A few weeks ago, I read this:
"Good ideas wrapped up in bad ethics leads to fascism."That had so many layers to it and just nailed the concept, I politely asked the author, "Is that your quote or someone elses? That is very pithy and good."
When I received the appropriate reply, "... that's all me." - I knew I had to ask. There is more that needs to be said; so I asked for more.
I don't do guest posts here often - but this was an easy call. Building off the quote above, I offer you the extended remarks of a previous guest post'r. Turn off the TV or music. Take a deep breath. Focus.
YN2(SW) H. Lucien Gauthier III, USN; the floor is yours.
An idea that exists on its own has no value. That is to say, an idea that only exists in the mind, and does not result in any change has no value. It is only in the ideas that lead to action that any value is derived. But, imparting value also imparts new aspects that fundamentally change the idea from its original form.
Ideas necessitate action. With action comes method, and it is through a method that ideas result in change. Such change can exist in various forms, a changing perspective or opinion regarding something, to revolution and other paradigm breaking phenomena.
In this causal chain of ‘idea-action-method’ there is a controlling factor—ethic. It is from an ethic that action derived from idea takes form, and method is implemented. An ethic is as fundamental as the idea itself. It serves to control the action and method resulting from the idea, thereby making an idea tangible and becoming nearly indistinguishable from the idea itself.
Think of Communism, the idea behind Communism isn’t inherently a bad one, “A theoretical form of Socialism where all individuals are equal, all property is jointly owned, and all decisions are made by consensus of the collective without the need for "the State".” but the method through which the idea manifested changed the idea into its conventional understanding.
Think as well of fascism, defined by Mussolini (in part) as “Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect [...] And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.”
Two ideas at odds with each other, whose methodologies made them more alike than they were different, and that are more defined and remembered by their methods than the idea itself. The ethic found in communist and fascist governments defined their form of government more than the idea behind the form of governance ever did.
A commonality between Communism and Fascism is that the idea behind the methods justified actions taken that would have been considered unethical absent of the idea—the ends justified the means. It may very well be that placing idea ahead of ethic, inevitably leads to such things as fascism and communism. Or, In short, ideas wrapped up in bad ethics leads to fascism.
In this sense, an idea is always at the mercy of an ethic, as the ethic will control how the idea is acted upon and the methodology of implementing the idea, even at the most basic individual level.
An idea as we perceive it is not just an ‘idea’, but in reality the combination of ethic, idea, action and method. It is this combination that is the basis of ascribing value to an idea. Good ideas are not enough on their own; a good ethic must be in place as well before the whole can be judged as good.
Read it again. Of such things books are written and PhDs are earned.
39 comments:
Yep. He's goin' places. I can tell. :-D
...we Yeoman (SN striker) can be smart sometimes.. :)
I just finished trying to read "Nicomachean Ethics", a new translation of some of Aristotle's thinking. I quit after about 12 pages. It was just so obscure as to be meaningless, at least to a non-philosopher. This guy makes sense and seems more relevant than Aristotle.
Find me on Facebook: H. Lucien Gauthier III
Note the name, that's when I started posting around here. Nice to meet you!
To communism and Socialism i would add strict liberterianism. A great idea. But one which cannot function in world we live in.
Someone somewhere must always be incharge.
Ahhhh...Lucien. Good on you.
Everytime we get paranoid at the office with giving out ideas, I say, why not share ideas? Ideas are free. Execution of them is the challenge.
Immediate Officer's Commission and Early Promote!
YN2, I appreciate the fusion of western political thought / ethics / civics that you made in order to put this paper together. I would argue, however, that ethics do not control method and action, they bound method, which in turn guides action. Limits are placed upon method--I will not kill Trotsky in order to implement communism, or I will not kill 40 million of my country's scholars in order to achieve a uptopian proletariat.
You make a pretty bold assumption that "Communism in its purest form is a good thing." Surely that is the liberal drivel that has been and continues to be spewed at children in the public school system. The human condition prohibits this from ever manifesting. Communism must be implemented by a totalitarian regime. Utopia lost. Maybe not good ideas wrapped up in bad ethics, but "good intentions" wrapped up in bad ethics...
