Incidentally, I would like to go on record as supporting Greenpeace in their activist campaign to stop Japan from whaling.
There is an international convention forbidding the hunting of whales. As far as I know, this has not caused any sort of upheaval in undersea ecology. I have not seen anyone make the argument that the whale herd really needs culling and it's some left-wing delusion preventing that from occurring. It seems that there is a legitimate international consensus that it's in the interest of the healthy conservation of the planet to avoid killing whales to the extent possible.
Japan has flouted this for years, ostensibly for some scientific purpose. But observers of the Japanese social scene consistently report that whale meat turns up on the menu at trendy dinners.
Godspeed for Greenpeace. They're doing what we should be doing, enforcing the international standards of responsible use of nature.
15 comments:
Reform Club (or at least one member thereof) comes out for Greenpeace.
My father would roll over in his grave (if he weren't walking around with a nice pink complexion).
I'm not underwriting all their activities. But I think we can stand behind them in the anti-whaling effort, until and unless the whale supply becomes a danger to the undersea ecology.
There will always be manufactured "controversies" because there are always companies with cash who want to pollute the truth.
Or maybe you could just say that there will always be "controversies" because there will always be people who want to pollute the truth. (Given that a very high percentage of companies seem to be operated by people.)
Every post convinces me that you see the same things about human nature that we do. It's funny how we end up in different places from there.
On my post:
I fully accept that Greenpeace could be right about something.
I'll never forget the frosty reception I got in a graduate seminar for suggesting that simply because Jesse Helms said something doesn't mean it was wrong.
I wuz just funnin' about a bit.
It's not human nature. It's our social nature.
I suppose we could develop a whole list of sub-natures that we could blame without tarnishing human nature - but come on now, you are trying entirely too hard to find a difference between what we observe about people.
People act entirely differently in groups than they do by themselves or even in large groups vs small. That's empirically supported, not just my personal flight of fancy.
Are you suggesting that I'm just making my stuff up?
People do things they say they don't think they ought to in large groups, small groups and when they're alone. That's also empirically supported. This condition affects everyone, though some suffer more than others. What's really interesting though, is that the ones we respect the most for their integrity/honesty/humility are often the most aware of their own shortcomings.
None of this forces anyone to believe in God or anything crazy like that=). I only bring it up because it helps a person see how much 'faith' is required to believe that human social structures are the key to solving life's problems. This is not a knock on social and political science - I'm all for pursuing the ideal (or the next best thing). But if we don't understand the limitations of man, our 'science' will not be effective because it will not based on what we know to be true. What good is it to look for answers in the wrong place?
Before I forget, I liked that MIB quote. The movie itself was garbage, but I like Tommy Lee Jones too.
I haven't seen all of his stuff, but I have a hard time seeing a better role for him than the one he played in 'The Fugitive'. The world weary police officer who is able to shed his Javert-like instincts in order to see the good in someone else.
But getting back to our original topic...
Let's start with what we agree on, namely, that people regularly fail to live up to their own moral code or conscience. (Note: I've not said anything about the source of that conscience or what it should look like.) We both agree that outside influences - such as the 'companies with cash' in your original post or the mob-mentality that emerges in large groups - tend to cause or bring out these moral failings.
In order to deal with the likelihood of these moral failings, you have proposed a system (anarchy) that is designed to minimize the scale and the frequency of the causes/results of our moral failings. I believe that if it were possible to implement and maintain that there would be many benefits to such a system.
However, what I do not understand about your position is whether you think that individuals or circumstances are to 'blame' for the moral failings that we observe. To me it seems obvious that our individual nature (not evil - but corrupted goodness) is to blame. But I've never clearly understood your position.
Do you agree that individuals regularly fail to live up to their own moral code?
If so, do you believe that this is primarily their own fault (due to their nature) or do you believe that the blame lies with the circumstances and that it is societies' responsibility to create a world in which we minimize the potential for moral failure?
But if we don't understand the limitations of man, our [social] 'science' will not be effective because it will not based on what we know to be true.
Quite so, Mr. Huisman. As Dennis Prager noted today, contra the rosy faith in man of Rousseau and his ilk, look at Rome and the gladiators, with 100,000 people screaming for blood if you want to see human nature.
There is certainly something to be said about the mob mentality, but Rome institutionalized it.
Faith in man? You can keep it. I'll take my chances that there's something better and higher to invest my faith in.
(BTW, is whale meat kosher?)
I don't want to alarm you, but every Christian I know agrees with everything you have just said. We are responsible for our responses to circumstances - others are responsible for their part in creating those circumstances.
