thing next time because there was no reward. In Head Start one usually wants to teach dysfunctional families how to love and care for their children without leading them to expect any reward other than the mental and physical health of their children.
There are more complicated answers. There are endless ethical treatises on getting people to do “the right thing.” Spinoza wrote a very abstruse treatise called Ethics, little of which I understand; but with the help of philosophy professors, I learned that Spinoza’s basic idea is that freedom consists of doing the right thing just because it is intrinsically the right thing to do. You are not entirely free to do the right thing if you do anything because of secondary causes, like following the crowd, or being complemented, or being paid, or bribed. Spinoza’s briefest and most striking expression of this altruistic ethic is this: “He who truly loves God should not expect God to love him in return”
Over 3000 years earlier, in the Bhagavad Gita, (Ch. 18) the Lord defines a hierarchy of actions, the highest of which is to renounce personal reward. The Lord says, “To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive.” This is called the Yoga of Renunciation or of Selfless Action.
The Cynics, a Greek school of philosophers, some of them students of Socrates, had similar values. John Dominic Crossan argues that Jesus was strongly influences by the Cynics, and consequently Christian ethics recommends spiritual rewards and not material rewards (although most Christians are hypocrites when it comes to what Jesus actually taught).
In practice these ethics are too idealistic. At the opposite extreme is the modern capitalistic ethic. The “right thing to do” is seek your biggest rewards or profits. Today’s workers, CEOs and professors go where they are offered the highest rewards. It is difficult to ethically distinguish some of these rewards from bribes, except they more often legal. Some philosophers call this value system unethical.
Neither extreme, in practice, has survived very long in historical time. The problem is that a moderate ethics requires combining two values systems that appear inconsistent.
Howard said:
I thought we were reaching some fair-minded symmetry between L and C minds, but what I’m reading now is just biased denigration of L-minds. Joel claims that L-minds are “blocked by the notion of human dignity” and suffer from “faulty thinking.”
Joel responds:
Sorry Howard if I said anything disrespectful. Please note that I was speaking of the liberal social workers I encountered not the L-Mind. My point was that your description of a "conservative" could just as well apply to those liberals. We are all hesitant when it comes to releasing some of the constraints on our own thinking. With respect -Joel
P.S. I think we would have less risk of misunderstandings, if we would were freer with our use of new posts. Sometimes our comments broaden the thread of the original post and it's hard to track the multiple comments.
Post a Comment