The question arises though of whether we’ve all failed to fully grasp and internalize both sides of this ethical equation.

Have we focused too much upon the primary action and not enough upon the reciprocal reaction? Have we also failed to recognize that it functions much as an engine, a natural law that we’ve placed too many “higher order” considerations upon?

Any of the variations of, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” may serve well as admonishment or exhortation to right behavior by people, but we seem to fail to connect it with, “As you sow, so shall you reap,” which common sense tell us must be the reciprocating side of this ethical equation.

The greatest problem this schism causes is the cognitive dissonance it causes is in those cases where the primary action was a negative or harmful one.  This causes both internal conflict and hampers effective mitigation of the negative or harmful effects of the primary actor’s actions.

If the theory of Reciprocal Ethics is true than it must be true in all its parts or be claimed false. Therefor, natural law would require that negative actions lead to similarly negative responses as a normal course of events and to break this cycle requires conscious decision to engage in an unnatural course of response which might very well, due to its unnaturalness, be misunderstood as weakness, vulnerability or surrender of the point in contention by the original actor.

Some few in the course of history have understood this, though with mixed results.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

– Mahatma Gandhi (Disputed)

Gandhi, through his cult of personality and abetted by the nature and proclivities of the two cultures involved and the greater scope of world events, succeeded in breaking the natural laws of reciprocity and doing so in a manner that achieved his victory, India’s Independence from Britain.

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK seemed to understand the basic equation of reciprocity but did not seem to understand that sense was not what was called for, since sense would lead people to follow the natural order of action and reciprocation. As can be seen by the largely unalleviated and unabated levels of racial angst and hatred among the Black population in America, despite the legal and pragmatic success of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King was largely unsuccessful in his prescription.

One has to accept the basic nature of the reciprocal engine that is the foundation of Reciprocal Ethics and fully understand the difficulties involved in convincing people to behave otherwise.

I refer you, my valued reader, simply to this video – a rare glimpse of Canada’s Bluenose as she lived and loved upon the Widowmaker,

The Bluenose vs. Gertrude L. Thebaud

Years and years ago I stood the deck of the Bluenose II, which was a true replica of the original great lady of the Grand Banks. Standing there I wept. I wept with both the joy of her lines and life and with grief over Man’s casting her and her sisters aside along with the love of them in favor of the practicalities of modern maritime shipping.

I wept as I read and commented on ichabod’s article and I wept still as wrote this one.

I f you can’t understand why I weep without shame over the loss of these grand queens of the seas then the languages of our souls have too little in common with each others’ to ever truly understand each other.

I say that without reproach for I know that I’m a living, or plausible facsimile of living, atavism in this modern and needfully oh-so-practical world.

For those very few who will care, the Bluenose died in January of 1946 when she was gutted on a Haitian reef. With her died an era and large part, – in my estimation – of Man’s soul.

This does not, in this case, mean that one should not deceive those that they argue with. It means that one should not lie to themselves about what their underlying position on an issue in contention is.

When engage in an argument over any issue of substance one should always strive to be cognizant of what one’s aims truly are, irrespective of what tools of debate one uses upon others. This is especially true when one has a measurable chance of winning the argument and enacting or preventing change to a subject or system.

The above is not just mere philosophy or some exercise in moral rectitude; it is a matter of pragmatic necessity. If one is not honest with one’s self about what is desired, it is possible, probable even in a more complex, real world scenario, to completely win the argument and not come close to achieving the goals one actually desires.

It is one of the more laughable ideas that I’ve heard issue from the mouths of fools and people trying to sell me something. It also would be dangerous if generally achievable.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that only the severely mentally deficient and/or damaged, the most shallow of narcissists, and total sociopaths could ever hope to achieve a life with no regrets. Let’s concentrate instead upon those deluded fools who might attempt this largely in vain.

Relationships & Loneliness

People who foolishly try to live with no regrets and who “never look back” are, by and large, doomed to lonesome lives which are interspersed with relationships that fail utterly and with what might be called disconcerting regularity. They will end up without true friends or helpmeets.

