Easy vs. Certain

The lottery is great, because it is easy. It is not certain, but it is easy. All you have to do is spend a few bucks and buy a ticket, pick the numbers, or even easier, have the computer pick your numbers for you; then you just sit back and wait for the drawing. Easy but not certain. You have more of a chance to get hit by lightning than you do at winning the lottery. Tens of millions to one are your chances. Still, it is easy.

Medical school is great, because it is certain. It is not easy, but it is certain. The average medical school graduate makes $120,000 right out of school. After being in the profession for a few years or getting into a specialized field a doctor can make up to a $1 million a year. It is certain that you will have a job and make good money but not easy. The studying and residency pressures knock out over 75% of the students before they officially become a doctor. Still, it is certain.

Most people are searching for a path to success that is both easy and certain. But, that path does not exist.

We all know people who are waiting for “their ship to come in” or that “big deal” that will make everything come together for them. We also know people who have been slaving away for years and have worked EXTREMELY hard for what they have.

Which are you? Are you working on the easy but not certain path to success? Or are you working on the certain but not easy path to success? Or are you working on the impossible path that is both certain and easy?

What we often forget is that there is a fourth path. A path to success that is neither easy nor certain. THAT path is the one that most of us find ourselves in. Getting out of that path (rut?) requires a LOT of energy.

However you measure success, there is an easy way and a certain way. How you balance and deal with those two will impact your life, your love, your career, your future, and even your eternity.

The Ten Commandments

Minnesota Style 1. Der’s only one God, ya know. 2. Don’t make that fish on your mantle an important thing 3. Cussin ain’t Minnesota nice 4. Go to church even when you’re up nort 5. Honor your folks 6. Don’t kill, Catch and release 7. There’s only one Lena for every Ole. No cheatin. 8. If it ain’t your lutefisk, don’t take it 9. Don’t be bragging bout how much snow ya shoveled 10. Keep your mind off your neighbor’s hotdish Vegas Style 1. Love only God, and God is not the name of an exclusive nightclub 2. Sequined purses and boots are not to be worshipped 3. Watch what you say and how you act – there are camera’s EVERYWHERE 4. Even swing shifters need time off, take a day 5. Remember to comp your mom and dad when they are in town 6. Even when the guys pulls a crazy flush on the river to beat your 3 of a kind, killing is not an option 7. Keep your eyes on the road and not the billboards, or taxi signs. 8. A One-Armed-Bandit is a slot machine not a way of life 9. Don’t tell me you “just about broke even” that is Vegas-speak for “I just lost $500 and my wife is gonna kill me.” 10. Your suite is fine, don’t worry about your buddy getting the Presidential Suite Internet Style 1. Don’t bow before your computer even though google is “all-knowing” 2. That perfect internet connection is not your purpose 3. BOLD FACED TYPING is yelling too, watch your language 4. Let your computer rest, never leave it on full time you never know what bugs and spam it will pick up 5. Skype your mom and dad frequently 6. Don’t enjoy mashing your “friend” in WOW too much 7. Keep your firewalls up 8. Knowing your friends passwords can only get you into trouble 9. Watch out what you Text and Twitter about it WILL come back to haunt you 10. The latest MEGA graphics card won’t make any difference if you buy it just for show No matter how you slice it, as good as it may be; the original is still the best. AND still appropriate and timely.

