It's amazing how some mechanisms in the human body work. Blood clotting is one example that has always struck me as nothing short of miraculous. Seemingly the whole system had to be in place from its onset because of the "cascade" effect of thinning and thickening required for a cut on the human body to heal over without either bleeding out or seizing up. In some instances in human thought, however, the cascade effect is obvious and just as disturbing and the blood clotting mechanism is fascinating. In an article in our local paper today originally published by the McClatchy News Service, author Shawn Lawrence Otto has written a book about the lack of scientific discussion by political candidates (particularly presidential candidates) in recent history. You can link to the article here.
Mr. Otto begins innocently and correctly enough by postulating that there is a necessity in an efficient government for a well-informed electorate. He states that "Without the mooring provided by the well-informed opinion of the people, governments may become paralyzed or, worse, corrupted by powerful interests seeking to oppress and enslave." He also plumps for decisions to be made on information based in factual reality. Beyond these opening points, however, there is a cascade of poor reasoning. He goes on to suggest that politicians in general, and the Republican party in particular, have jettisoned all acknowledgement and reference to science in making policy decisions due to the influence of religion. He states that the Republican party has "gone anti-science" partially due to the fact that "evangelicals got involved in politics." So apparently for those belonging to the Republican party, there is a pre-requisite or at least an overwhelming pressure to be "anti-science" because the party is "pro-evangelical."
My nature prior to my conversion to Christianity was to be sarcastic to the extreme. I fight against the continued temptation to be snarky and sarcastic in any thought process or discussion. In this instance I will go with a measured response only laced with sarcasm pointed directly at the idea just posited, not at Mr. Otto personally. To wit:
"So the idea is that those who have a cogent and internally consistent answer for the four most important questions in human existence; those of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, and have among their ranks a host of the most prominent names in many of the most important scientific discoveries in human history, and have a good reason both to engage in the discovery of new empirical physical truths and an explanation for the ought of the usage and temperance of use and distribution of new discoveries should be expelled from the discussion because those who are politicians by career take advice from their advisors and political constituents policy decisions with an emphasis on scientific data less than would be deemed necessary by those who choose for their careers fields in the scientific - is that correct?"
It just seems so blatantly ridiculous to even bring the evangelical view into the discussion in the first place. It seems the spectre of "separation of Church and State" raises its head to choke off serious consideration of deeply important topics any time politics and government is involved. Of course science is important and should be considered as the data is available on policy issues in which science comes naturally to the fore. However, it seems wildly irresponsible to accuse evangelicalism as the primary source of a lack of drive to enact laws relative to global warming (or climate change as it has now been articulated). What I find most ironic is the charge that the one area of human reasoning that can even speak about the morality of laws being adopted, the only realm that can make decisions of ought that would hold abuse and corruption in check (namely the Christian world and life view) is summarily discarded because of its stand against science, which is in itself a complete misrepresentation and misapplication of any reasonable Biblical position.
I guess i'm just continually flummoxed by the inability to recognize that one recognize that science is absolutely critical for making empirical evaluations for the physical issues experienced and influencing all of humanity and that science must be tempered by religion because of its complete impotence with regard to the metaphysical and moral issues that run hand in hand with any scientific discovery. The Bible is not a science textbook and was never intended to be such, and science has been and will continue to be fruitful in making amazing discoveries relative to the make-up and intricate workings of the universe we inhabit, but science cannot and will never be able to stand alone in providing any information whatsoever as to how we ought to engage in or properly utilize that information within the interpersonal reality of human existence. It seems inevitable that the two must not be put at odds with one another, but rather be inextricably tethered, else monstrous results be manifest.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Understating the Case
December 14 and dateline Geneva, the Associated Press has published a story entitled Physicists close in on elusive subatomic particle in which praises are being sung for the real possibility that the Higgs boson will soon be discovered. Richard Higgs is attributed with postulating the existence of a subatomic particle that explains the existence of mass in the elements that make up the atom. Equations in physics that have been used and work out in the real world (i.e. correctly and accurately explain observed behavior) assume that electrons, for example, have mass. Frank Wilczek said, "Since the equations have worked so brilliantly now for decades, it's really nice to dot the i's and cross the t's." A theoretical physicist at FERMI has explained the Higgs boson this way:
So the quest that is stated to be coming to a head is actually finding the correct range of possibility and nailing down with some certainty the existence of a theoretical particle that explains why equations in physics actually work. Chriss Quigg says elsewhere in the same paper "Over the next 15 years, we should be able to find a real understanding of the origin of mass. The interest lies not just in the arcana of accelerator experiments but suffuses everything in the world around us: mass is what determines the range of forces and sets the scale of all the structures we see in nature.
