“It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wished to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my care was employed in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping, and that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. For this purpose I therefore contrived the following method.It seems odd that Franklin did not include honesty, either intellectual or moral, in his summary. Possibly sincerity substituted for honesty in his mind. Regardless of his omissions and inclusions, the rigorous daily attention to his performance to his standards is a measure of his belief in the necessity of positive character traits, and not sliding scales of relativist ethical plasticity.
”In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I met in my reading, I found the catalogue more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name. Temperance, for example, was by some confined to eating and drinking, while by others it was extended to mean the moderating every other pleasure, appetite, inclination, or passion, bodily or mental, even to our avarice and ambition. I proposed to myself, for the sake of clearness, to use rather more names, with fewer ideas annexed to each, than a few names with more ideas; and I included under thirteen names of virtues all that at that time occurred to me as necessary or desirable, and annexed to each a short precept, which fully expressed the extent I gave to its meaning.
”These names of virtues, with their precepts were:1. Temperance“My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judged it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time, and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone thro' the thirteen; and, as the previous acquisition of some might facilitate the acquisition of certain others, I arranged them with that view, as they stand above. Temperance first, as it tends to procure that coolness and clearness of head which is so necessary where constant vigilance was to be kept up, and guard maintained against the unremitting attraction of ancient habits and the force of perpetual temptations. This being acquired and established, Silence would be more easy; and my desire being to gain knowledge at the same time that I improved in virtue, and considering that in conversation it was obtained rather by the use of the ears than of the tongue, and therefore wishing to break a habit I was getting into prattling, punning, and joking, which only made me acceptable to trifling company, I gave Silence the second place. This and the next, Order, I expected would allow me more time for attending to my project and my studies. Resolution, once because habitual, would keep me firm in my endeavors to obtain all the subsequent virtues; Frugality and Industry, freeing me from my remaining debt, and producing affluence and independence, would make more easy the practice of Sincerity and Justice, etc., Conceiving, then, that, agreeably to the advice of Pythagoras in his Garden Verses, daily examination would be necessary, I contrived the following method for conducting that examination.
Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. Silence
Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order
Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. Resolution
Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality
Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e., waste nothing.
6. Industry
Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity.
Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness
Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquillity
Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity
Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13. Humility
Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
”I made a little book, in which I allotted a page for each of the virtues. I ruled each page with red ink, so as to have seven columns, one for each day of the week, marking each column with a letter for the day. I crossed these columns with thirteen red lines, marking the beginning of each line with the first letter of one of the virtues, on which line, and in its proper column, I might mark, by a little black spot, every fault I found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day.”
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thirteen Virtues of Benjamin Franklin
[From pg 38, Franklin’s “Autobiography”; http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm]
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A Non-Coherent Culture: America as the Great Satan
Eugene Volokh raises a dispute over the writing of a Catholic cleric who maintains that the Muslims have a point about the moral deterioration in the USA justifying the label of “Great Satan”. The article was specific in mentioning homosexuality, and took the position that, “One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth.” And that at least the Muslims were willing to die for their religion.
Volokh’s response was one word: “Appalling”; however, many commenters took to their keyboards with interesting points of view, including those of a couple of avowed homosexuals.
One of the more interesting arguments in the comments to the Volokh post maintains that, because the Catholic Church in Massachusetts shut down its adoption program rather than be forced by the state to place children in gay households, the Catholics are violating one of their standards (adoption) in order to preserve another (man/woman monogamy). And, the arguer maintains, this is, paradoxically, moral relativism, a tenet of the Right, not of the Left.
But the argument fails to consider that the program was stopped in order to prevent its usurpation by government decree into violation of the church’s standards. That of course is the opposite of what the arguer maintains. It was a coherent decision based on complying with the church’s internal standards. Not to take action to prevent violation of its standards would have been non-coherent. The action was not self-contradictory or paradoxical. So the argument is false.
Another interesting argument is that the Muslim suicide bombers might be motivated by more than just religious fervor. The male bombers are rewarded in heaven with 72 houri “perpetual virgins” for their sexual pleasure; their earthly families receive a large monetary compensation for the martyring of their children. So is it the religion or the compensation package that motivates the brutality? Likely it is somewhat both, coupled with a culture of hate that is inculcated from early childhood.
In fact, Islam itself is far from coherent, in the sense that first, the Qur’an was compiled not by Muhammad, but by a disciple who reconciled differing texts, then destroyed the originals; second, there are numerous conflicts and contradictions in the Islamic text(s), which are decided by either superceding later writings or by interpretations of the local imam.
But this is a digression from the point Volokh makes in a second post, that freedom dictates tolerance. In this case, the tolerance refers to tolerating homosexuality.
So, the argument of “complete tolerance” comes into play here: Should a free culture tolerate abominable behavior? What if the abominable behavior is pederasty? What if the abominable behavior is “honor killing”? Clearly there is no point to declaring total tolerance of every behavior. So there is a line to be drawn and the questions arise, what behaviors will be discriminated against, and who will decide that those behaviors are abominable?
The battle is Nietzschean when it veers from absolute standards into the mud of relativist variabilities. Only the most powerful will dominate, and the standards of abomination will be their personal proclivities. Refusing to acknowledge that homosexuality is aberrant behavior is a prime example. The battle front moves from non-discrimination, to special legal categorization (hate crimes), to teaching that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice in government schools, complete with instructions and implements for safe sex. And other aggrieved schools of behavior are heartened, and fight for their own ultimate legitimization.