Es Es Percepe

Is there really an external world? Is there really a world outside of our experience? When you see an apple, you picture it in your mind (as you are right now); what happens when you close your eyes and think of something else? Does the apple disappear? Does the world disappear when you close your eyes? If everyone in the world closed their eyes and emptied their minds at the same time would the universe disappear? When we group our regularly occurring experiences we give them names. “Apple” is our word for a consistent collection of sweet, red, crunchy sensations of a certain size, texture, and smell. But that is all an apple is. Or is it? According to George Berkeley (1685-1753) that is all an apple is. To suppose that it is something more, something OUT THERE, is to go beyond the evidence of experience. Worse, it is to think the absurd thought that sweetness can exist untasted and red can exist unseen. To believe that something exists in the realm OUTSIDE the senses is to build a shaky scaffolding to stand on. Yet it might surprise you to know that George was a devout Christian. He actually used this “idealism” as evidence and proof for God. Berkeley argues that God perceives and therefore sustains the whole of the universe whether we happen to be looking at it or not. For Berkeley the continued existence of everything is proof not only of God’s existence but also his benevolence. If God blinked, not only would our world go out of existence but so would we. The Latin “es es percepe” means “to be is to be perceived”. What would we be without others experiencing us? What would we be without our own senses? What would we be without God perceiving us? With us being unable to trust our own senses reality and truth, then, is how God perceives it. The truth corresponds to reality as GOD perceives it: NOT OUR PERCEPTION. Our very existence depends on GOD perceiving us: NOT OUR PERCEPTION of HIM! I think ancient scripture writers understood this when they gave us the priestly benediction: “May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord make his FACE SHINE ON YOU and be gracious to you; may the Lord TURN HIS FACE TOWARD YOU and give you peace.” May the Lord PERCEIVE you too.

Hunger

It is really very simple: this “making money” thing. I hear you telling me over and over that “it takes money to make money” which is only partially true. A more accurate statement would be that “it takes money to make MORE money.”

People around me talk about the security of a steady paycheck and insurance and retirement benefits. They say this as if “steady” and “secure” are good things! When EVER has mediocrity become a good goal? Steady and secure are means to mediocrity not to happiness.

Howard Thurman (1900-1981) said “There is something in every one of you that waits and listens for the sound of the genuine in yourself. It is the only true guide you will ever have. And if you cannot hear it, you will all of your life spend your days on the ends of strings that somebody else pulls.”

If you want to slip out of the handcuffs of hourly wages, you must figure out how to be paid according to your accomplishments. “How long did it take?” isn’t the question you want to answer, but rather, “What is the value of my achievement?” People paid by the hour are paid for their activities. Wouldn’t you rather get paid for your accomplishments?
Average, mediocre people are that way because they cling to the avoidance of discomfort. Every successful person (defined however you want to define success) will tell you that risk and pain are part of any meaningful success. Comfort leads to complacency.

Niels Bohr “An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”

Marie Arana “Mediocrity has a way of keeping demons from the door.”

Solomon “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”

And Solomon also said “The laborer’s appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on.”

According to Solomon, HUNGER is your friend! For what are you hungry? For what are you willing to risk embarrassment? For what are you willing to get uncomfortable for? If you answer is nothing then you will also spend your time in mediocrity wondering why you cannot make ends meet; it is really that simple. The deepest sin of government assistance is NOT the spending of money we don’t have, the greatest sin is the promotion of mediocrity.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst …” Jesus said. Are you hungry?

Exclusivity and Truth

Today a key word in politics and social justice is “inclusive”. We need to include individuals who have ideas different than ours because, after all, ALL ideas are valid if someone holds to them. I can say to you that I love fish and I know that fish is good for me. You can hate fish but still tolerate my statement because it is an opinion based on my personal preference. As long as the statements revolve around personal preference we can “tolerate” each other and “include” each other in our own little society.

But what happens when my “true” statement is necessarily stepping on your personal toes? What happens when my statements, true for me, are stated to be true for you too? Statements like “Jesus is Lord” will step on the toes of those who say “Allah is Lord”. If I precede my statement with “I believe …” then no one would/should have a problem with it. I can say I believe Jesus is Lord and you can say you believe this tangerine is Lord and we would both be okay with it. Or would we?

The very definition of Pagan belief is “MANY gods” and was practiced by the ancient Greeks and Romans. They were okay with you worshipping whatever god you wanted to only make sure that you don’t have a problem with me serving my gods. Worship was a matter of DOING something for your god like offering a sacrifice at the temple of your god and calling it a day. You have your “religious activity” done for the day/week etc. Jewish religion changed that a little but didn’t force the pagan hand. They lived together and Jews had no problem with pagans as long as they left the Jews alone. Each can serve their own god, perform their religious rites, and go on their way.

