OUR MOST NOBLE VISIONS

[Thats my opinion]

I have often held that major national decisions are almost always made on the basis of economic self-interest, not on the basis of ethically generated human values. The current legislative effort to gut the Clean Air Act is the agenda of those primarily concerned with the effect on business. The health of those who must breathe what is dumped into the air is not a major concern. The value system inherent in this debate is self-evident. Obviously Congress is obliged to pay attention to how the impact of what it enacts affects corporations. But that cannot be the only criterion.

While citizens one at a time might want to act out of solid ethical sensitivities, the larger the group the less it is inclined to do so. Reinhold Niebuhr, a prominent 20th century theologian, opined that society may be composed of moral individuals, but the social systems in which they are engaged may operate on less than moral principles. One at a time we may detest the slaughter involved in war. We would never as individuals kill tens of thousands in the destruction of a city, but we might have applauded the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. You might never even consider torturing anyone, but not even blink when the government believes that waterboarding is a necessary way to get information.

What then are values which we individually celebrate, but may get put aside in our national agendas? Herein lies one of the fundamental questions with which philosophers, theologians, and thoughtful people of every race, nation, culture and perspective have struggled for millennia. Truth, beauty, honesty, compassion, integrity, honor, the common good, respect for each other and for the earth, wisdom, generosity, peace and justice are among ethical principles that know no boundaries. These are the values most of us affirm.

There is, however, a very different set of values that tend to control modern society. One might list greed, selfishness, personal advantage, domination, power, “where’s mine” and prejudice regarding race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. Left unattended, those among us only concerned about the economic implications will tend to drift down and succumb to the demands of those primarily focused on the bottom line. These are not evil people. They are usually very good people who have risked their own wealth in a search for the common good, as well as for personal or corporate profit. But they are caught in a system that tends to demand ultimate respect for what generates business, and subsequently wealth. The simple notion that this wealth will trickle down is often used to justify their decisions, but that is a delusion. Wealth in our culture tends to gush up, not trickle down.

The question arises, how is this proclivity toward kneeling before economic good balanced by the common good—by these others human values. Herein lies the role of most not-for-profit institutions, social agencies, progressive political operatives, religious imperatives, the liberal arts and individuals passionately concerned about the care and survival of the earth as well as universal human rights. It is evidenced in simple acts of kindness, in the honoring of the nobodies and in a multitude of demonstrations for justice, peace and the integrity of creation. Yet they are spoken from the sidelines in a culture focused on power and wealth.

These nobler values do not and probably will not control society, but they must be pursued as a counterbalance to the predominant societal preoccupation. It they are put down, devalued, simply ignored, then we are faced with a world good for those at the top, but bad for everyone, particularly the weak and the disadvantaged. Laws which protect the air we all breath may not be acceptable to those whose interest is only in the economic implications, but critical to the survival of our mother, the earth.
Charles Bayer
[e-mail]

[patrice]

1. "economic implications" are based on values too. This means that identification, that is

authentic identification, and description, empirical analysis and synthesis, and all such general processing of Values is valid. It is often characteristic of such efforts that some participants rely upon higher authority, divinity usually, to establish somekind of absolute value in their argument. To them, I have to say that claim is fraught with theological contradictions (and this is one reason that some of us came up with the necessity of a human authority such as Jesus). To those who don't claim divine authority, but rather something more of an empirical nature, again we have the contradictions introduced by the nature, and limitations, of proof. This brings us to power as a basis for value claims, my/our personal strength in manifesting the values I/we claim relative to the power of opposing value systems. The problem with power as a foundation for value systems, rather than the freely held values themselves, is that the more it asserts itself, the more distributed it becomes, the more power becomes the objective instead of that which is valued. The more values are in-authenticated by power, the more ir-relevant power becomes, until its ir-relevance achieves catastrophic proportions and whatever empirical validity is inherent to the values that were in question is re-learned.

It's called functional adaptation and I think it is justification for "going there" on values, ethics, morals, religion, and theology every time someone tries to say something such as "This is about economics, not any of that other stuff."

[Thats my opinion]

3. Economic implications and ethical decisions

You are right--and forgive my taking so long to get back to you. Neither the focus of some heteronomous authority nor the quest for power provider an adequate backdrop for important decisions--either personal or corporate.. I have developed a system I call "The Conversationalist Ethic.""We" enter into a conversations with a myriad of sources, religion, philosophy, history, social science, the "heroes," tradition, the clan, on and on. We then must deal with the autonomous concern---"What do we (I) think and believe?" That at least gives us a way to judge both ethically and ideologically.
Thats my opinion.

[patrice]

2. Oh! and pardon my manners . . . Welcome to DU, Thats My Opinion!

:hi: