No. Helping is not enough. Nor is the desire to help someone ever sufficient basis for contentment. If you want to truly help someone, you must bear in mind the following:
1. The form of your aid will ultimately influence its result. Unwanted help or unwelcome help is no help at all in the end.
2. Is your help long-term? Must it be? If so, is your help sustainable?
3. Is your "help" actually helpful, or will it turn that someone into someone dependent on you? If so, your help is not very efficient and may not be any help at all.
Helping someone is a worthy thing, but we must first understand what true help is.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
On the FIFA World Cup 2010
The BBC interviewed me on the results of this year's World Cup and the impact it had in Brazil.
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
After watching all the play-acting by players and their pretense injuries, after witnessing the incongruencies perpetrated by referees, the attempt by FIFA to ban the very technologies that were revealing these mistakes and the overall injustice that resulted on the fields of South Africa, I have only this to say:
The way fairplay was abused during the FIFA World Cup 2010 only reflects the (lack of) moral standards by which Western Society is steering.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/07/forgive_and_forget.html#comments
Friday, 18 June 2010
Reconciliation & Justice Leads to Peace
I read an article on Zenit on Cardinal Marchetto's address to the Conference of European University Chaplains, and it impacted me so completely with the truth contained in it, that I had to reproduce an exerpt fom what I've read. Zenit will publish the entire text this Saturday, so if this pricks your interest, do take the time to seek out the entire text: http://www.zenit.org
COVENTRY, England, JUNE 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Promoting dialogue and social justice are needed in order to build a lasting peace, says the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, Cardinal Marchetto.
The cardinal began his address to the event ending this Friday by noting the importance of the chosen theme and its application in the context of education, especially universities. The "intellectual, spiritual and human formation of young minds and hearts is so fundamental to create a better world," he said.
The cardinal noted that the Church has constantly held to the view that peace is possible "through social justice and reconciliation."
"Mankind will not succeed in 'building a truly more human world for everyone, everywhere on earth, unless all people are renewed in spirit and converted to the truth of peace,'" the cardinal stated, quoting "Guadium et Spes."
Quoting Benedict XVI, he continued, "Peace is an irrepressible yearning present in the heart of each person, regardless of his or her particular cultural identity. The truth of peace calls upon everyone to cultivate productive and sincere relationships; it encourages them to seek out and to follow the paths of forgiveness and reconciliation."
In cases of terrorism, he explained, the Church upholds the view that government and religious leaders must work toward eliminating the social oppression and economic injustices that make the recruitment of terrorists easier.
"In this regard," he continued, "interreligious understanding and cooperation is also very important," especially with regard to "promoting a culture of forgiveness and reconciliation."
Cardinal Marchetto noted as well that "poverty is often a contributory factor or a compounding element in conflicts. These conflicts, in turn, fuel further tragic situations of poverty"
"Of course nowadays, fighting poverty requires attentive consideration of the complex phenomenon of globalization," he said. "Certainly globalization on its own is incapable of building peace, and in many cases, it actually creates divisions and conflicts.
"Globalization should be rather guided as a good opportunity to achieve something important in the fight against poverty, and to place at the disposal of justice and peace resources which were scarcely conceivable previously."
The cardinal said that a form of building peace is through working for the "universal common good." But before that can happen, he noted, "there needs to be a strong sense of global solidarity between rich and poor countries, as well as within individual countries, including affluent ones."
"All of this would indicate," Cardinal Marchetto explained, "that the fight against poverty requires cooperation both on the economic level and on the legal level, so as to allow the international community, and especially poorer countries, to identify and implement coordinated strategies to deal with the problems, thereby providing an effective legal framework for the economy."
COVENTRY, England, JUNE 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Promoting dialogue and social justice are needed in order to build a lasting peace, says the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, Cardinal Marchetto.
The cardinal began his address to the event ending this Friday by noting the importance of the chosen theme and its application in the context of education, especially universities. The "intellectual, spiritual and human formation of young minds and hearts is so fundamental to create a better world," he said.
The cardinal noted that the Church has constantly held to the view that peace is possible "through social justice and reconciliation."
