Virtual Illusions

via mcr2

What I was trying to say is that some regimes, such as Soviet Marxism, engage in extremely brutal activities. They advocated and fostered atheism in order to further their activities. (i.e. do away with religion and it makes it harder for people to say what we are doing is wrong).

The son of a sociologist in me must speak up. You keep saying this and I don’t believe it is correct. Soviet socialism wasn’t against religion because religion represented a moral paragon and kept them from doing what they wanted. They were against religion because it represented an alternate source of power. It created a dual allegiance when unquestioned allegiance to the state was the desired goal.

It was about power and allegiance not morality.

–Zafkiel

Philosophy/Religion, Politics

Looking in my quote file I come up with the following:

Universal Ethics

Rushworth Kidder:

“When you talk to people anywhere in the world about what they think are the most important values to hand on to the next generation, they will talk to you about five things: compassion, fairness, responsibility, honesty and respect. It’s uncanny the commonality with which those particular five values keep coming up.”

Michael Josephson:

His research resulted in what he calls the Six Pillars of Character, five of which–caring, fairness, responsibility, trustworthiness and respect–are essentially identical to the values identified by Kidder’s organization. The sixth is citizenship.

It is interesting to note that none of those values represent supporting an individual in a vacuum. They are about supporting the society through the “veil of ignorance” mentioned earlier.

I think a universal morality based on the individual is a faulty premise. I would choose three elements: reproduction, frailty, and “veil of ignorance”. Early societies that were little more than kin groups have built in glue via reproduction. The primary ethic is survival of your offspring or genes (I know we’ve all read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins). This is the primary motivation behind selfish behavior. Providing for ones offspring requires monetary (and other) resources and so one makes efforts to accumulate resources (Responsibility).

By itself it is little different than basing morality on the individual until it is mixed with frailty. An honest assessment of ones ability to protect and provide for ones children is going to run into the problem of ones own death rather soon. If you were to die in a hunting accident it wouldn’t be long before your children would be in dire straights. Given this situation it is in my children’s interest for me to set up alternate means of their care (Compassion). But this alternate methodology can’t be to draining on my own resources or I may not be able to care for my own offspring (Fairness).

When the veil of ignorance is added to the mix this leads to setting up a society where people contribute to the neglected and poor of the society not so much out of altruism but as insurance for their own children (Citizenship). While I may know my own status and wealth I can not know how my children will end up. For that matter I may not know all my children (more likely for males ;-)). So I am going to want to make sure all strata of society are reasonable protected and provided for, again with the caveat that it not be to draining on my resources.

The remaining universal ethics (Honesty, and Respect) are actually overhead costs to fairness. They support the society so that fairness can ascertained and social pressures can be brought against those who violate that system.

I believe that is a better picture of human morality than one based on the individual or freedom. Both important concepts but I do not believe they are the basis of human morality.

–Zafkiel

Philosophy/Religion

Via FoolBalance

Now is when you write a letter decribing exactly what you say above… naming Kate Dickinson as having made you feel unimportant…. It may be that Ms. Dickinson will be having to explain herself soon.

This is my response letter to congresswoman Connie Morella (R-MD).

=========

I am a informed political American, I have lived in the suburbs of Washington, DC for my entire life. I am not naive. The idea that the American government is of the corporations for the corporations (or of the special interest for the special interest if you prefer) is not alien to me.

Yet still I was shocked yesterday. Not because I thought my words mattered or would change anything, but because it was violation of the pretense. The illusion that my voice mattered and that you as my elected official were at least interested in knowing what your constituents thought about your actions.

Allow me to share with you where that shock came from. On October 16th 2001 the House of Representatives passed a non binding resolution that suggested that public schools should post “God Bless America” 404-0. Due to my own religious beliefs I found this resolution divisive and exclusionary and so I wrote a letter to you, my congresswoman, suggesting that I thought it was an incorrect choice for you to support this resolution. I write many political letters and usually they go into the mail and many months later I get a vaguely worded letter suggesting that we agree or that you will keep my thoughts in mind.

I have never believed that my words mattered except as they support or are supported by other letters of people who agree with me. As it happened on March 28th 2002 I found a message on my answering machine from Kate Dickinson, your legislative assistant for church/state issues. suggesting that you never voted against church state separation and invited me to call her and discuss what I thought you had done.

I gathered my facts found the articles that had originally led me to write the letter. I looked up the vote on THOMAS and read the debate that happened so that I would be able to speak intelligently about the vote. On April 1st 2002 I returned Kate Dickinson’s phone call. After getting by an extremely rude receptionist I managed to talk to her.

It took about 60 seconds to establish what vote I was talking about. At which time Ms. Dickinson told it was a non-binding resolution and did not matter. I tried to explain that I thought it did matter. Less than 30 seconds into me trying to clearly state my opinion Ms. Dickinson told me that “She isn’t going debate this with me all day.” In the middle of my response to that statement I hear the “click” as she hung up on.

I was not expecting promises of change or even an explanation of the action. I was called to clarify my comments. I expected the opportunity to do that clarification and clearly state my opinion so you could pretend to take them into consideration. Instead I encountered incredible disrespect. No matter what you think about the issue, and largely you are pretty good with church/state issues, there is the issue of basic decency and treating people with the respect they deserve.

You (through your LA) have taken this opportunity to explain that you do not want my vote and expressed your opinion that I am here to serve you not the other way around. You said that either my vote does not matter or you thinks I will be easily manipulated by slick TV adds when the time comes even though you treat me with incredible disrespect. Perhaps you think my attention span is so short that I will forget. I am writing this as a way of saying Nay.

I do not expect church/state issues to motivate many people to vote, but unresponsive government that is an issue of another color. Unresponsive government motivates people across political lines and is one of key standing issues. I have decided to share this story wherever I can. It will be posted on message boards and sent to newspapers. All of my friends will hear the story and I will encourage them to share it.

I will not be marginalized. You just signed a check to your opponent, you just signed up a volunteer for whoever that person ends up being. You put a sign in a lawn. You just created a voice and an anecdote against yourself. I hope the extra 30 seconds your LA saved was worth it.

–Zafkiel

Politics

I just had one of the most shocking moments of my life. I regularly write to my elected officials in support of separation of church and state among other issues. On October 18th I wrote a letter expressing my displeasure with Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), my congresswoman, for supporting a congressional resolution encouraging public schools to post ‘God Bless America.’

Normally that is the end of these things. I made my opinion known, I presume they are mostly ignored except as support for other people’s or organization’s letters and efforts. But last week I got a message on my answering machine from Kate Dickinson, the congresswoman’s legislative assistant with regard to church/state affairs. I gathered my information and called her back.

After spending about 60 seconds establishing what I was talking about she dismissed it as unimportant. It is only a non-binding resolution after all. I spent less than thirty seconds trying to express that I thought it did matter before I was told by Ms. Dickinson that she wasn’t going debate all afternoon with me and hung up on me.

So much for the pretense of representing me. Greatly clarifies and simplifies any decision on who to vote for in the next election.

I’ve never felt so disenfranchised as I do right now.

–Zafkiel

Politics