We must marry people of the same race and the opposite sex because that's what God wants.
Tradition and fashion are opposite sides of the same coin.
Tradition says that we must make the same choice that everyone has made before:
We must choose the apple if everyone has always chosen the apple.
Fashion says that we must make the same choice that everyone is making now:
We must wear red shirts if everyone is wearing red shirts now.
Fashion says that when white socks are "in" and you're not wearing them then you must not be "cool", but when white socks are "out" and you are wearing them then you must be some sort of "geek". Is this logical? Can you see how ridiculous this is? Does anyone recognize how they are being manipulated?
It's easy to see how superstition, tradition, and fashion are enemies of freedom of choice, but they are enemies of morality and reason as well. Superstition (specifically the Christian Bible) and tradition were primary reasons why slavery lasted as long as it did even though it was obviously immoral. And how many immoral and illogical choices can you name that have become popular strictly because of fashion?
I have a vivid memory of a senior high Sunday school class and a substitute teacher who was a member of the Iowa state legislature. He was bragging about how he and others like him had stood up for tradition. At that time there was no air-conditioning in the capital building but they had a long standing rule that no one was to remove their coat and tie. One summer day it was more than 90 degrees on the floor of the house and all of the representatives were covered with sweat. Some young whippersnapper made the motion that that rule be suspended or abolished and that they be allowed to remove their coats and ties. My Sunday school teacher was very proud that he and other members of the house had voted that motion down and thus had upheld tradition. I remember feeling greatly offended that a man would use a Sunday school class to tout the ridiculous notion that tradition was more important than reason, and sad that these were the kind of men who were running our government.
Superstition, tradition, and fashion condition people to let others do their thinking for them rather than thinking for themselves. It is this conditioning which makes it possible for charismatic leaders like Hitler to convince a nation that obviously immoral choices are the right thing to do.
Choices that cause harm to others are immoral.
We should not make these choices.
And it is the primary purpose of government to protect its citizens
by preventing people from making these choices.
Choices that cause harm to ourselves are foolish.
We also should not make these choices.
However, these choices are not the government's purview.
But we as individuals should try to convince others (not force them)
to not make these choices.
And when there is no harm involved
we should be free to choose whatever we want.
Nothing should be prohibited by law
that does not cause harm to another person
or take away their rights.
The only justification for causing harm to another person
is to prevent harm from being done. To eliminate a threat.
We have the right to defend ourselves
and sometimes the responsibility
to protect others from aggression.
I used to believe that there were primarily two basic ethical systems: Deontology and Consequentialism.
Deontologists believe that what is and is not moral is determined by a set of rules or laws that we must
follow and may not question. Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe that whether or not a choice
is moral is determined by its consequences (the result of the choice), that rules and laws are created by
man to help us achieve morality, and that we should be free to question them and willing to change them
if they do not accomplish their goals. Much of what Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" is about is the conflict
between the consequentialist Jean Valjean and the deontologist Inspector Javert.
"I administer the law. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's no business of mine, but the law to the letter."
(Charles Laughton's Inspector Javert from the 1935 film version of "Les Misérables")
I have since come to believe that Consequentialism is a Deontological system (With one rule: We should
choose that which leads to the best result.) and that the real conflict is between Low Level Deontological
systems (based on a large number of specific laws, e.g. The Ten Commandments, Torah, Bible, or Koran,
The Constitution of The United States, the laws of other countries) and High Level Deontological systems
(based on one or two very general laws).
While considering this, I came to realize that my own Moral System is a combination of several high level
Deontological systems which I believe are compatible with each other. One of them is Consequentialism.
Others include: Reciprocity (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.), "Love your neighbor
as yourself" (I often paraphrase that as: "Consider the rights of others to be as important as your own."),
Egalitarianism (Equal rights for everyone.), The Harm Principle (Explained at the beginning of this text.),
The First and Second Formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative (The first is similar to Reciprocity
but broader in scope. I quote the second in my article "On Morality".), and Thomas Jeferson's concept
of Rightful Liberty (See my article "Religion and Politics".).
Almost all of the Christian Bible is Low Level Deontologist. All of the Old Testament is, and many of its
books contain long lists of laws. And what was it that got Adam and Eve kicked out of paradise? It was
eating from the tree of "knowledge of good an evil". What that means is: We are not supposed to learn
to discern for ourselves what is right and wrong. We are just supposed to accept the rules that we were
taught. (We are not supposed to grow up. We are supposed to be controlled by our superegos all of our
lives instead of developing mature egos.) Jesus teaching in Matthew 18:2-4 appears to agree with this.
On the other hand, one of the teachings attributed to the Biblical Jesus is clearly Consequentialist,
while another is High Level Deontologist.
Mark 2:23-28,3:1-6 - "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Matthew 22: 34-40 - "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I am always reconsidering the things I believe. As a result, my philosophy is always evolving.