Then came this crazy Christian religion. This religion said that there was only ONE God to be worshipped and to worship other Gods was wrong/evil/sinful and should be stopped. This crazy religion said that you needed to do more than just go to your temple and sacrifice, you had to actually BELIEVE in this God and BELIEVING was what got you to heaven. Pagans really didn’t have to believe anything they did, they just had to do it. This crazy new religion sought to convert others to their religion, to make them give up their gods and worship the “one true God” exclusively. How crazy is that?!

You will notice in Pagan religions, including Judaism that there is no such thing as heresy. The reason there is no heresy is that there is no orthodoxy. Orthodoxy means true or right belief and heresy means wrong belief. How can a Pagan religion have a wrong belief when you don’t have to believe, just perform a rite? How can a Pagan religion have orthodoxy when EVERYTHING is included and right and okay?

To me, this is PROOF of the truth of Christianity. Christianity MUST be true because it is the only religion that is EXCLUSIVE. Christianity must be true because it is intolerant of other gods and other religions, you cannot combine Christianity with any other religions and stay TRUE to Christianity. To say you are a Christian Buddhist is not only a stupid thing to say but it is also a WRONG thing to say. It is the equivalent of saying “I am a human tomato”. You cannot have truth without exclusivity and intolerance. I am sorry but someone has to be wrong, we can’t all be right.

Insurance (Get Ready for my latest Soapbox)

I don’t believe in insurance. I think owning insurance of any kind is unbiblical and probably of the devil. I can see Satan rubbing his hands together and smiling that his plan to usurp faith and honesty is working: INSURANCE!

After all, isn’t that basically what insurance is? Isn’t, at its basic level, insurance a hedge against people lying, cheating, stealing and/or not taking responsibility for their actions?

Car insurance is for people who won’t pay for an accident they caused OR for those who won’t admit it was their fault and pay for the other’s damage.

Life insurance is for people who don’t build a savings or can’t manage their money well enough to take care of their bills and/or their loved ones after they die.

House insurance is for people who don’t want the responsibility of carrying the debt of a house YOU AGREED TO PAY OFF after it is damaged or destroyed.

Health insurance is for people who don’t want to take care of their family, friends, or church brothers and sisters.

The cost of insurance continues to go up and up because of the same reasons people get insurance any way. People who won’t admit it was their fault make EVERYONE’S insurance go up. People who sue doctors for mistakes cause the malpractice insurance to go up which causes the price of medicine to go up which causes all health insurance to go up which means you get less in your paycheck for paying your part in insurance which means you get more scared of affording your home or taking care of your kids which means you get more insurance and SO ON!

I prefer a world where people take responsibility for their actions. I prefer a world where people can rely on their church in emergencies instead of insurance agencies. I prefer a world where people have faith in GOD more than insurance.

Frankie and I have not had health insurance for over 20 years now. I believe God has blessed that decision by giving us both good health. For my broken foot and foot surgery I simply went to the doctor and told him that I had no insurance and that I was going to pay cash. He promptly cut his price by two thirds. So did the anesthetist and the surgery center and I paid my responsibilities and THEY LOVED NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE DEVIL.

I can’t tell you not to have insurance. I have Life Insurance, I HAVE TO HAVE car insurance, and I would probably get health insurance if I could afford it; but wouldn’t it be a much better world if people would just quit trying to cheat and avoid responsibilities for their actions?

Let me step off this soapbox now before I hurt myself and have to sue the manufacturer and call my ambulance chasing, most annoyingly advertising, attorney.

The Facts

“Just the facts, ma’am” said Jack Friday in Dragnet. We are obsessed with the facts. The facts will tell us the truth right? Maybe not so much.

We have all seen the experiment or heard of the accident with 4 witnesses and all of them told what happened. They told the facts and all the facts were in conflict with each other. The more witnesses you had, the more problems you had identifying the facts and consequently, the truth.