This is very exciting stuff. Human beings able to "see" subatomic particles that explain the mass of all the structures we see in nature. Not it must be noted that there are other theories if all the supercollider experiments do not show the Higgs boson. The two most well accepted both assume there is not one single particle, but a number of as yet undiscovered sub-atomic particles that are associated with known particles. Supersymmetry assumes several Higgs bosons, while dynamical symmetry breaking assumes the Higgs boson is a composite that is made up of multiple constituents that will need to be discovered once the Higgs boson itself is observed. In any event, the use of supercollider technology to experiment at high energy ranges allows for discoveries at the subatomic level with great expectation for remarkable results.
As interesting as all the physics and possible discovery is the statement made by physicist Howard Gordon of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York when he said, "It's hard to find, not because it is especially tiny, but because it is hard to create." I would say that a decade of construction and research into a 17-mile tube charged to 1 TeV (trillion electron volts) would classify as hard. The really funny thing about this comment is that all this effort has gone in to discover the range in GeV within a range of statistical certainty the Higgs boson might exist within to declare it has been observed. Not really creation at all, is it. The Higgs boson is also called the "God particle" as it is hoped to explain why anything in this universe has mass and why after the Big Bang everything slowed down instead of just racing outward to infinity and all we know never came to be as we know it.
Supposing a range with statistical certainty is achieved such that the Higgs boson is "observed", or multiple Higgs bosons are "observed", or a whole range of new particles and their possible constituents are "found" what physics still cannot tell is where the first elements necessary to produce the "Bang" came from, nor why knowing any of these things matters (why there is something rather than nothing). Science is completely impotent regarding these matters. We certainly aren't creating anything, as all the elements and particles already exist and are "waiting" for us to observe them. We also continue to find more and more intricate interaction between elements and particles in science whether it be in particle physics, microbiology or other field of study. We know an astronomically detailed and complex series of particles and elements work independently and in concert with others in ways we cannot yet fully describe or understand but which must be so for our tests to even be performed in the first place. We should be excited about how far we have come in such discoveries, we should be amazed that even at the level of observation now possible there is still so much we do not know and must theorize about, and we should be humbled that there is no good reason for any of it to be this way and yet we are capable of participating in such exploration. As complicated and detailed the scientific discoveries will continue to be in the future we must remember that all these observed particles, elements and particles came from absolutely nothing (no energy, substance or potential) and the sum total of all scientific discoveries provides no meaningful answers to even the most basic questions of relationships between the discoverers and anything else in existence.
We need not pursue a "God particle", but the God who created all things and who holds all things together, and who provides a reason for human existence, a purpose for our existence, and the possibility of relationship with the One who is sovereign over all we observe and understand. Let us not understate the case, nor let us discover in vain.
"What hides the symmetry between the weak and electromagnetic interactions? That is the question we hope to answer through experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. When the LHC is commissioned, around the year 2005, it will enable us to study collisions among quarks at energies approaching 1 TeV, or a trillion (1012)electron volts. A thorough exploration of the 1-TeV energy scale will determine the mechanism by which the electroweak symmetry is hidden and teach us what makes the W and Z particles massive.
"The simplest guess goes back to theoretical work by British physicist Peter Higgs and others in the 1960s. According to this picture, the giver of mass is a neutral particle with zero spin that we call the Higgs boson. In today's version of the electroweak theory, the W and Z particles and all the fundamental constituents--quarks and leptons--get their masses by interacting with the Higgs boson. But the Higgs boson remains hypothetical; it has not been observed. That is why particle physicists often use the search for the Higgs boson as a shorthand for the campaign to learn the agent that hides electroweak symmetry and endows other particles with mass. Chris Quigg in Scientific American
So the quest that is stated to be coming to a head is actually finding the correct range of possibility and nailing down with some certainty the existence of a theoretical particle that explains why equations in physics actually work. Chriss Quigg says elsewhere in the same paper "Over the next 15 years, we should be able to find a real understanding of the origin of mass. The interest lies not just in the arcana of accelerator experiments but suffuses everything in the world around us: mass is what determines the range of forces and sets the scale of all the structures we see in nature.