"Mankind will not succeed in 'building a truly more human world for everyone, everywhere on earth, unless all people are renewed in spirit and converted to the truth of peace,'" the cardinal stated, quoting "Guadium et Spes."
Quoting Benedict XVI, he continued, "Peace is an irrepressible yearning present in the heart of each person, regardless of his or her particular cultural identity. The truth of peace calls upon everyone to cultivate productive and sincere relationships; it encourages them to seek out and to follow the paths of forgiveness and reconciliation."
In cases of terrorism, he explained, the Church upholds the view that government and religious leaders must work toward eliminating the social oppression and economic injustices that make the recruitment of terrorists easier.
"In this regard," he continued, "interreligious understanding and cooperation is also very important," especially with regard to "promoting a culture of forgiveness and reconciliation."
Cardinal Marchetto noted as well that "poverty is often a contributory factor or a compounding element in conflicts. These conflicts, in turn, fuel further tragic situations of poverty"
"Of course nowadays, fighting poverty requires attentive consideration of the complex phenomenon of globalization," he said. "Certainly globalization on its own is incapable of building peace, and in many cases, it actually creates divisions and conflicts.
"Globalization should be rather guided as a good opportunity to achieve something important in the fight against poverty, and to place at the disposal of justice and peace resources which were scarcely conceivable previously."
The cardinal said that a form of building peace is through working for the "universal common good." But before that can happen, he noted, "there needs to be a strong sense of global solidarity between rich and poor countries, as well as within individual countries, including affluent ones."
"All of this would indicate," Cardinal Marchetto explained, "that the fight against poverty requires cooperation both on the economic level and on the legal level, so as to allow the international community, and especially poorer countries, to identify and implement coordinated strategies to deal with the problems, thereby providing an effective legal framework for the economy."
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Is the Pill our Undoing?
On the subject of the contraceptive pill and the institution of marriage, I was startled to see someone of the stature of Raquel Welch provide a no-compromise comment on the defence of marriage. Amongst other things, she declared:
"These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune."
She is totally correct. The pill is but a product; a means to an end, but in my opinion, the end is what harbours the malice.
What endangers the institution of marriage and many other valuable institutions in our culture is a systematic and general erosion of our moral values. Western cultures have been progressively destroying traditional ethical systems such as Virtue Ethics and even modern ones such as Deontology and Consequentialism in exchange for greater quarterly profits.
Some would call me a sexist and I agree that promiscuity is harmful whether it comes from women or men. Yet one must concede to the fact that, coincidence or not, promiscuity has increased many fold after the introduction of the pill and other contraceptive and abortive means. Nowadays people do take less care in choosing their partners and this has had a destructive impact on how easily people break their marital commitments.
It seems to me that women once tendered themselves more dearly and that, by their example, men were invited to do the same to achieve their partners. It also seems to me that, important as it may be, the economic independence of women has come at unforeseen costs to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent women, but the supposed "sexual freedom" that was endeared to our society in the 1960's and 1970's has actually imprisoned us in a cycle of "irresponsible sex" and its myriad socioeconomic consequences instead.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the concept of "free sex" is a fallacy in itself. Let's not kid ourselves that getting sexually involved has no emotional impact attached to it. Let's not kid ourselves that there is no moral and social responsibility involved in giving this step. It's not just pleasure. Regardless of the "options" medical science affords us today, sex is still the doorway to new life and the continuation of our species, our families and our values. By distorting sex into a mere plaything, we are making it into just one more pastime and it has to be more than that. I know that to me it is.
The truth is that nowadays we seem to turn a blind eye to immorality so long as it brings us fame and fortune. Then we follow the rich and famous into moral decay; seeking to become rich and famous like them. We do this at the expense of our self respect, our marriages, our families and our children.
If you'd like to see the full enterview with Raquel Welch, here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/07/welch.sex.pill/index.html
"These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.
In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune."
She is totally correct. The pill is but a product; a means to an end, but in my opinion, the end is what harbours the malice.
