On 2002-04-04 10:31, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Back in Intro to Philosophy 102, the professor assigned three writings on duty. One French philosopher talked about how God created him, provided everything he needed in life, and thus how he owes God a debt which included following God's commandments. A German philosopher waxed poetic about the state, how it had protected him, taught him, fed him, and thus how he owed his country a debt, which included marching with his nation's army. One American philosopher talked about family, how his parents made him, sheltered him, taught him, brought him joy, and how he would resolve this debt through his relationship with his wife and children.
The professor wanted a debate. At most, only one of these three could be correct. Thus, the other two must be wrong. Whichever option the student selected as being correct, the professor would shoot the student down from the perspective of one of the other two.
I worked for synthesis. As with waves, generations and civilizations, I was not content with a, b or c, but went for d, all of the above. There were common themes, of debt, of love, and about giving back all to those who had given one all. I saw love of God, country and family. I saw cultural differences. I found myself unable to insist to a German that he love family more than his country, or to a Frenchman that he should love France more than God. One cannot tell someone whom to love. Given that, one cannot tell him to whom he owes the greater debt, to whom his duty lies.
Duty is an aspect of love. Love is blind.
The German philosopher wrote before Hitler. Can love of one's country justify war of aggression? Can love of God justify holy war, when the war in question violates commandments that God has given? Can a desire to give one's family all one can justify leaving so little that another man's family is left in dire want?
Philosophy and values are cultural. The base premise underlying all the arguments on duty is not logic. It is emotional. It is values. It is also genetic. It is territory, the peer bond, the male-female bond, the child-parent bond, and aggression.
My assumption is that every man deeply feels his values. Every man can justify in his heart what he feels he has to do. Would I argue with an ancient Frenchman about to launch a Crusade? Yes. Would I argue with a Nazi, about to launch his blitzkrieg? Yes. Would I question current day American policies? Yes. Can I see and understand all their cultural inertia, the clinging to past evils? Yes. Does this make their actions any more moral? No.
Human culture is evolving. For the most part, it is becoming more moral, not less. This is a broad trend, not an absolute law, comparable to the tendency for core states to emerge for each civilization. Slavery, war of aggression, and overt colonial imperialism are becoming less common.
S&H's generation / cycles theory ought to teach one that fourth turnings are a time of increased morality, when an habitual injustice is overturned. It ought to teach that the establishment which benefits most from the established status quo will resist changes to the status quo. What was the norm during the prior third turning becomes regarded as an obvious and grievous evil in the following first turning.
Thus, I would attempt to examine all cultures. Which cultures include evils that might ought best be overthrown? Which culture is the establishment culture, which would benefit most from maintaining the status quo? All cultures might be presumed to be understandable and moral if one loves what their people love, if one sees history as their people see it. No culture is perfect. All cultures, if they are to improve themselves, must first examine themselves with a critical eye.
Blind love can be dangerous.
Is America the last best hope for a free world? Yes. If the planet is to advance to the next high in peace and prosperity, it would be better to start from Western values than from agricultural age fundamentalist religious perspectives. Does this imply we should shun fundamentalist religious perspectives? No. God, in all his various guises, talks much about love. Fundamentalists are too often deaf to their God in the desire to remake their neighbor's culture, the desire to expand the size, power and glory of their own culture. While it is dangerous to claim knowledge of God's will, I'll take the risk. God wants no such thing.
America is not perfect. Can a business man, one who has given considerably to major party campaign coffers, expect assistance from the government in establishing himself overseas? Yes. Is any one instance of this morally reprehensible? No. Is a persistent pattern of using US power to gain economic advantage abroad problematic? Yes. If we are seeking advantage for ourselves abroad, we are suppressing others.
Should the US support Israel? Should we support democratic states which share our principles? Does Israel use assassination? Is assassination one of the tactics defined by Dubya as terrorist? Should the US support terrorist states? More broadly, should the wealthy "core" states and their developed allies provide money and arms to ethnic freedom fighters and terrorist seeking to secure territory, wealth and power on civilization boundaries? Or should the core states refrain from supporting and escalating violence? Should they have established policies to resolve the rash of ethnic-religious conflicts no longer suppressed by the Cold War? Should the emphasis be more on peace and prosperity than defending and pushing outward civilization boundaries?
Is US business policy driven by the long term, or the short term? Do corporate executives have an obligation to employees and shareholders? Do companies owe employees any form of loyalty, or, if there is no love, is there no duty? Should the government owe its loyalty to those who give campaign contributions, or to The People?
America is not irredeemably evil. It is redeemably evil. In any given fourth turning, the establishment faction will be striving to preserve privilege and power. The radicals will be righting an injustice. The radicals generally win. The radicals generally get to write the history books. Taxation without representation
is evil. Slavery
is evil. Hitler, Fascism and war of aggression
were and remain evil.
The conservative factions didn't see this before the fact. They were blind to the future, self serving, secure in acting as countless others had acted in the past. The South asserted with confidence that all the highest classical civilizations were based upon slavery. They saw not any handwriting on the wall.
No, we are not irredeemably evil. Redemption is possible. First, a good long hard look in the mirror is necessary. If we do not move forward, if we are content with covert imperialistic supremacy, if we attempt to maintain our superpower superprivileged status, options 5 and 6 are possible. Not desirable, but possible. Not a goal, but perhaps deserved.
My vision of the future includes a US much more responsive to The People, much less to Big Business. US will remain first among equal core states, willing to support other core states in developing their civilizations, but not dictating to other core states. Division of wealth must be reduced. Ethnic conflict must be settled. Resources used must be balanced against resources available and resources recycled. The emphasis is on the word 'must'. If we wish to remain first among equals, we must lead, we must not resist. In a fourth turning, one bets on the radicals, not the reactionaries. In a fourth turning, forget liberals and conservatives, it is radicals and reactionaries.
If we resist, if we attempt to maintain echoes of Industrial Age imperialism, you can guess who will write the history books, and what the history books will say.
Five. Six.