Humans do not long maintain relationships with people that they do not trust; they certainly don’t maintain true friendships or loving relationships with individuals that have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust, and regret is part and parcel of trust.

If one feels no regret, one can not truly feel contrition and cannot be trusted by his or her closer companions to strive to behave to their benefit or, at the very least, strive to avoid behaving directly to their detriment.

Societal Condemnation & Ostracism

The issues that individuals have with the perceived selfishness and self-centeredness of those who live without regret extends themselves to society as a whole, though the reasoning is somewhat different. Society relies on regret for one’s transgressions as a basis for punishment, rehabilitation, and eventual return to fold.

Without regretfulness this system breaks down and those individuals without such emotions, or who strive to suppress them, will be ostracized by their societies as a whole. At worst they will be vilified and incarcerated; at best, and only if they have extensive material value to their society, they will be treated as an eccentric and kept “at arms length.”

Existentialism & Nihilism

While touted as an act of courage and self-actualization, this desire to live without regret more often than not seems to stem from an individual’s descent into existentialism and nihilism. Fatalism, cynicism, and despair leads many who espouse this philosophy to feel that there is little or no lasting meaning and, therefor, there is little or no point in regretting their actions or the consequences for others caused by those actions.

After all, if life has no intrinsic, objective meaning or purpose and actions do not carry with them a weight of objective morality or moral impact, then regret is pointless.

Final Thoughts & Opinions

Firstly, if you’re not suffering from an extreme form of autism, an extreme combination of anterograde and retrograde amnesia, or have suffered catastrophic brain injury that dramatically limits your cognitive abilities, then you’re highly unlikely to be able to live without regret. Those few could manage such a feat with any regularity or success would be the extreme narcissists and actual sociopaths.

Secondly, you’re likely to severely screw up life by trying to do, whether you achieve any real measure of success or not.

Thirdly and finally, refusing to regret one’s action is not courageous or a step in personal growth. It is merely a fool trying to either convince themselves to do something foolish or the self-same fool later trying to run away from their failures and misdeeds.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

George Orwell v. Aldous Huxley - Divergent Distopian Predictions

Both Orwell and Huxley feared a future when we would be a captive culture. Orwell feared captivity by the State but Huxley feared captivity by own venality and pleasure seeking.

Orwell depicted a future society where books were banned and where the State would deprive us of information. Huxley posited a future society where would be no reason to ban a book, because there would be no one who would want to read one, but where so much data would be provided that we would be sunk into egoistic pacifism.

Orwell feared that the State would conceal the truth from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned out by the constant nattering stream of irrelevancies.

Simply put, Orwell feared hate and pain whereas Huxley feared love and pleasure. There is grim sense in both men’s fears; both the “carrot” and the “stick” are used to gain and maintain control.

The Future Is Now

The Civilized World in general and America very much in specific it poised at a watershed moment or tipping point where either Orwell’s or Huxley’s dire predictions could come true. The future in all its dystopian horror is now or, at least, looming on the horizon before us. This is something that the awake and aware among us know full well, though they, like Orwell and Huxley, are divided in their worries.

Conservatives, especially those referred to as the Religious Right or Social Conservatives are in Aldous Huxley’s camp. They fear that venality, lusts, and the pursuit of unrestrained transitory pleasures will create a society lost to itself and sunk in depravity.

Liberals, on the other hand, are in George Orwell’s camp. They fear that the State, under one pretext or another, will become forcibly despotic. They fear that hatred and fear will create a totalitarian regime ruling over a captive populace.

As for myself, I think that Huxley’s fears are the more likely to be realized in the near-term. I think it far more likely that the populace will blithely cede its liberty to some oligarchy in the course of its own decline into self-serving venality. Of course that doesn’t mean that, once in power, that oligarchy won’t begin to shift to a more Orwellian model.

Which, if either, do you think is more likely?

Obama’s Mini-me being his nominee makes more and more sense and it seems she bodes as ill for our nation as Obama so far has.

From CNS News:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

Yes, that’s right; Kagan believes that, while the deleterious effects of laws restricting American’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression can be taken into account by the Supreme Court, the government’s motives and intent should be the most important factor in their ruling. Ergo, Kagan believes that the government can limit we, the People’s constitutional rights if it’s in a good cause.