Maya Angelou is fond of saying that “sometimes the facts obscure the truth.” And the truth is that sometimes truth is what we WANT to remember and not what actually happened. I want to remember a GREAT childhood but my brother or my sister might remember it differently. I want to remember how this guy really ripped me off when in fact I was just stupid at the time. We taint facts for political reasons. We taint facts for personal reasons. We taint facts to avoid responsibility. We taint facts to bend the truth to our advantage. And we simply don’t remember what we should remember to get all the facts straight. I have a son with a near photographic memory for facts and figures but he forgets to come to a family dinner. We remember what we want to remember and it only marginally has anything to do with the facts.

But that is okay. As long as we understand that our facts are messed up and prejudiced by our view of them we can get along. This is the truth AS I SEE IT and not this is the truth NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY! As Maya said, sometimes the facts get in the way of the truth. I can find out a lot about a person if I get them talking about politics. Before too long I can tell you if they are Republican or Democrat, both sides seeing the same “facts” but coming to totally different conclusions. I can tell a lot about your job by asking simple work questions. I don’t want to know the “facts” of your job. I want to know if you are happy there, if you are doing what you want to do, or if you have big or small dreams. The facts often get in the way of the truth.

I am okay with that ambiguity. But I am okay with it because I understand that we all tell the “facts” according to our own worldview, our own particular bent of looking at the world. Your filter can then go through my filter and we can have a GREAT discussion on issues that are important. But if one of the parties doesn’t believe they have a bent of the facts but has a corner on the facts; there is a problem.

What about you? How do you “see” the facts?

The Effort Myth Myth

People really want to believe that effort is a myth. Especially when you consider what today’s media tells us:
• Politicians and beauty queens who get by on a smile and a wink
• Lottery winners who turn a lifetime of lousy jobs into one big payday
• Sports stars who are born with skills we could never hope to acquire
• Hollywood celebrities with the talent of being in the right place at the right time
• Failed CEO’s with $40 million buyouts

It really seems, according to popular myth, that who you know and whether you get “picked” are the keys to succeed. In other words: LUCK.

The thing about luck is that it is a matter of perspective. We are INSANELY lucky to be born in the United States instead of Bangladesh. We are CRAZY lucky to have been born in this time period and not during the Black Plague. We are UNBELIEVABLY lucky to be born with the tools and opportunities we have right now and in this place. But if we set that luck aside for a minute, something interesting shows up.

Delete the extremes – the people who are hit by the bus on one side and the people who hit Megabucks on the other and we are left with everybody else. For EVERYONE else their success is not related to luck; it is related to effort. Smarter, harder working, better informed and better liked people do better than others; MOST of the time.

Effort takes many forms. Simply showing up is an important form of effort. Knowing stuff is a result of effort more than being smart. ( I know a LOT of smart people who don’t know much). Being kind when it is easier NOT to be takes effort. Paying forward without reward takes effort. Simply doing the right thing. I know, I know, you have heard this all before, so I guess it is easier to bet on luck over effort to win your future for you.

If you aren’t betting on luck then why do you make so many dumb choices? Why aren’t useful books selling at fifty times the rate they sell now? Why does anyone watch the crazy reality TV shows? Why do people do such dumb stuff with their money? Why do you not get up at 5:00am every morning?

I think we have been tricked by the extremes. Those lucky people who have their own reality TV show, or hit the lottery or megabucks, or get that great idea that Microsoft will buy for a billion bucks. We look at those exceptions who get SO MUCH more than we think they deserve and we, who deserve more, don’t get anything. Effort is a myth, right? That’s the Effort Myth Myth. Don’t be fooled by the Effort Myth.

Sin

Oh that I could sin once see!
We paint the devil foul, yet he
Hath some good in him, all agree.
Sin is a flat opposite to th’almighty, seeing
It wants the good of virtue and of being.

But God more care of us hath had:
If apparitions make us sad
By sight of sin we should grow mad.
Yet as in sleep we see foul death and live
So devils are our sins in perspective.
(George Herbert, 1593-1633)

It seems every so often in years there is a slew of movies and TV shows on the supernatural. From Harry Potter to Twilight we are riding the crest of that wave now. TV shows on vampires and movies on the occult show the devil is popular again.