Absolutely. Evrybody fails to live up to their moral code at times, and they ultimately are themselves responsible.
We explain this phenomena with the doctrine of original sin - that the original goodness of man was corrupted, and that it cannot be entirely overcome (although it can be contained) without outside help. You agree with the corruption of man. You agree that outside help is required to keep him from failing. You just don't like it when we include the divine in the outside help category.
Assuming that you agree that such a thing is best discouragaed to prevent our race devolving into sociopathy then the question is whether society helps or harms the ability of people to remain true to their beliefs.
You're taking me well beyond my initial point here, but it is a good question. If I may, I'd like to modify it slightly and ask how far can society take us on the continuum from sociopathy to utopia?
Or maybe even a better question is at what point on that continuum would you be satisfied? My guess is never, which means that life never gets any easier.
Entropy is a such a drag.
However since the Christian faith personafies evil in the form of lucifer I've found that it tend to encourage, if anything, people seeing themselves as victims rather than responsible for their actions.
Ah, the devil made me do it! I suppose that's out there some, but believers are also required to seek forgiveness - that's about as personally accountable as you can get. It's also quite humbling.
As far as the rest of it goes, all I can say is that it can be pretty embarrassing to be a Christian sometimes - we say one thing, do another. This is quite humbling as well. It's also disappointing in the sense that it limits our ability to share the good news to those who need it.
If I may ask, what do you find the most ridiculous about Christianity - the notion that there is a god or the idea that he'd have followers that acted like us?
I never said that. What I said is that outside forces can sometimes help him to fail. I don't believe that a person is doomed to fail without outside help.
It's not a major point, but if you believe that everyone fails their moral code - that man is at least partially corrupt - then wouldn't it also mean that he could use some help?
But you are getting it backwards in my view. Society drags us toward sociopathy not away from it.
Now this sounds more like the Tlaloc I know - and I think I've refound our point of divergence.
You agree that man is responsible for his actions, but you believe his failings are circumstance driven. In other words, you don't recognize the diabolical side in each of us. You believe that anarchy will help minimize the circumstances that will cause moral failings - but you apparently don't believe that, generally speaking, men will initiate or cause trouble on their own. Have I got that about right?
I'm satisfied when we've done the best we can.
Whatever that means. Wouldn't most people tell you that they're doing the best they can right now?
I'm the first to admit they are lousy examples of christians but you have to admit the faith does provide an atmosphere conducive to that kind of thing.
Well, we've had 'the devil made me do it' - now we have 'it's better to ask for forgiveness than to get permission'. My sense is that this is not just a Christian phenomena.
Personally, I view this as another example of how diabolical the human nature is - and as one of the primary reasons why we need our families and communities to help prevent us from deluding ourselves.
I find it ridculous that a God of love would (obscurely) lay out a world and a religion so full of traps and so guaranteed to promote the very worst traits in his creation. That's not love in my book but sadism.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. You've hit a couple of the biggies. I was primarily interested in finding out whether you thought the existence of the supernatural was real, possible or impossible. I'm still not quite sure where you stand.
Now organized society depends on case number 2. It only functions to the degree that it can surplant the individual conscience with the rule of law.
Let's start again where we (sort of) agree. People setting their ethical boundaries at the edge of what is legal (rather than at a more charitable, golden-rule-like conscience level) is a recipe for disaster. [The story of Daniel has an interesting bit where he denies himself food from the king's table, not so much because it was not 'kosher' but rather because he wanted to be as far away from the 'line' as possible.] Your list of reasons why legalism is problematic is pretty good, and I'm sure we could find more.
Anyway, what I don't understand about your notions of the law is why you think it was created in the first place. Wouldn't it have been completely unnecessary if no one had ever been indoctrinated/corrupted by the law?
The most obvious answer is that people were not able to get along, and needed a mechanism for maintaining order. Conflicts are resolved in one of two ways: 1) Might equals right; 2) Appeals to higher authority or standards (which ultimately needs to be supported by might).
Now you might say that the law was initially imposed on us by someone else in order to control us. But isn't that the same as someone coming over and threatening us with physical strength? In the end, it seems unavoidable that corrupted (diabolical) man preceded the law.
The reson for this is because society tries to lever us away from our conscience it ends up weakening our ability to control ourselves.
It's interesting here that you discuss our ability to control ourselves. The hidden implication is that this conscience (or discipline) we have somehow restrains something that is not always what we would hope it would be.
C.S. Lewis says that we have an animal and a diabolical nature to contend with - and each have their own set of issues. I know that we all face these things, and have a hard time seeing how they might have been indoctrinated into my thinking.
Post a Comment