This is very exciting stuff. Human beings able to "see" subatomic particles that explain the mass of all the structures we see in nature. Not it must be noted that there are other theories if all the supercollider experiments do not show the Higgs boson. The two most well accepted both assume there is not one single particle, but a number of as yet undiscovered sub-atomic particles that are associated with known particles. Supersymmetry assumes several Higgs bosons, while dynamical symmetry breaking assumes the Higgs boson is a composite that is made up of multiple constituents that will need to be discovered once the Higgs boson itself is observed. In any event, the use of supercollider technology to experiment at high energy ranges allows for discoveries at the subatomic level with great expectation for remarkable results.
As interesting as all the physics and possible discovery is the statement made by physicist Howard Gordon of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York when he said, "It's hard to find, not because it is especially tiny, but because it is hard to create." I would say that a decade of construction and research into a 17-mile tube charged to 1 TeV (trillion electron volts) would classify as hard. The really funny thing about this comment is that all this effort has gone in to discover the range in GeV within a range of statistical certainty the Higgs boson might exist within to declare it has been observed. Not really creation at all, is it. The Higgs boson is also called the "God particle" as it is hoped to explain why anything in this universe has mass and why after the Big Bang everything slowed down instead of just racing outward to infinity and all we know never came to be as we know it.
Supposing a range with statistical certainty is achieved such that the Higgs boson is "observed", or multiple Higgs bosons are "observed", or a whole range of new particles and their possible constituents are "found" what physics still cannot tell is where the first elements necessary to produce the "Bang" came from, nor why knowing any of these things matters (why there is something rather than nothing). Science is completely impotent regarding these matters. We certainly aren't creating anything, as all the elements and particles already exist and are "waiting" for us to observe them. We also continue to find more and more intricate interaction between elements and particles in science whether it be in particle physics, microbiology or other field of study. We know an astronomically detailed and complex series of particles and elements work independently and in concert with others in ways we cannot yet fully describe or understand but which must be so for our tests to even be performed in the first place. We should be excited about how far we have come in such discoveries, we should be amazed that even at the level of observation now possible there is still so much we do not know and must theorize about, and we should be humbled that there is no good reason for any of it to be this way and yet we are capable of participating in such exploration. As complicated and detailed the scientific discoveries will continue to be in the future we must remember that all these observed particles, elements and particles came from absolutely nothing (no energy, substance or potential) and the sum total of all scientific discoveries provides no meaningful answers to even the most basic questions of relationships between the discoverers and anything else in existence.
We need not pursue a "God particle", but the God who created all things and who holds all things together, and who provides a reason for human existence, a purpose for our existence, and the possibility of relationship with the One who is sovereign over all we observe and understand. Let us not understate the case, nor let us discover in vain.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Brilliantly Foolish
The Associated Press reported today in my local paper a story, entitled More surrender in SAT scandal, dealing with students cheating. This report tells of not just a couple of kids getting caught passing notes during a class examination, but of twenty (20) current or former high school students paying money to have local college students bring fake ID's to the SAT or ACT examination site, pretend to be the paying customers, and complete the test for them. These are no regular tests, but college entrance exams - and not just typical high schools, but top flight schools that already have college acceptance rates of almost 100%. What we are talking about is well-to-do, intellectual high school students with the ability to pay between $500 and $3,600 each to these college students (totals that presumably do not include the cost of production for a fake ID).
What is most disturbing about the story is the response. "Honest, hardworking students are taking a back seat to the cheaters, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said. 'This is a system begging for security enhancements." Did you catch that stated solution: security enhancements. The problem apparently is that security measures were not adequate enough to catch the cheaters until after the fact. New York agreed as they convened a special meeting and retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to review the security measures. Mr. Freeh is a busy man today and in great demand by prestigious High Schools and Universities alike as he is currently leading the Penn State internal investigation for the Sandusky matter.
