House of Eratosthenes

I have a question for those who stand with our thirty-ninth President. On anything. And my question concerns the word “morality.” Does this describe a relative concept, or an absolute one? In other words, is this thing that is described by that word, something that applies to us all universally, equally, regardless of the different perspectives upon which we draw in recognizing what it is? Could it be incumbent upon one person to apply another person’s sensibilities of what is “moral” and what is not? Or are we all free to figure out for ourselves what is moral, recognizing the different opinions of our commanders, statesmen, religious leaders and celebrities with lip-service, empty platitudes, and nothing else?

It’s a heady question. It introduces the idea of freedoms coming at loggerheads. You have the freedom to prosecute others for violating your moral code, whether they agreed to it or not — or, you have the freedom to define your own set of moral taboos however you wish. Both cannot apply; and, one or the other, must.

Jimmy Carter lives in a funny world, I think. He seems to think one answer applies to some amongst us, and a different answer applies to the rest.

Via Boortz, I come to find out about a column written by David Limbaugh called “Sympathy for the Devil.” It would appear Limbaugh is describing an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel; I tracked down said interview here. And I must say, as Carter goes off on his latest tear against the current administration, it strikes me as a bit odd — the man who made me a registered Republican for life by showing me what bad policy looks like and the enormous damage it can do, directly addresses the conundrum with which I opened this post.

The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God’s ideas and God’s premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases — as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world — it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can’t bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them — which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

Go back and read that again. Carter makes an comment about what he calls “fundamentalists” which appears to be based on his own observations. In his first point, all he’s doing is clarifying what a fundamentalist is, and what ideas they have about my question. The ensuing nasty tidbits about fundamentalists are things that, according to him, just logically derive from that first one. “And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior…”

So Carter, it would appear, has an answer to my question. And it is a definite one.

But not a universal one.

The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We’ve never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

“Basic justice,” huh? What does that adjective mean, “basic”? Easy to understand? Good heavens, I hope not. I’m still trying to figure out what is “just” about people making much better decisions than mine, and then before they get to reap the profits of those wise decisions, being fleeced to fatten up my sorry ass.

No, I don’t think even Carter would define “basic” that way. I’m going to go waaaaaaaaay out on a limb here, and based on the context, postulate he is defining “basic” to mean “you can’t argue with this because I’m not going to let you” or some derivative of that.

But wait! I thought imposing your morality on others was wrong! I thought it led to you thinking others are inferior and lead meaningless lives, blah blah blah.

Perhaps that doesn’t pertain, somehow, to Jimmy Carter. I’d like to see some evidence it doesn’t; I’ve been watching the old goat for quite awhile. Depending on who you’re talking about, he does seem to think that some among us get to define morality, and others amongst us have the privilege of simply practicing what the first group has defined. One thing is for sure: If morality is something that prevails in a singular direction upon us all, according to Carter, we don’t all get to vote on it. Another thing is sure: He, himself, definitely has a say. And it looks like a lot more than just a “vote.”

What I find odd, is that the people Carter calls “fundamentalists,” seem to have an answer for me, and it’s a pretty good one. They say this thing called “morality” is up to God, and not man; in fact, man intrudes upon God’s domain, committing a grave offense against Him, by usurping this authority. Man, similarly, commits a grave offense against Him, by violating what that authority says. This is The Word of He Who Put Us Here; if you’re not willing to abide by it, then what good are ya? It’s a solid, logical question — once you accept the premise there is a He. And, if you are placed in a position of interpretive authority by other men, should you then permit others to violate this morality, or choose the dictates of your man-made office over that morality — again, what good are ya? What in the world would inspire Him to keep you here…other than, moment-to-moment, it’s not quite yet worth His time to kick your ass to oblivion, kind of like I haven’t quite gotten around to running the next load of dishes yet?

Great rhetorical questions, they do what rhetorical questions should do. They’re unanswerable. The theory is placed under assault, often, supposedly for contravening logic. The notion that it contravenes logic, is supported by nothing whatsoever, save for the fact that the theory has something to do with God. As far as starting with a premise and proceeding forward with one cognition after another cognition, and arriving at a conclusion about rules we should follow — I find it to be very strong. I’m told that it isn’t. I’ve yet to figure out why.