Kagan is, like Obama himself, Harvard educated so their shared belief that the ends justify the means is not in the least shocking, given their shared backgrounds.

It was a graduate and later professor at Harvard, Michael Wigglesworth who is attributed with first adding this sentiment to the body of American writings.

From the university’s founding consequentialism and subjectivism have been entrenched in Harvard’s curriculum and all or most of its graduates have been indoctrinated into these philosophies.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that a President such as Obama, who wants to “fundamentally change” America and has some serious issues with dissent would nominate Kagan, who believes that it’s OK to limit freedom of speech in a cause she or the Court approves of, to the SCOTUS.  However, this “the ends justify the means when the ends are just” mentality of Kagan’s is nothing but the misborn bastard hybrid of ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad misericordiam, neither of which has any place in logical argument much less the highest court in America.

It does not matter whether it can be proven that the government had “the best of intentions” when enacting laws that impinge upon Americans’ unalienable rights, nor is their “noble” motives a cause to change or lessen the verdict against them. All that matters is whether or not the law or action in question violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

Elena Kagan has never had the chance to directly inflict the evils and stupidity of her views of the law upon Americans because she has never been a judge. It would be best for America if her lack of experience as a judge continued for the rest of her life.

Let us all for a moment put aside our pride and hubris and look at the Earth and the stark, raw power She can bring to bear at any given moment.

April 19, 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Volcano Erupting

Nothing short of our profligate use of our arsenal of nuclear weapons could hope to match the power and destructive force of the recent eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, which was a small and relatively mild volcanic eruption.

So when you hear people ranting or whining about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or how the Civilized World has caused massive and apocalyptic Climate Change via our CO2 emissions over the last handful of decades think about this picture and recognize that all of this hype is predicated upon people’s pride and hubris.

Love the Earth for she is fair and perilous beyond all of our means to measure. Just don’t delude yourself – or be deluded by other’s vanity or cynical manipulations – into being so confident that mankind can so easily fundamentally change Her so easily.

At times it is beneficial to be given a reminder – hopefully a gentle one – that much of this is illusory, and what isn’t, is likely transitory. The universe will continue its stately precession to oblivion long after we and everyone we ever loved or hated has long since died and been forgotten.

While humbling, this should also be a source of comfort for us. True, all of our efforts will eventually come to naught and be erased from the fabric of the universe by the erosion of time. Yet, so too will the effects of the efforts of our enemies and the consequences of our failures fade away, leaving not a trace of themselves upon the universe.

One of the prevailing arguments that atheists could, in fact, be moral was that morality can stem from a culture and/or society instead of from a Divine source. This is certainly a seductive argument; who, after all, doesn’t think their society is source of what is Right and Good?

There is a serious problem with that belief though as the philosopher and theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer so very eloquently pointed out:

Here is one simple but profound rule: If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute.

– Francis A. Schaeffer
How Should We Then Live? p. 224

Think on that for a moment for it is certainly true. In the absence of an absolute – inherently external – source for- and code of morality, a society is absolute in and of itself and the morality of its doctrines, policies, and actions could not be judged.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that this argument of morality stemming from society is a fantasy with no grounding in reality and it never could have any grounding in reality as long as mankind is made up of separate and heterogeneous cultures and societies.

What is sad and more than a little dangerous is that there are apparently a sizable number who either believe this or, at least, are willing to use the idea to rationalize their positions on morality.

Sadly for them – and for Americans now that they rule over us – this pernicious and un-American philosophy of egalitarian entitlement  flies in the face of truth and wisdom.

The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.

– Attributed to Benjamin Franklin
(No providence for attribution)

An American succeeds or fails – indeed, lives or dies – by the fruits of his or her own effort and the, often figurative these these days, sweat of their own brow. They do not succeed because they are entitled to.

It is such a shame that the Liberals do not, and apparently cannot understand this. Their attitudes are an insult and disservice to everyone they claim to support.

~*~

With a grateful H/T to Hsoi, who reminded me of these all-too-true and all-too-often, hated and despised words  of wisdom.