It seems so simple to just understand that human nature is that we know what is right and we don't do it. Security measures are not the problem. They may be necessary in light of the recognition of the truth of the nature of man just stated, but they are not the problem. What is probably a better question is why are the young men being brought up on charges and treated with such disdain? Aren't they being taught that human existence is purposeless, meaningless and arbitrary? Aren't they being taught that language, history, literature and any other written text is to be interpreted by the individual with complete autonomy? Aren't they being taught that morality is relative and based solely on current acceptable societal norms and concepts of benefit to the greater good and human flourishing? Why are we punishing them for living out exactly what they are being taught?
These are questions not easily addressed by the former Director of the FBI or any other DA or instructor of higher learning if they are living with the Existential, Materialistic and Naturalistic framework on which they so freeing and staunchly hold in their classes. These twenty young men could have simply interpreted the rules of the High School the way they felt worked out best for themselves, decided in their own minds that it harmed no one, felt that the risk of penalty was worth the potential benefit and altered the relative standards of morality according to their own understanding.
If we are going to stipulate that there are no absolute moral standards to which all humankind must adhere, if we refuse to acknowledge attributes of humanity that are intrinsic to all (Truth, guilt, shame, etc.), if we are going to teach relativity and deconstructionism as part of a postmodern metaphysical presupposition on which all of society is based, and if we are going to plump for an existence devoid of any ultimate purpose, meaning or value then why are we so surprised when our children grow up and decide to do whatever makes them feel good and works out for their own benefit, regardless of what rules are broken and who else is hurt in the process? These students are brilliant and foolish because they have been trained to be so.
Until we realize that we cannot posit a blank slate of morality on which everyone gets to write in their own system and correctly identify the problems in humanity as sinful instead of misguided, there will exist in this nation a continued and increasingly complicated arms race between those whose very nature is to live opposite to the purpose of their existence and those who are trying to build a better mousetrap. The United States of America is racing with abandon toward a completely secular society, laughing, cheering and celebrating all along the way. It is inevitable, however, that the closer we get to the finished line the busier Mr. Freeh will become.
What is most disturbing about the story is the response. "Honest, hardworking students are taking a back seat to the cheaters, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said. 'This is a system begging for security enhancements." Did you catch that stated solution: security enhancements. The problem apparently is that security measures were not adequate enough to catch the cheaters until after the fact. New York agreed as they convened a special meeting and retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to review the security measures. Mr. Freeh is a busy man today and in great demand by prestigious High Schools and Universities alike as he is currently leading the Penn State internal investigation for the Sandusky matter.
It seems so simple to just understand that human nature is that we know what is right and we don't do it. Security measures are not the problem. They may be necessary in light of the recognition of the truth of the nature of man just stated, but they are not the problem. What is probably a better question is why are the young men being brought up on charges and treated with such disdain? Aren't they being taught that human existence is purposeless, meaningless and arbitrary? Aren't they being taught that language, history, literature and any other written text is to be interpreted by the individual with complete autonomy? Aren't they being taught that morality is relative and based solely on current acceptable societal norms and concepts of benefit to the greater good and human flourishing? Why are we punishing them for living out exactly what they are being taught?
These are questions not easily addressed by the former Director of the FBI or any other DA or instructor of higher learning if they are living with the Existential, Materialistic and Naturalistic framework on which they so freeing and staunchly hold in their classes. These twenty young men could have simply interpreted the rules of the High School the way they felt worked out best for themselves, decided in their own minds that it harmed no one, felt that the risk of penalty was worth the potential benefit and altered the relative standards of morality according to their own understanding.
If we are going to stipulate that there are no absolute moral standards to which all humankind must adhere, if we refuse to acknowledge attributes of humanity that are intrinsic to all (Truth, guilt, shame, etc.), if we are going to teach relativity and deconstructionism as part of a postmodern metaphysical presupposition on which all of society is based, and if we are going to plump for an existence devoid of any ultimate purpose, meaning or value then why are we so surprised when our children grow up and decide to do whatever makes them feel good and works out for their own benefit, regardless of what rules are broken and who else is hurt in the process? These students are brilliant and foolish because they have been trained to be so.