These shows paint the devil or the evil so opposite of us especially when they are exposed somewhere towards the end of the show. They “turn” into their “true” self and are shown to be hideous and easily identifiable. So we all wonder what fooled us in the first place as the heroine stands against the devilish looking ghoul and defeats him in the last climactic minutes. The evil is so opposite of us!

In his poem George Herbert recognizes that sin is us. He recognizes that the devil exposed is really our sins realized. We have found the devil and it is us! Today’s society covers up sin as a life choice, as a personality disorder that needs to be overcome, as an ADD moment that needs to be medicated, as dreams that tell us of previous lives or abuses, and as ANYTHING but what it truly is: the devil in us.

We started a new year and what I would like to do is pull down the thin veil of our personal devil and call it what it is: SIN. We SIN! We do it a LOT and OFTEN. The burden of this on our hearts should “make us grow mad” but God’s wisdom put in a failsafe allowing us to go on. We have taken this opportunity for crushingly true repentance and turned it into ignorance and TV shows of vampires.

In 1961 the Nazi War Criminal Adolf Eichmann was on trial in an Israeli court. Many Holocaust survivors were brought in to testify against him. An elderly Jewish man walked his way into court forced to use a cane because of the horrors done to him in a Concentration Camp. As he got to the front of the courtroom to see Eichmann in his bulletproof glass enclosure he collapsed and had to be taken by stretcher from the room. When asked later if it was the site of the devil Eichmann and all the horrors he perpetrated on him and his family he answered, “no”. “What was it then, that caused you to collapse?” they all asked him. The elderly man looked them in the eye and said, “I’ve painted him a satan in my mind for all these years and now that I see him I find he looks JUST LIKE YOU AND ME!”

So devils are our sins in perspective.

Egypt #6: Religious Deconstruction

The ancient ruins of Egypt are amazing. One of the amazing facts is that they survived the wind, desert heat, and sun for thousands and thousands of years. What is even more amazing is that the ruins are not ruined because of the desert but because of human DE-construction and DE-struction. A lot of that destruction is for religious reasons but let’s start at the beginning.

The Great Pyramids of Giza, as majestic as they are, would have been in a LOT better shape if the later generations of Egyptians didn’t remove the shiny limestone surface and use it for other buildings leaving us just the huge granite monoliths to view today.
Many Pharaohs were either an embarrassment to the next pharaohs or they were heretical and so all of their construction was demolished, their statues broken down and buried, and their hieroglyphs sculpted over. The female Pharaoh Hatshepsut was one who later generations tried to erase. The heretic king Akhenaten was also deconstructed after his death and all his statues demolished.

Later kings simply needed the building materials and so “borrowed” from previous Pharaohs for their own construction. And finally during the Intermediate Periods of Egypt (kind of like their Medieval Dark Ages) they scavenged all they could to live and used tombs for homes and mummies, wood implements, etc. for firewood.

Most of this we can understand, not like, but understand. But some of the destruction of ancient antiquities that really gets us is when it is done for religious reasons. When Greece and Rome conquered Egypt they didn’t have a problem with all their gods, they simply incorporated them into their pantheon by calling Ra Zeus and Isis Athena and so on. But in the 300’s, when Rome became Christian and the 2nd commandment prohibited “graven images” or images made by man, then the real deconstruction happened. Christians defaced and destroyed images of the Egyptian gods and then used the ancient temples for new churches. The religious fervor can still be seen today in the scraping off the faces of gods and in the carving, plastering and painting of Christian symbols into the walls. Later, in the 700’s when the Muslims conquered Egypt they did the same to the Christian churches and even completed much of the deconstruction of the Egyptian gods.

Religious zealotry has its place and we must be on guard against syncretism (combining two or more religions by watering them down) but there must be a place and a way to preserve the culture of a place WHILE changing the worldview of the place. I mourn the loss of Egyptian antiquities to the hand of Christian zeal because there would be so much we could have learned from that history. Even if that learning is simply what NOT to do.