In complete tolerance, there is no standard remaining, save the standard of complete tolerance itself. It is another definition of incoherence, of chaos or even anarchy. It is a direct and specific result of the drive for secularism, the concept that there are no absolute morals to be considered in public life.
Allowing any and all behaviors to be tolerated is prelude to cultural destruction due to non-coherence. If there are no standards to defend, there will be no defense. Degenerating standards are as bad, because this gives support to those defending current “abominable behaviors”, in their fight to liberate their particular abomination.
And the Will To Power will in fact surface to assert control: the presumed drive toward moral libertarianism or anarchism will actually breed totalitarians and the culture will be too feckless to stop them. It has happened before. Lessons of history for those who will learn.
But is that, valid as that argument might be, the real motivation for designating the USA as the “Great Satan”?
If the “Great Satan” is a psuedonym for a nation without fixed (absolute) values, then the USA increasingly qualifies, although so do most European nations, Britain, Russia and China. And these are all under attack by Muslim killers.
And the USA would also qualify for the “Great Satan” appellation even if it were exclusively Christian, both culturally and governmentally. Islam does not tolerate non-Muslims. So the term, from an Islamic perspective, is tautological for any culture or belief system that is not contained fully within the Islamic world, and even there the Sunnis and Shias would likely designate each other as Satans. So it makes no difference from the perspective of ”so what… we are defined as such no matter what we do”. We are the enemies of Islam by their very definition, just as we are becoming the enemies as defined by our own state.
Conclusion: Let it go and oil your guns... which enemy will we be forced to engage first?
Volokh’s response was one word: “Appalling”; however, many commenters took to their keyboards with interesting points of view, including those of a couple of avowed homosexuals.
One of the more interesting arguments in the comments to the Volokh post maintains that, because the Catholic Church in Massachusetts shut down its adoption program rather than be forced by the state to place children in gay households, the Catholics are violating one of their standards (adoption) in order to preserve another (man/woman monogamy). And, the arguer maintains, this is, paradoxically, moral relativism, a tenet of the Right, not of the Left.
But the argument fails to consider that the program was stopped in order to prevent its usurpation by government decree into violation of the church’s standards. That of course is the opposite of what the arguer maintains. It was a coherent decision based on complying with the church’s internal standards. Not to take action to prevent violation of its standards would have been non-coherent. The action was not self-contradictory or paradoxical. So the argument is false.
Another interesting argument is that the Muslim suicide bombers might be motivated by more than just religious fervor. The male bombers are rewarded in heaven with 72 houri “perpetual virgins” for their sexual pleasure; their earthly families receive a large monetary compensation for the martyring of their children. So is it the religion or the compensation package that motivates the brutality? Likely it is somewhat both, coupled with a culture of hate that is inculcated from early childhood.
In fact, Islam itself is far from coherent, in the sense that first, the Qur’an was compiled not by Muhammad, but by a disciple who reconciled differing texts, then destroyed the originals; second, there are numerous conflicts and contradictions in the Islamic text(s), which are decided by either superceding later writings or by interpretations of the local imam.
But this is a digression from the point Volokh makes in a second post, that freedom dictates tolerance. In this case, the tolerance refers to tolerating homosexuality.
So, the argument of “complete tolerance” comes into play here: Should a free culture tolerate abominable behavior? What if the abominable behavior is pederasty? What if the abominable behavior is “honor killing”? Clearly there is no point to declaring total tolerance of every behavior. So there is a line to be drawn and the questions arise, what behaviors will be discriminated against, and who will decide that those behaviors are abominable?
The battle is Nietzschean when it veers from absolute standards into the mud of relativist variabilities. Only the most powerful will dominate, and the standards of abomination will be their personal proclivities. Refusing to acknowledge that homosexuality is aberrant behavior is a prime example. The battle front moves from non-discrimination, to special legal categorization (hate crimes), to teaching that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice in government schools, complete with instructions and implements for safe sex. And other aggrieved schools of behavior are heartened, and fight for their own ultimate legitimization.
In complete tolerance, there is no standard remaining, save the standard of complete tolerance itself. It is another definition of incoherence, of chaos or even anarchy. It is a direct and specific result of the drive for secularism, the concept that there are no absolute morals to be considered in public life.
Allowing any and all behaviors to be tolerated is prelude to cultural destruction due to non-coherence. If there are no standards to defend, there will be no defense. Degenerating standards are as bad, because this gives support to those defending current “abominable behaviors”, in their fight to liberate their particular abomination.
And the Will To Power will in fact surface to assert control: the presumed drive toward moral libertarianism or anarchism will actually breed totalitarians and the culture will be too feckless to stop them. It has happened before. Lessons of history for those who will learn.
But is that, valid as that argument might be, the real motivation for designating the USA as the “Great Satan”?
If the “Great Satan” is a psuedonym for a nation without fixed (absolute) values, then the USA increasingly qualifies, although so do most European nations, Britain, Russia and China. And these are all under attack by Muslim killers.
And the USA would also qualify for the “Great Satan” appellation even if it were exclusively Christian, both culturally and governmentally. Islam does not tolerate non-Muslims. So the term, from an Islamic perspective, is tautological for any culture or belief system that is not contained fully within the Islamic world, and even there the Sunnis and Shias would likely designate each other as Satans. So it makes no difference from the perspective of ”so what… we are defined as such no matter what we do”. We are the enemies of Islam by their very definition, just as we are becoming the enemies as defined by our own state.
Conclusion: Let it go and oil your guns... which enemy will we be forced to engage first?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)