One critical comment. Your lead in paragraph was extremely difficult to understand. I'm pretty well versed in everything you discussed in the essay, and even I was scratching my head. Take your concluding paragraph, make it your introductory paragraph, and ensure that your final sentence of your first paragraph states your thesis. From reading your essay, you certainly have a compelling one.
now that's just insulting. I enjoyed the essay too but can we regain a little perspective?
The kid speaks with Big Medicine...
No. The Pawnee stole him when we camped at the Old Woman Butte...
...five snows ago.
It is true there is a thing here I do not understand.
There is a pain between my ears.
Via OCS I presume. Not that he wouldn't etsu with a knife and fork.
Let him get a year in his current job. The view of the elephants at the mountaintop.....priceless.
I THINK what he was trying to say and what happened with communism was this.
The people rebeled had a good idea and tried a great experiment (like our own the US-The Second Great Republic) However they decided on communism. Communism has No checks no balance. So the result was when it hit the crucible of the real world-hard core tyranny and oppression.
The Wishes of the people for a freer more equal society were perverted by the few-those who became the communist party. After 20 years everyone that had lead the revolution and who truely believed in a equal society had been replaced by strongmen and party hacks.
Communism didnt pass the litmus test of government.
Humanity and government at base are more likely authoritarianism and tyranny. More likely a few strong families and men over the many kept in chains. Everyone wants to just live their life so people trust in a leader. Sometimes that leader is a good one..........sometimes not. And sometimes the very principle of a way of governing is flawed.
I think I'd tweak what you both say.
The IDEA of Communism in its purest form is a good thing. Everyone equal. Everyone sharing. No overlords. No masters. No poverty. Lovely. But it doesn't work. It can't be implemented because of this:
To Lucien... I'd say first Ideas need to be based in FACT. Even then they have no value unless they are put into action. But an idea not based in fact is a lie. And often with lies, to put them into action, you cannot do so ethically. You need force to impose a lie on people. The bigger the lie, the more force it takes. (Thus Solzhenitsyn's comment about lies and violence needing to exist together.) Our minds were made for the truth. When we are presented with a lie, it invokes usually a negative response. Those who propagate lies are usually not looked kindly upon by history.
It goes to the heart of human nature. And that is full circle back to why communism doesn't work. It is based on a lie that does not conform to human nature. Human nature is flawed. People are not going to live in a Utopia because people are flawed. They are selfish. They do not want to be equal to each other. People do not want to be the same as everyone else. Each person wants more. Or most of them do at any rate.
So Communism and that misguided sense of equality and sameness cannot be forced on people easily. And when force is needed for something, ethics is usually the first thing out the window. It's all part of the same cloth. The success of any idea depends on how close to the truth it is. (See: LCS: The truth about sinkable bathtub toys, and how bad ideas need to be implemented by force rather than general acclaim...)
What I actually said was "the idea behind Communism isn't inherently a bad one" which can be said to be liberal drivel. But, objectively, equality, rule by consensus, and no centralized government are all aspects of governance that prevent tyranny. Those ideas are good in my opinion. This is not to say that Communism is the solution, obviously it is not.
I suppose another way of describing the causual chain is 'idea-intention-action-method.' But, I considered the process of having an idea and acting upon the idea as intent.
I'm not sure how you draw a line between ethics not controling method, but 'bound method.' In ethics establishing a boundary to possible courses of action, isn't that control?
Insulting? I take it as a compliment.
The mind might be designed for fact. But, what we perceive is not fact, but an interpretation of it, as we can only perceive the World through our senses. E.g. Radio waves exist, but we cannot perceive them with our senses. Is it not a fact that they exist?
Part of human nature is that we have to make decisions regading things we do not fully perceive. What's more is that we suppose things when we feel empathy. In coming to an understanding of a situation, our mind fills in the gaps in our understanding based upon previous experience--we assume things, many times without even being fully concious of what we're doing. Sometimes the preconcieved notions are right, sometimes they are wrong--this is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather, we just need to be aware of this fact and ensure our objectivity in a situation--we need to be aware of what gaps we're filling in, and be ready to change/abandon our assumptions when they are proven wrong. Another way of saying this is we need to be objective.
This process is very similar to the scientific method. Where the hypothesis is the idea, which is changed when action and method is applied.
Think of Communism, the idea behind Communism isn't inherently a bad one....