Until we realize that we cannot posit a blank slate of morality on which everyone gets to write in their own system and correctly identify the problems in humanity as sinful instead of misguided, there will exist in this nation a continued and increasingly complicated arms race between those whose very nature is to live opposite to the purpose of their existence and those who are trying to build a better mousetrap. The United States of America is racing with abandon toward a completely secular society, laughing, cheering and celebrating all along the way. It is inevitable, however, that the closer we get to the finished line the busier Mr. Freeh will become.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
A Responsibility to Judge
“We have no right to judge them.” We hear statements like this quite often these days, and I get the impression many usually just nod in agreement. After all, no one has the right to judge anyone else, do they? Perhaps due to the frequency in which the statement is made the issue bears a bit more thought.
An equivocation is made in that what we often mean by “you have no right to judge” is “you are not allowed to call what someone else does wrong”. If that is the case, however, then to apply the principle (we have no right to judge) the first thing that must be done is violate the principle (judging that one person has judged another). We must stop using the phrase in that way and instead take the time to define the terminology and really spend time thinking what the issue of judging is really all about.
Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Why would we tell someone else they have no right to form an opinion through carefully weighing evidence and testing of premises? If I come to an intersection and see another vehicle continue without stopping through the intersection even though the light was a steady red color, I would correctly judge that the individual committed a traffic violation by running a red light.
Judge is also defined as, “to sit in judgment on”, or put another way to be the moral judge over another person. Perhaps this hits a little closer to home. Should no one sit in judgment over another? If so why not? In most cases what would first come to mind would be the statement, “Judge not or you will be judged.” But that statement comes from the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:1. Does this mean the Bible is the authority on judging? I believe that it must be, lest we resort to the subjective, arbitrary and capricious human constructs.
I leave it to you the reader to think further about an absolutely binding ethic of judging. For now, since Matthew 7:1 is invariably quoted when instructing others not to judge, let’s just assume the Bible is the authority on, and provides proper instruction on judging. What then does the Bible actually say about judging others? Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that we should not judge motivations, that only God knows a persons thoughts and attitudes. James 2:1-4 instructs us not to show favoritism, or to judge by appearance. These verses, among others, instruct us in the negative, or ways in which we should not judge others. However, there is no command to abandon all judgment completely. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 6:1-8; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12-21 commend us to judge others to determine if their actions are in accordance with what God has established as acceptable behavior. In short, we are instructed to make judgments on behavior (observing the fruit) while at the same time prohibited from going to the thoughts, attitudes and motivations behind the behavior (cursing the tree).
Whenever the issue of judging comes up we must be careful to define the terms and correctly represent the argument. While it may be patently wrong to believe that any human being is the authority on morality and therefore has the obligation to sit as moral judge over the motivations of another person, it does not follow that one cannot say anything negative concerning the behavior of another. Of prime importance is establishing the fundamental moral code applicable to all people by which judgments are made. Properly understood, because of a transcendent ethic we not only have the right, but also the responsibility to observe the fruit of human behavior and measure it against the moral law of the bible established and revealed by God for the purpose of transformation into the likeness of Christ that is intended for us all; a process that must begin in each individual human heart. After all, Jesus himself taught us to remove the beam from our own eye before we try to remove a speck from our brother.
By way of simple analogy, Jesus came to provide forgiveness through obedient submission and sacrifice. We all will be judged by God’s perfect and holy standard, and we all fall short. This is the hope of the Gospel: God judged us and then demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us as our substitute in order to provide a way of escape from His final eternal judgment. Perhaps when we say “We have no right to judge them” we are only partially correct; perhaps our statement should be ‘We have no right to judge them against anything but Gods absolute moral law.’ If we couple that understanding with the command to love others as ourselves and look at the entire issue of judging in light of the cross, perhaps we can understand aright the issue of judgment.
An equivocation is made in that what we often mean by “you have no right to judge” is “you are not allowed to call what someone else does wrong”. If that is the case, however, then to apply the principle (we have no right to judge) the first thing that must be done is violate the principle (judging that one person has judged another). We must stop using the phrase in that way and instead take the time to define the terminology and really spend time thinking what the issue of judging is really all about.
Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Why would we tell someone else they have no right to form an opinion through carefully weighing evidence and testing of premises? If I come to an intersection and see another vehicle continue without stopping through the intersection even though the light was a steady red color, I would correctly judge that the individual committed a traffic violation by running a red light.