Carter talks about “traditional” values. He should go back and read the Declaration of Independence. This is the “basic” argument that justified our independence from Great Britain in the very beginning. Ooh! I’m so sorry, to all those I offended…er, no I’m not. It’s the truth. That’s just the way it is. That’s the design of the machinery.

Now, to my first question. What is morality? Does it have a place in a society where some people make rules, and others abide by them?

Or does each person decide this for him- or herself?

I’m at about 28 years, give-or-take, not having a shred of respect for Jimmy Carter’s opinion about anything. There are a lot of people behaving as if they’d like to dislodge scales from my eyes, and inspire me to listen to the curmudgeon’s ramblings. Whether they realize it or not, what they’re trying to tell me is that at age ten I was right after all, and my exposure to real life, stupid people, evil people, narcissists, thieves, charlatans, boneheaded mistakes on my part, bills to pay, etc. etc. etc. has just made me dumber. They’re saying I knew something then, and don’t know it now. To them, I say a great first step in changing my mind would be to get an answer to my question about morality; a consistent one. Straight from him, would be great; something that somehow comports with all that he says — all that he says, about anyone — would be almost as good.

But consistency is the vital attribute to such an answer. If someone wants to change my mind about the man who received my last Democrat-party vote in this lifetime — thank goodness I was too young to actually cast it! — I’m going to have to insist on it, or don’t bother answering. Seems like so little to ask.

Interesting post. Jimmy Carter was a terrible President and has become an even worse ex-President. I don�t get shocked often from comments made by Liberals but this one did shock me. This man has no clue and if we had any guts as a nation, we would charge Jimmy and others like him with giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. Did they forget that 9/11 even happened. My favorite part of the interview was his comments about (Christian) fundamentalists and how they couldn�t negotiate with anyone who disagreed with their point of view but then went on to say that we needed to negotiate with Hezbollah, a (Muslim) fundamentalist group. Is he insane or just a complete idiot? People like Carter and the Democrats have no moral clarity and do not see the difference between America/Israel and the Islamonazi Terrorists we are fighting. He believes that these insane human beings can be negotiated with but they have broken every agreement Israel and American has ever brokered with them. The dislike for America and Israel did not start when we went into Iraq. 9/11 happened long before we went into Iraq and attacks on us have been going since Carter was in office and before. This man is a complete idiot and is doing great damamge to our country. He is putting our troops in danger by giving fuel to the enemy we are at war with. If Jimmy Carter cannot see the diffence between the Islamic Terrorists we are fighting and the so called �Christian Fundamentalists� he seems to hate with a passion, then I have serious questions about this �great� man�s character.
- Brett | 08/18/2006 @ 11:03
This is very similar to their view of “free speech”. They are ardent supporters of free speech. Even speech they don’t agree with. However, “hate speech” isn’t allowed. However the definition of “hate speech” is so wide open you could drive a truck through it.
- Duffy | 08/18/2006 @ 11:43
Interesting post (as often!).

FWIW, my mother always always always took the other side when I had altercations or arguments with classmates or teachers. I came to explain it to myself this way: since I was her daughter, I was infinitely smart and adaptable (ha) and others were, by definition, lesser mortals. Their ‘lessness’ meant that it was somehow up to me to work things out. I think it’s partly the same thing with the ‘blame us’ folks. Oddly, it’s partly twisted smugness, in addition to being partly just plain wrong.
- aup | 08/19/2006 @ 07:16
Ah, that brings back memories. The “well, what did you DO to make him want to spit in your shoes?” thing.

I think it starts with a wholesome desire, that we should learn to view our differences from a multi-point perspective. What Carter doesn’t realize, is this capacity is useless unless all sides involved in the altercation are ready, willing, and able to show it.

Carter’s engineering background shows when he supports some arguments with proof, and supports others as articles of faith, for which no proof will be forthcoming and none should be demanded.

He is very organized about which-is-which. That is to his credit; but the arguments that are support as articles of faith, are the ones that begin with “You’re not supposed to…” Engineers don’t think that way (outside of, y’know, engineering-type rules). If they do, they don’t build anything.

And it’s really, really disturbing. “Not s’poseda” type stuff is great for proof; supplying proof for it, is a productive exercise, with strong potential for uniting fundamentalists and anarchists in everlasting harmony. Curious, that I’ve never seen him do it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2006 @ 07:48

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

ConsistencyFriday, August 18th, 2006

Consistency
Friday, August 18th, 2006