(Unlike many Christians I come in contact with, I recognize that I am not omniscient.
I am aware that not everything I believe is correct.)
And sometimes I look back at philosophical things I have written and just shake my head.
The idea that Consequentialism is one of several High Level Deontological systems is one I came
up with some time ago. I don't think I agree with it anymore. But I'm still debating it in my mind.
I am keeping this posted here though because I like my explanation of the different ideas that have
shaped my own Moral System: Consequentialism, Reciprocity, Egalitarianism, The Harm Principle,
Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Jefferson's concept of Rightful Liberty.
This combined narrative dialogue and play is about the uncreated, unborn and undying transcendent Self of God-consciousness and Buddha-nature. It describes an odyssey of transcendent Consciousness Awakening and Remembrance.
This book presents a narrative story of one person's journey of transcendental Awakening and Enlightenment as guided by his two Sage companions. It is grounded in Zen Buddhist and Taoist perspective and uses the I Ching as its structural framework. T
This book is about a radical transformational Way of Insight, Awakening and Realization to transcendent Self of Nondual Consciousness. If your're interested in transcendental Enlightenment, in Awakening to Nondual Self of Wisdom and Compassion, then
We should not make these choices.
And it is the primary purpose of government to protect its citizens
by preventing people from making these choices.
Choices that cause harm to ourselves are foolish.
We also should not make these choices.
However, these choices are not the government's purview.
But we as individuals should try to convince others (not force them)
to not make these choices.
And when there is no harm involved
we should be free to choose whatever we want.
Nothing should be prohibited by law
that does not cause harm to another person
or take away their rights.
The only justification for causing harm to another person
is to prevent harm from being done. To eliminate a threat.
We have the right to defend ourselves
and sometimes the responsibility
to protect others from aggression.
I used to believe that there were primarily two basic ethical systems: Deontology and Consequentialism.
Deontologists believe that what is and is not moral is determined by a set of rules or laws that we must
follow and may not question. Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe that whether or not a choice
is moral is determined by its consequences (the result of the choice), that rules and laws are created by
man to help us achieve morality, and that we should be free to question them and willing to change them
if they do not accomplish their goals. Much of what Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" is about is the conflict
between the consequentialist Jean Valjean and the deontologist Inspector Javert.
"I administer the law. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's no business of mine, but the law to the letter."
(Charles Laughton's Inspector Javert from the 1935 film version of "Les Misérables")
I have since come to believe that Consequentialism is a Deontological system (With one rule: We should
choose that which leads to the best result.) and that the real conflict is between Low Level Deontological
systems (based on a large number of specific laws, e.g. The Ten Commandments, Torah, Bible, or Koran,
The Constitution of The United States, the laws of other countries) and High Level Deontological systems
(based on one or two very general laws).
While considering this, I came to realize that my own Moral System is a combination of several high level
Deontological systems which I believe are compatible with each other. One of them is Consequentialism.
Others include: Reciprocity (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.), "Love your neighbor
as yourself" (I often paraphrase that as: "Consider the rights of others to be as important as your own."),
Egalitarianism (Equal rights for everyone.), The Harm Principle (Explained at the beginning of this text.),
The First and Second Formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative (The first is similar to Reciprocity
but broader in scope. I quote the second in my article "On Morality".), and Thomas Jeferson's concept
of Rightful Liberty (See my article "Religion and Politics".).
Almost all of the Christian Bible is Low Level Deontologist. All of the Old Testament is, and many of its
books contain long lists of laws. And what was it that got Adam and Eve kicked out of paradise? It was
eating from the tree of "knowledge of good an evil". What that means is: We are not supposed to learn
to discern for ourselves what is right and wrong. We are just supposed to accept the rules that we were
taught. (We are not supposed to grow up. We are supposed to be controlled by our superegos all of our
lives instead of developing mature egos.) Jesus teaching in Matthew 18:2-4 appears to agree with this.
On the other hand, one of the teachings attributed to the Biblical Jesus is clearly Consequentialist,
while another is High Level Deontologist.
Mark 2:23-28,3:1-6 - "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Matthew 22: 34-40 - "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I am always reconsidering the things I believe. As a result, my philosophy is always evolving.
(Unlike many Christians I come in contact with, I recognize that I am not omniscient.
I am aware that not everything I believe is correct.)
And sometimes I look back at philosophical things I have written and just shake my head.
The idea that Consequentialism is one of several High Level Deontological systems is one I came
up with some time ago. I don't think I agree with it anymore. But I'm still debating it in my mind.
I am keeping this posted here though because I like my explanation of the different ideas that have
shaped my own Moral System: Consequentialism, Reciprocity, Egalitarianism, The Harm Principle,
Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Jefferson's concept of Rightful Liberty.