Judge is also defined as, “to sit in judgment on”, or put another way to be the moral judge over another person. Perhaps this hits a little closer to home. Should no one sit in judgment over another? If so why not? In most cases what would first come to mind would be the statement, “Judge not or you will be judged.” But that statement comes from the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:1. Does this mean the Bible is the authority on judging? I believe that it must be, lest we resort to the subjective, arbitrary and capricious human constructs.
I leave it to you the reader to think further about an absolutely binding ethic of judging. For now, since Matthew 7:1 is invariably quoted when instructing others not to judge, let’s just assume the Bible is the authority on, and provides proper instruction on judging. What then does the Bible actually say about judging others? Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that we should not judge motivations, that only God knows a persons thoughts and attitudes. James 2:1-4 instructs us not to show favoritism, or to judge by appearance. These verses, among others, instruct us in the negative, or ways in which we should not judge others. However, there is no command to abandon all judgment completely. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 6:1-8; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12-21 commend us to judge others to determine if their actions are in accordance with what God has established as acceptable behavior. In short, we are instructed to make judgments on behavior (observing the fruit) while at the same time prohibited from going to the thoughts, attitudes and motivations behind the behavior (cursing the tree).
Whenever the issue of judging comes up we must be careful to define the terms and correctly represent the argument. While it may be patently wrong to believe that any human being is the authority on morality and therefore has the obligation to sit as moral judge over the motivations of another person, it does not follow that one cannot say anything negative concerning the behavior of another. Of prime importance is establishing the fundamental moral code applicable to all people by which judgments are made. Properly understood, because of a transcendent ethic we not only have the right, but also the responsibility to observe the fruit of human behavior and measure it against the moral law of the bible established and revealed by God for the purpose of transformation into the likeness of Christ that is intended for us all; a process that must begin in each individual human heart. After all, Jesus himself taught us to remove the beam from our own eye before we try to remove a speck from our brother.
By way of simple analogy, Jesus came to provide forgiveness through obedient submission and sacrifice. We all will be judged by God’s perfect and holy standard, and we all fall short. This is the hope of the Gospel: God judged us and then demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us as our substitute in order to provide a way of escape from His final eternal judgment. Perhaps when we say “We have no right to judge them” we are only partially correct; perhaps our statement should be ‘We have no right to judge them against anything but Gods absolute moral law.’ If we couple that understanding with the command to love others as ourselves and look at the entire issue of judging in light of the cross, perhaps we can understand aright the issue of judgment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A Ship at Sea
I heard two reports on the radio on my way into work today that caught my ear. I read a bit more on one of those reports in the local newspaper. Both deal primarily with the issue of ethical behavior, and both are concerned with members of the United States government. Links to both reports are found below:
Charles Rangel Ethics Probe
Sexual Harassment Allegations
My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior. By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:
House Ethics Committee
Senate Ethics Committee
Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group. The importance here is absolutely critical. How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual. Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior. We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual? One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.
This is the focus of my concern. If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality? In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct. A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).
Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books. The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct. It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate." And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation."
The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct. Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced. Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail. James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people. Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty." What a telling statement. Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost. What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere? What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom? Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.
In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government. A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere. A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament. In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man. That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.
The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable. This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian. The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere. That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.
Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding. I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions. If this is the case, however, our situation is dire. If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result. If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right. If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught. A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).
C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea. He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place. Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships. They were right. We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.
Charles Rangel Ethics Probe
Sexual Harassment Allegations
My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior. By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:
House Ethics Committee
Senate Ethics Committee
Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group. The importance here is absolutely critical. How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual. Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior. We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual? One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.
This is the focus of my concern. If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality? In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct. A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).
Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books. The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct. It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate." And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation."
The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct. Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced. Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail. James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people. Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty." What a telling statement. Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost. What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere? What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom? Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.
In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government. A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere. A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament. In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man. That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.
The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable. This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian. The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere. That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.
Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding. I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions. If this is the case, however, our situation is dire. If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result. If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right. If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught. A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).
C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea. He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place. Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships. They were right. We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)