Category: John Locke

The Top 5 Reasons Political Independents Are Misunderstood

2/14/2017

In this environment of political tension, being angry is de riguer. I have recently been criticized for not being morally outraged about some public policy issue. It got me thinking, in light of how complex human society is, why the rush to judgment? Why let anger over some abstract political issues get in the way of your relationships with others?

The give and take necessary for discussing controversial subjects in a reasonable way is a learned skill. I'm the first to admit that am not as good at it as I would like to be. My own failure of articulation aside though, I don't want to rush to judgement about complex issues without being able to research and think them over carefully first. The philosopher Jaques Ellul stresses caution in rendering our convictions:

The propagandist can mobilize man for action that is not in accord with his previous convictions. Modern psychologists are well aware that there is not necessarily any continuity between conviction and action, and no intrinsic rationality in opinions or acts. Into these gaps in continuity propaganda inserts its lever. It does not seek to create wise or reasonable men but proselytes and militants.[1]

I have written before that being quick to anger makes you vulnerable to propaganda, which is why you should try to be cautious with your thought process. But in doing so, you are likely to leave yourself open to being misunderstood. In fact, these 5 seemingly reasonable behaviors of political freethinkers and independents might really piss people off:

6 Comments

What Is Natural Law and Why Should You Care?

9/18/2014

0 Comments

Natural law theory is a philosophical tradition which dates back to ancient times. You should care about natural law because it is part of our Western cultural heritage, it can make your life easier, and on a personal level, following natural law allows us to become better human beings.

Natural law is a common understanding of human nature and ethics. Humans are part of nature, so we are capable of perceiving and living by natural rules, and applying those rules in a universal way. Universally self-explanatory principles of equality, sovereignty, and dignity should guide our interactions with others.

Natural law based philosophy provides the foundation for natural rights or human rights, which undergird the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and English and American systems of jurisprudence. Natural Law theories can be found in Greek, Roman, and ancient Buddhist texts. Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Bacon, Grotius, Spinoza, Locke, Hobbes, and many others argued for various forms of natural law.

Natural Law philosophy should not be confused with the scientific laws of physics or biology. Human nature in the natural law sense, means that each of us has an innate tendency to behave in ways that are good for ourselves and good for others. We share common values and an understanding of ethics which derives from our nature. This is one of the things that makes us human.

We also have the free will to choose how to behave. Corruption represents a turning away from our true nature as humans. Things can go haywire if our understanding and feelings are corrupted by our upbringing, culture, and negative socialization.

The highest ideal is to unite your conduct with the good in nature; the interconnectedness and preciousness of life, and respect for yourself and others.

0 Comments

Why Radical Feminists and Radical Men's Rights Advocates Are Both Wrong

1/9/2014

1 Comment

There is a lot to dislike about the radical, or extreme feminist and men's rights movements. Both believe that they are combating sexism against their respective groups. I argue that by focusing on gender difference as the source of every ill, they are instead promoting a divisive, dominance based paradigm. Both groups tend to have flawed and irrational world views, and to promote a dualistic ideology of dominion and victimization, rather than one of equality, mutual respect and partnership.

The feminists of the the 20th century helped to level the playing field for women in the West. Unfortunately, the gender struggle of the past decades has radicalized a subset of individuals. We need to realize that we will not get equality by pointing fingers and complaining about which gender is or has been the biggest victim of oppression. The result of the present situation, is that both genders currently face sexism in society; women because of troglodyte viewpoints, and men because of feminist backlash.

Perceiving everything in terms of gender difference is a method of divide an conquer, which keeps people from focusing on our common humanity, and from having empathy for one another. The problem lies specifically with the age-old dominion and oppression based world view. Both the extremes radical feminism and radical men's rights, matriarchy and patriarchy, imply an unethical domination of one gender by the other, leading to even more misunderstanding.

Both matriarchy and patriarchy represent a failure of the ancient egalitarian ideal. Contrary to popular belief, patriarchy was not always the dominant paradigm throughout history, and it need not be going forward. Patriarchy is flawed, and matriarchy is also flawed. Neither men nor women should game the system to their advantage, or try to unethically assert power or superiority over other people.

There is another way; egalitarianism. Egalitarians acknowledge that every person, male and female, has equal innate rights. No individual or gender is entitled to special privileges, because that would imply that one individual or group has rights that other humans do not have. The result of true egalitarianism, not one which is forced on people from the top down, is a partnership or equalitarian world view, where each gender's contributions are naturally viewed as equally important to society and part of a larger, all-encompassing whole. Each gender balances and compliments, rather than conflicts with the other.

What does this have to do with ethics, you ask? Much! The true source of domination does not emanate from some abstraction, such as patriarchy or society, but rather, it originates from within the individual. I concede that while oppressive societies can limit free will, individuals choose to promote domination or freedom by virtue of their beliefs and actions. People can choose daily to be ethical, not to use their free will to dominate others, and to eliminate any arrogant and irrational beliefs in their own gender's superiority. Then we will have truly equal partnership and respect between the sexes.

1 Comment

What Everyone Needs to Know About Violence and Self-Defense

11/30/2013

6 Comments

In my experience, many people do not have a well thought out position regarding interpersonal violence and self defense. The prevalent attitude seems to vary between two extremes; a naive type of pacifism on one hand, or a let's get em’ type of aggression on the other. Both positions are unreasonable in different ways.

This post provides a deeper examination of the ethics of violence and self defense.
I explain why neither pro-aggression positions or naive pacifist positions on the ethics of violence are ideal, and I posit a third approach, non-aggression, which I argue is the most ethical. When properly understood, non-aggression and forceful self-defense are not morally incompatible.

A corollary is that Most Westerners who believe in extreme pacifism when it comes to individual self defense do so naively. Very few people, even some thinkers credited with advocating for extreme pacifism for political purposes, actually believe in it on an individual level. A careful study reveals that Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, and at least one Buddhist sect, advocate individual self-defensive force as moral, necessary and courageous. Even Ghandi, who is not typically a reasonable pacifist, has moments where he admits to the necessity of self defense for individuals, particularly for those who aren't spiritually committed to self-immolation as he is.

This makes sense, of course, because the need for self defense will persist until everyone in the world non-aggressive. Therefore, the most pragmatic and ethical position is one of conscious non-initiation of violence, which at the same time does not preclude forceful self-defense if necessary.

6 Comments

Basic, Common Sense Ethical Principles That you Need To Know

8/22/2013

2 Comments

Ethics are really incredibly simple and uncomplicated. The key to happiness is living a life of personal integrity based on common sense ethics. A free will lives by rules that it gives to itself. Choosing a life of integrity has the overall effect of minimizing interpersonal and societal discord. If everyone tried their hardest to lead an ethical life, humanity would have far less problems than we have currently. Nearly every problem in human society is essentially a problem with the moral state of humanity.

Common sense ethics is my term for the straightforward understanding of shared ethical principles which humanity already has, that we have had for a long time. Common sense ethical principles are based on the lessons of daily living, as well as thousands of years of Eastern and Western philosophy, history and religion.

2 Comments