---------
No. Communism as a political philosophy is always inherently bad. Well intentioned maybe, but definitely bad in that it is mistaken interpretation of an actual moral truth regarding the equality of the dignity of men. What is often confused in such matters is that there are examples of voluntary communes that certainly do work. The key word is "voluntary." Communism is not voluntary. Now that does overall play into YN2's overall point, but the distinction above should be made for accuracy sake. YN2's piece could easly be ammended to make such a distinction.
I would highly recommend a reading of the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII on the ills of socialism
Let me add that Rerum Novarum also remains timely for the present day economic crisis. Following on that tangent, I would further recommend the following blog:
http://distributistreview.com/
If you are a socialist/big government type...that blog will challenge you.
If you are a laissez faire/big business type...that blog will challenge you.
If you really are interested in free markets...that blog will greatly interest you.
Good question!
Equality in the eyes of the law, equality in the eyes of God does not equal equality in the eyes of the budget sheet. Each man according to his own capabilities and gifts. Not everyone can run a 4:24 mile like me, but then again, I can't score a perfect 1600 on my SAT's and am not a world famous inventor. There is no reason that Bill Gates should make the same amount of money as me, and there is no reason for me to give him any of my glory day track medals.
Equality in the eyes of the law, equality in the eyes of God does not equal equality in the eyes of the budget sheet. Each man according to his own capabilities and gifts. Not everyone can run a 4:24 mile like me, but then again, I can't score a perfect 1600 on my SAT's and am not a world famous inventor. There is no reason that Bill Gates should make the same amount of money as me, and there is no reason for me to give him any of my glory day track medals.
YN2, rockstar ensign rule #1: don't subscribe to all of your own hype. A hot running ensign may one day grow into a Spruance, but he requires seasoning first. Don't be too quick to sign up to be Aristotle's replacement :)
But when that day comes, I will be the first to buy your book.
"in charge" or take responsibility?
Define for me "strict Libertarianism" if you would, please.
There is nothing wrong with a centralized government. In fact, it is needed and can prevent tyranny of masses. At issue is what level of government should do what and that is what has become skewed in the modern era. The principle of subsidiarity tells us that a higher lever of government (or organization) should not take on endeavours which can be handled at a lower level of government. This has been wholely ignored in the last 150 plus years.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
-Paine
You know, the enlisted ranks need smart people too. Whatever the young man wants is fine for me, but perhaps even the Navy isn't in his future. I spent some forward time in Afghanistan with an IT2 who had PhD in English. Great conversations. He joined the Navy as an enlisted man to gain perspective for his writing. He is now a CPO. Would love to work with him again.
Now THAT is a devoted writer!
<span>"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church" </span>
-Paine
To your point YNSN...
Our shop just hired on a Russian immigrant. He had been an air controller there, so was pretty well off in the scheme of things. I asked him why he left (5 years ago), and he told horror stories of how the society has degraded to thepoint he wanted his family out of there.
Many here, including you, may not remember how we celebrated when The Wall came down 20 years ago...But even then I wondered how well these coutires were going to do taking on Capitalism. As its turned out, without a moral structure in place to support it, all they have in place are rapcious Cleptocracies.
Follow-on question: Does anyone run the Libertarian party?
(tee-hee)
Basicly no government. No military, no boarder security, no CDC, No firedepartments etc.
Super Secret Ninja Militia assemble!!!!!!!!!
Many book have been written on this idea and subject. Ludwig Von Mises', "Human Action" and Friedrich Hayek's, "The Road to Serfdom" come to mind. Both authors show how bad ethics, ideas, methods lead to socialism. Leonard Peikoff's, "The Ominous Parallel's" shows how bad ethics, ideas, methods lead Germany to fascism.
Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" shows how a proper ethics is needed to properly defend Capitalism
James,
I wonder what you think of the traditional northeast fire departments? Mostly volunteers? Don't always attack a fire from the upwind side and sometimes exert themselves to save the structures on the downwind side? Libertarians? Capitalists? Galtians? Guys who like to drive fast in response to any kind of emergency? Guys not unionized who nonetheless respond to fires?
Libertarians mostly. At least in my department.
Nah. Probably just all repressed firebugs. :-D
(runs under porch...)
Good, you can help me mop out some of the walk ins.
That was me.
Thanks for the information! This site is very nice - will save it.
Post a Comment