A thousand years ago Christians battled over icons for the same reasons and there was the terrible destruction of the iconoclasts. Today Muslims destroy Buddhist statues in Pakistan that survived 1300 years so we still have not learned from our mistakes.
Apostle Paul used an ancient stone with an inscription to the “Unknown god” to teach that Athenians about the true God. I use the ancient temples of Egypt to teach people today about their religious heritage from Egyptians through the Hebrews to us We attempt to deconstruct the religion by destroying wood and stone instead of deconstructing the heart by shining the light of truth on it.

Akhenaten

Akhenaten ruled only 17 years as Pharaoh of Egypt but his influence was astounding. Imagine a new president coming to the US and this president deciding to change the center of power from Washington DC to the middle of the desert in central Nevada. They would have to start building new buildings from the foundation up, then work on the infrastructure of roads, airports, power lines, etc. Then they would have to move all the governmental support with the people, copy machines, computers, office furniture. They would then have to fill in with the Walmarts, Home Depots, Pharmacies, and Bars. You get the idea.

That is what Akhenaten did. He moved EVERYTHING from the capital near Cairo to a new capital 350 miles away in the middle of the desert called Amarna. He moved the whole government, people and all, to this new site. But what he did that REALLY changed everything was to outlaw the gods of Egypt. He “starved out” the temples to all gods but one: the Egyptian god Aten, the sun god. He changed his name from Amenhotep (Amun is happy) to Akhenaten (Spirit of Aten). This was heretical to the people, but what can you do when your king, the ultimate ruler, said “jump”?

It took a LOT of money to do this. It took a lot of confidence in Aten to do this. That is why many biblical historians believe that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of Joseph. Joseph influenced Amenhotep with the dream interpretation of HUGE prosperity followed by TERRIBLE famine. Joseph influence Amenhotep towards ONE God, the God who shines on all people, not just the Egyptians. Joseph influenced Amenhotep to become Akhenaten, the Spirit of the One God. Because of the prosperity Egypt was awash in gold, because of the famine and being the ONLY one with food Egypt was FLOODED with gold, people looking for work, and people who couldn’t ply their trade anywhere else. Just what is needed to build a new city in the middle of the desert.

It is interesting that built into the four corners of this new city were steles (tombstone like granite plaques) which were inscribed with the rules for behavior and commands for living in this new city. Here are some of the commands: “There is no God but Aten, you shall worship the Aten and the Aten alone.” And “You shall make no images of the Aten out of wood or stone.” (which, again, was radical because ALL the other gods had images made of them) The Aten was represented only in beams of light coming from the sun which gave light, warmed, and even was shown with little hands on the end of the beams indicating that all we have is from the Aten.

I don’t know if Akhenaten was influenced by Joseph or not. I don’t know if his view of the Aten was really the same God we serve but I do know he changed everything from the government, to the religion, to the art (check out Amarna period Egyptian art). Change came only from HUGE amounts of money and willing workers. But his changes didn’t last long. Akhenaten’s son Tutankhaten (Living image of Aten) became pharaoh at the age of nine due to the untimely death of his father and older brother. He died only 9 years later at 18 and many believe he was murdered because of his father’s heretical ways. (Many priests were unhappy that their patron god was de-funded by Akhenaten). Even though the boy tried to change back under the influence of his “vizier” Ay and changed his name from “Living image of Aten” to “Living image of Amun” or Tutankhamun or as we know him King Tut.

A short 32 years later the 18th dynasty of Egypt came to a close and there came a new dynasty of pharaohs who probably didn’t know Joseph and probably would have made those troublesome Hebrews work a little harder for a LOT less money.

Where do Ethics come From? The Trolley Problem

So we have discussed Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant and Mills and their different take on where ethics come from. Some sadist named Phillipa Foot in the 1950's came up with an ethics test called the "Trolley Problem" which goes something like this.
A trolley is running out of control down a track. in its path are five people who are tied to the track. Happily, it is possible to flip a switch that will send the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there's one person tied to that track who will be killed if you flip the switch. What should you do?

Most people would say you flip the switch. Would you?