What endangers the institution of marriage and many other valuable institutions in our culture is a systematic and general erosion of our moral values. Western cultures have been progressively destroying traditional ethical systems such as Virtue Ethics and even modern ones such as Deontology and Consequentialism in exchange for greater quarterly profits.
Some would call me a sexist and I agree that promiscuity is harmful whether it comes from women or men. Yet one must concede to the fact that, coincidence or not, promiscuity has increased many fold after the introduction of the pill and other contraceptive and abortive means. Nowadays people do take less care in choosing their partners and this has had a destructive impact on how easily people break their marital commitments.
It seems to me that women once tendered themselves more dearly and that, by their example, men were invited to do the same to achieve their partners. It also seems to me that, important as it may be, the economic independence of women has come at unforeseen costs to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent women, but the supposed "sexual freedom" that was endeared to our society in the 1960's and 1970's has actually imprisoned us in a cycle of "irresponsible sex" and its myriad socioeconomic consequences instead.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the concept of "free sex" is a fallacy in itself. Let's not kid ourselves that getting sexually involved has no emotional impact attached to it. Let's not kid ourselves that there is no moral and social responsibility involved in giving this step. It's not just pleasure. Regardless of the "options" medical science affords us today, sex is still the doorway to new life and the continuation of our species, our families and our values. By distorting sex into a mere plaything, we are making it into just one more pastime and it has to be more than that. I know that to me it is.
The truth is that nowadays we seem to turn a blind eye to immorality so long as it brings us fame and fortune. Then we follow the rich and famous into moral decay; seeking to become rich and famous like them. We do this at the expense of our self respect, our marriages, our families and our children.
If you'd like to see the full enterview with Raquel Welch, here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/07/welch.sex.pill/index.html
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Modern Genocide.
It sometimes horrifies me to witness the duality of our society. We suffer from such moral inconsistency nowadays that it startles me that some of us can navigate through this sea of opposing waves of rationalizations. Perhaps, like in natural physics, our conflicting relativistic “moral waves” do not really interfere with one another. That is to say that we allow ourselves to be morally dulled out of convenience.
Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".
How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.
To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.
To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.
We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?
We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?
We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.
We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?
Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.
I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.
Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".
How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.
To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.
To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.
We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?
We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?
We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.
We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?
Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.
I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.
Consumerism is NOT Capitalism
No, I am NOT a communist. Neither am I an anarchist. I’ve sometimes been accused of such things; mainly by colleagues in Social Communication, Marketing and Advertising. I assume it is because nowadays I often speak against Consumerism.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
I see Consumerism as a form of Radical Capitalism, and as most radicalisms, it produces important distortions from the initial proposition. What this means is that, though I am favourable to Capitalism – mainly because no one came up with a better option yet – I am indeed opposed to the concept of Consumerism as an answer to contemporary socioeconomic problems.
Why? Because I don’t think we can make the world a better place by pushing things people don’t need into their lives and into their homes. I don’t think we can make this a better world by ravishing its natural resources with increasingly greater velocity to make these products that no one really needs. I don’t think we are building a better future by selling mobile phones, credit cards and bank accounts to our children just as soon as they can learn to speak.
What I do think is that we exacerbate our social problems by creating social distinctions based on wealth. I do think we endanger our planet by exploiting its natural resources irresponsibly to generate products that serve mainly the purpose of setting people apart as tokens of wealth and poor replacements for true hapiness. I do think our kids deserve to be looked at not as convenient consumers, but as innocent children deserving of our love.
So, while I think commerce and the industry play an important socioeconomic role, I also think we have allowed greed to permeate these activities to the last degree. This same greed is what taints our contemporary society and it is the source of various important evils of our time. This greed is congruent with the words "insatiable", "waste", "pollution", "inequity" and ultimately "Consumerism".
Think what you like of me, but I am no communist/anarchist. What I am is responsible.
