 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people want to be thought of by their friends, family, and colleagues as moral individuals. They would find life less than enjoyable if they suffered from a bad reputation. If acquaintances truly viewed them as fundamentally unethical, they would see their fortunes and their relationships deteriorate.
Regardless of what importance people place on the opinions of others, even those who are immoral or engage in unethical behavior generally struggle to maintain a positive view of themselves in their own eyes. Such an evaluation may require considerable rationalization or evasion, but only a small minority would acknowledge that their actions are, indeed, despicable yet pursue that course regardless.
To an observer, this giant disconnect strains credulity at times. No amount of evidence, no amount of facts, no amount of logical argumentation is able to shake the convictions or alter the conduct of such citizens. Some of these perpetrators are beyond any likelihood of redemption. Actual sociopaths and those apparently conscience-less manipulators who lurk throughout society are unfazed by what their decisions do to others.
The average person, however (luckily), does not exhibit such overt anti-social tendencies. That fact provides little compensation, though, for those who are victimized by the masterful mental and emotional compartmentalization exhibited by such neighbors.
Distressingly, consistency does not rank very highly in today's world. Logic, reason, and objectivity are under assault by the educational establishment at all levels. Beginning in grade school, children are taught that there are no "wrong" answers. Trying, guessing, or merely having a (groundless) opinion as to the spelling of a word, the sum of two numbers, or how to read a sentence are tolerated, lauded, and encouraged.
Environmental propaganda is pounded into these youthful, malleable minds. They are taught that the existence of mankind is a horrible blight on Mother Gaia (earth as living entity); that animals, plants, and bugs take precedence over the needs of humans; and that such pseudo-science findings as human-caused global warming, the "dangers" of ozone holes, the "poisonous" overuse of insecticides and pesticides, and the sacrosanct status of recycling, organic food [as opposed to food that is not organic?], and "alternate energy" sources are axioms not-to-be-questioned.
These mantras continue with the advancing years as underlying themes to new dogmas handed down from State-sponsored authorities. The evils of corporations, the exploitative essence of unregulated capitalism, the loathsome qualities inherent in guns, the morality of welfare and taxes, and the detestable results of accepting free choices in consuming drugs are drilled into the unquestioning brains of targeted students.
High school students are told that those who created this country were bad men, that the cultural traditions that formed the foundations for Western civilization are to be rejected, and that they need never justify their beliefs...to themselves, let alone to others. Critical thinking classes are limited to a few members of the debating team (if that). After all, cultural relativism and "diversity" are touted as the norm.
College is rarely an antidote to this rampant subjectivism. As has been noted many times by others, modern academia provides a welcome and comfortable home to latent and self-professed leftists of all stripes. These critics condemn the very economic and political system that enables them to exist at something above the subsistence level.
Little surprise, then, that the majority of people never doubt their beliefs. They believe....just because. Sometimes they know what they believe. Sometimes they have only a vague "feeling" towards some social issue to guide them in supporting or rejecting any particular policy suggestion.
With a president "elevating" lying, fraud, threats, coercion, and murder to new heights of ends-justifying-the-means, who knows what the long-term effects on impressionable young people will be. For an alarming number of students, cheating on tests is viewed as acceptable (as long as you aren't caught) because "everyone else does it."
The sorry and disgusting state of public discourse is evidence enough of this insidious trend. Emotional appeals and unsubstantiated convictions trump any rational presentation of reality. If by some mild miracle you are able to convince a doubter of the truth in a particular controversy, his rejoinder will reliably be, "But what about situation Y?" (Building a case for the right of adults to gamble will avail you nothing in arguing for eliminating other consensual "crimes" such as prostitution and taking drugs.)
A void exists in the average person's capacity to think in terms of overarching principles in the public realm, to state a general idea and then to apply it in diverse specific situations.
The curious fact, however, is that in their dealings with other people and in their private affairs, nearly all of these same "principle challenged" individuals are quite capable of appealing to principles in their roles as parents, friends, and co-workers.
If a child deliberately broke a sibling's toy truck and was punished, he would hardly escape the same consequences if he then destroyed his sibling's toy plane. Crying that, "You only told me not to break her truck! You didn't say anything about her plane," would hardly stand as a valid excuse for the parent to ignore the infraction. The perpetrator would (rightly) be chastised for his misdeed and scolded for thinking the parent so dense as to be fooled by such a ploy. While our political leaders may advance their cases by splitting infinitives and arguing as to the divergent meanings of "is," such tactics will avail miniature defense attorneys little advantage. We expect better of our offspring than devious and overly-clever antics.
If a husband cheats on his wife and they work through the problem, the woman would hardly be consoled after another affair should he say, "But this is a different lover, honey. Why are you acting so upset?"
Who would be appeased by a neighbor who borrowed a tool, lost it, then said, "I promised not to lose any more of your videotapes. I didn't say anything about your tools!"
The classic example demonstrating the great chasm in the ethical thought processes of today's citizens between their private and their public lives starts with a neighbor.
If you desired a new television, say, and you knew your neighbor had one, would it be proper for you to barge into his living room, seize it, claim you wanted or needed it, and then take it home with you? Do you think you'd make it to the front door?
No, of course not.
What if you knew your neighbor might resist, would it then be fine for you to enlist the aid of another neighbor? Just march into the other man's house and grab his television while your new ally held the owner at bay?
I hope not.
Would you be in the right if you got every able-bodied man on the block to join your cause? Would a dozen or a score of hulking bodies backing you up vindicate your "liberation" of the coveted TV?
Hardly.
How about if you stayed home and merely hired a bunch of burly boys to break into your neighbor's domicile to grab what you wanted? After all, you never set foot on the owner's property. You merely received what was taken from him by other people.
There might be some who could evade their role in this scenario and accept the television guilt-free. Most of us, though, could parse the illicit character of such a subterfuge.
What if you and a majority of your neighbors together hired a team of agents to "appropriate" the television, sell it, and split the proceeds? Transparent thievery?
Well, yes.
So how does this despicable behavior somehow become transmuted to the gold of good intentions and justice when that majority calls itself the "voters," the thugs are elected, paid, and labeled "politicians" or -- urp! -- public "servants," and the poor neighbor who is merely attempting to enjoy the use of his own property -- that disputed TV -- is designated a "taxpayer" whose wealth can safely and self-righteously be confiscated and distributed to undeserving others without his consent? Worse, if the victim complains about the theft of the goods he earned with a portion of his own life, his own effort, he is chastised, insulted, demeaned, and condemned by his neighbors for not paying his "fair share."
Incredible. Insane. Inane.
More astounding than even this mental legerdemain is that fact that ninety-plus percent of those citizens vote to do this to themselves as well as to their neighbors! Stealing from Peter to pay Peter, Paul, and the politicians defies sense, common or otherwise.
If we are ever to regain our freedom, if we are ever to heal the antagonism endemic between members of different constituencies, if we are ever to obtain the personal growth and security, the cultural peace and expansion that characterizes a moral society, we must each of us learn to think in terms of principles and apply those ethical norms in the public as well as the private spheres of our lives.
Respect for individual autonomy, appreciation for personal property, and honor for the rights of each person must be learned and celebrated.
My life belongs to me. It is not up for sale nor is it there for you to take, not even a little bit.
And neither is yours.