An even worse sadist names Judith Thomson proposed an amendment to the Trolley problem. The scenario is the same except this time you're standing on a bridge under which th trolley will pass, and there's a large mand standing next to you. The only way to save the five people is to push him onto the track, thereby stopping the trolley. What would you do?

The transaction is the same. One person dies to save five but there is something different about this scenario. Most people would NOT take the active role of pushing the man to save five others.

Here's my take on the Trolley Problem. A difference between the two is how active the parties are involved in the scenario. The one tied to the track is already involved somehow, the one standing next to you is an outside observer as you are. In other words, we think the one tied to the track is "dead already" and the one next to us is not. Hence are ease at condemning one and not the other.

The reality of the situation is that this is a false situation with a false premise. It is assuming I cannot sacrifice myself to stop the train. It is assuming I cannot jump out and untie one or all of the individuals. It is assuming that there is NO OTHER alternative to the two options laid out. So my simple answer is: "I don't ride the trolley." I don't buy your scenario and your parameters. There are ALWAYS more alternatives, our problem is that we refuse to see them because they require sacrifice, pain or simply inconvenience on our part.

Get active, get involved, make the hard choices NOW so that there never will occur a Trolley Problem in your life. Get off the trolley!

Where do Ethics come From? Part 4

Aristotle's thought ethics came from choosing to do GOOD rather than choosing to do BAD.
Rousseau thought ethics needed to be forced on you by an absolute authority or leviathan.
Hobbes thought ethics were determined by the majority and so we need a government to force that majority belief upon us to have a GOOD society.

Kant believed in a variation of the golden rule where GOOD would be achieved by everybody asking themselves BEFORE they act "would I want this done to me?"

John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian. Which means that ethics and what is GOOD is determined by whatever promotes happiness at the time you make the decision. Does this give pleasure or pain? Mill is talking about aggregate happiness of the greatest number of people though, not necessary your personal happiness. Mill had to build in some checks so that we all don't become totally hedonistic (seeking only our pleasure all the time) so he came up with certain kinds of pleasure being better than others. Listening to good music, for example, is likely a better kind of pleasure than spending the day eating Ben and Jerry's ice-cream. He explained this by calling on experience: nobody who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures would be willing to swap a life of higher pleasure for lower ones. He said "No intelligent human being would consent to be a fool though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs."

There are, of course, many problems with this. Not the least of which is the fact that the GOOD in Mill's case would be the pleasure of the greatest amount of people. But mob rule is rarely a good thing especially when practiced at the pleasure of the KKK or Gestapo. This also leaves too much room for personal choice, I would be hurting if all there was was Starbucks since I don't like coffee or chocolate but Starbucks seems to give pleasure to a GREAT amount of people therefore I must be a BAD person.

It, again, boils down to the NECESSITY of having an outside arbitrator of what is good or bad. A rule or guide given to us by someone who knows the truth and the best and has our best interests in mind. Sounds like a Savior I know and a Word I try to follow, doesn't it?

Where do Ethics come From? Part 3

Aristotle's thought ethics came from choosing to do GOOD rather than choosing to do BAD.
Rousseau thought ethics needed to be forced on you by an absolute authority or leviathan.
Hobbes thought ethics were determined by the majority and so we need a government to force that majority belief upon us to have a GOOD society.

Kant had a slightly different take on the nature of ethics. He didn't really care if we were born bad or born good. He though that all we need to do in order to be ethical would be to impose the "golden rule" on every decision we make. Think BEFORE you choose: "would I want this done to me if I were on the other end of this?" If I borrow money from you with NO intent of ever giving it back, would I want that done to me? If I sneak into your home and steal your 64 inch flat screen TV would I want someone to do that to me?

Kant believed that if EVERYBODY thought this way BEFORE they acted then society would be an ethical one. This sounds very rational and efficient but is practically impossible. We are selfish animals and so that battle must be won first. When we win over our selfishness then we get into the rationalization problems inherent in the system. What if I steal from you to feed my family? What if I steal from you because you have so much more than I do? What if I steal from you to give to those who don't have any? Once we get past the selfishness issue and the rationalizing issue then we are left with the ability to make this simple choice of the golden rule.