The Path to Harmony Isn't Wealth
Today’s Western Society rewards financial success. That isn’t wrong in any way, but it is rather limited and it carries with it an inherent danger that is already manifest in our midst. When one rewards financial success only, the danger is that everyone will do whatever it takes to achieve that single rewarding experience. If in pursuing this course of action one commits acts of malice, cruelty or even lunacy but is STILL rewarded with basis on one’s measurable financial success, everyone else around that individual will feel compelled to do likewise.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
It goes without saying that what follows is chaos and disaster. Nevertheless, this is EXACTLY the pickle in which we find ourselves today. One need do little more than look around and into the contemporary icons of our Society’s regard for success to realise this very simple fact. What are the symbols our Society identifies with success? Who are today’s heroes? If you look honestly into these, you will be as baffled as I to discover we have been rewarding greed, corruption and unscrupulousness for quite some time now.
I sometimes refer to the past for a comparative reference, and I like using what is regarded presently as "controversial periods" to achieve maximum effect. One such period is the Dark Ages.
What is funny to me is that many of my interlocutors who are self proclaimed “free thinkers” frown on the values proposed by European medieval societies; saying that they were retrograde and enslaving of the human mind and the human heart. My interlocutors hold that the Middle Ages offered nothing but ignorance and bigotry. I beg to differ.
There was a time when adhering to the chivalric code of honour was the aim of every reputable public figure, and by proxy, of everyone else. This was a code of conduct based on Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics and on pre-Islam Middle Eastern Society. It was proposed by the Catholic clergy as a means of enabling a sustainable basis for society to grow. In all fairness, I warrant that the code was seldom fully followed and never at all times, but it was an icon of civility and purity that was cherished universally.
Part of this code were the knightly virtues, which were a set of standards that served as guidelines for the warrior class, the Knights and Dukes of the High Middle Ages, in their daily living and interactions with others. Though there was no definitive list of virtues, the most common were embraced by pan-European organisations. These were the cardinal virtues – Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude – and the beatitudes – Humility, Compassion, Courtesy, Devotion, Mercy, Purity, Peace and Endurance. Other proposed virtues widely embraced by knightly orders included: Courage, Sagacity, Charity, Generosity, Faith, Valour, Hope, Diligence, Chastity, Truth and Integrity.
Albeit one can’t claim that all knights followed this code, the fact that the code existed and that it had been proposed as something to be prized and pursued by all men and women of good will was, in my understanding, a much more advanced social code than what we’ve been procuring today. Disagree? Then follow my reasoning through:
If, however imperfectly, we seek to follow, as a Society, the path of Integrity, Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Compassion, Courtesy, Purity, Peace, etc, what must follow is an understanding between and amongst the peoples of the Earth. This is coherent because, in seeking to be prudent and just and courteous etc, it follows that we achieve at the very least the semblance of it. By doing so, the recipient of this effort will be positively impressed and pressed toward reciprocity. If this, at any point, becomes the general rule, we will have a world of charitable, prudent, honest people. To me, this is a goal heartily to be cherished.
In contrast, if we should follow the path of Ambition, Greed, Competition, Consumerism, Self Determination, Egotism, Hedonism, Relativism and Success without Remorse, it will follow – as it has been following – that Machiavellianism will prevail over even the most basic concepts of contemporary Ethics such as Deontology (ethics of fulfilling duty) and Consequentialism (ethics of attracting good consequences). If wealth is ALWAYS rewarded, then the ends justify the means so long as you become rich. This is evident in the lives of public figures, who are often involved in abhorrent scandals of pornography, disloyalty, corruption and even crime; yet they endure in the limelight and continue to gather fans and followers.
It's all a question of what your aims are. That's the point! We often fall short of our aims, but if the aim itself falls short, what hope do we have then? We should aspire to better things. We should strive to be better as a people. Instead we are divided by greed and individualism.
If we persist in rewarding only Financial Success and the display of its trappings as the maxim for our contemporary Society, and if we continue to do so in detriment of Virtue Ethics, then we must realise that Deontology and Consequentialism will not be enough to hold the social fabric together. In reality, if wealth is all that is rewarded, we become enslaved by it.
We must stop rewarding material wealth and we must resume the reward of the man/woman behind it and his/her conduct before his/her peers. We must stop to revolve around THINGS and we must start looking at PEOPLE. Only then will we be able to live in a harmonious and sustainable society. Only then will we be really free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)