I believe that Jesus, who espoused the golden rule, had an even better one that people keep forgetting. Call it the platinum rule: "Love God and Love your neighbor." If every decision you made you would not only ask yourself: "would I want this done to me?" ask Kant says; but would also ask "Does this show my love for God or my love for my neighbor?" then you would be an ethical person if you can answer yes to those questions on every decision.

Kant was right but didn't go far enough, Jesus takes us the rest of the way.

Where do Ethics come From? Part 2

So Aristotle believes you are good because you do good things, the more good things you do the better person you would be; therefore, ethics is simply choosing the good over the bad.

Hobbes and Rousseau had some VERY different ideas of where ethics come from. Hobbes said that without the civilizing effect of societal pressure we would be poor, nasty, brutish, and live in continual fear. Rousseau was a little more optimistic because he called us "noble savages" who lived only for SELF and a desire to fulfill only our immediate needs. Hobbes saw civilization as the only means to taming the savage beast and that includes handing some of our "rights" as individuals over to an absolute authority (he called leviathon). This social contract is the only thing keeping us safe and sane. Rousseau bought into the social contract idea but believed that the only way for people to overcome their savagery is for them to accept the "general will" of the public as expressed in government.

The question these two are answering is this: "Is monstrous, unethical behavior natural or is it created by society?" Is society or the will of the masses the savior or the problem as far as ethics is concerned? In order to fix us do we need to fix society first? If we have a perfect government will we have perfect people?

The Bible tells us that we are corrupted from birth and will always have that bent towards doing the wrong thing. We must constantly struggle against that bent.

Growing up on the farm I remember trying to get the pickup truck out of a rut that was hard caked into the ground. It was a constant battle to get the wheels out of the rut and onto the smoother surface. The steering wheel fought me the whole time and I really didn't need to drive if I kept in the rut since the rut steered for me. That is like us and our nature. We are in this rut that keeps pulling us back in, it's easier, and even a kind of autopilot to just do what our nature tells us to do. To be an ethical person takes hard work, fighting against the rut and never letting go of the steering wheel.

Society and government is a reflection of the individuals that make up that society. When we are good people, fighting to be even better we will have a better and better society. Society doesn't civilize us as Hobbes claims, nor does society tell us what is ethical by majority vote as Rousseau claims. WE are society and what we do is echoed and even amplified in our society/government.

So choose wisely.

Where do Ethics come From? Part 1

Aristotle's first run for being good is that there are no rules. Being good is about developing your character, so that you are disposed to do the best thing in each situation. It is NOT about internalizing some moral manual. Human being are creatures of habit and just as a good musician becomes so by practicing, so, by doing virtuous things, we become virtuous people.

But then the question becomes, "What is virtue?" According to Aristotle it is living according to our natures as rational animals. A good dog does doggy things well. A good human does good human things. We can be guided towards the right action by NOT thinking of good and bad as opposite ends of a spectrum but we must think of good as lying on a "mean" or middle of the two BAD extremes. For instance, courage lied between the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice; generosity between meanness and profligacy; kindness between the excess of ignoring others and the deficiency of indulgence.

Aristotle's ethics are about more than being good - they are about living right. So doing the right thing is not about following rules, but striking the correct balance according to the circumstances.

This seems to make sense and in a society where people actually have the urge to BE virtuous or good, it would work. Unfortunately we live in a society where people no longer believe in virtue or goodness. So we lock up our kids after school instead of letting them play in the streets, we take the keys out of our cars in our driveways and lock our houses at night.
The thinking is circular and so illogical. We know what the right thing to do is because we see it in the good people, we know they are good people because they do good things, they do good things because ... they are good people. Um, wait?

Now Aristotle was attempting to describe a perfect world but as long as selfishness, greed, and evil is present there will not be a perfect world. But that doesn't mean you should not be virtuous or good. What it means is that you must work VERY HARD at being good in a bad world. It also means that we need some OUTSIDE standard that will determine whether what we do is good or not because we cannot rely on the good we see in others.

Now, where did we put that 10 commandments again? Oh, yea, here it is!