Moral Authoritarianism

[Shadowstar1370]

http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86209/moral_absolutism_and_the_rise_of_authoritarianism.html

http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm



In my view, the concepts of Moralism, I use the Plural because it takes many forms, represent a clear and present danger to society. I will not specify which society because many world cultures are presently the victims thereof. I personally feel that Moral Authoritarianism is the root of most problems on both the national and international scene, the idea that "I know best" which seems to pervade what I consider the International Aristocracy. The idea that "I Know Best" is the root of the mentality that leads to Social Elitism. This is the basis of the notion that "The Ends Justify the Means", which is the underlying motivation behind every political/religious organization of ill repute from The Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Khmer Rouge, and the Nazi Party on down to individuals such as David Curtiss Stephenson and Charles Manson. The recognition of this, however, is not enough. The problem lies in figuring out how to avoid it, as it is an insidious and seductive abstract. Many of us are brainwashed from childhood to embrace notions of Moralism, be it from the Bible, the Koran, or Confuscius. We are taught to embrace the concepts contained therein above all others and are impregnated thereby with the idea of a Golden Road to a Utopian society that embraces these laws above all others. The thing to bear in mind here is the root definition of Utopia. No Place. The Road to Utopia is the Road to Nowhere. This is the trouble with Moralism, it is not Morality. This seems contradictory at first glance, but this is just another manifestation of the insidious nature of it and a further difficulty in defeating it. An obvious solution to defeating Judicial Moralism and Legal Moralism is instilling in our Law Schools and Universities a curriculum advocating a "Less is Better" approach to Law, my thinking on this being that Laws do not protect liberty. They are a necessary evil, only. Therefore, less is better because any time you use the law to protect one group, you are infringing upon the liberty of another. This ideology extends to religion as well. The core of the debates/wars between the followers of the various major religions of the world, in my view, is a failure to grasp that we are all here trying to accomplish the same thing. Killing each other over a disagreement on the Proper Intercessor to acknowledge, IE Mohammed or Jesus, is little better than killing a man for being a Democrat instead of a Republican and seems to me to be a manifestation of the same, dare I say Moral?, disease. The proper perspective, I think, in matters of Politics and Priesthood, should be to think of oneself as a Representative instead of a Leader. A priest is a Representative of the Faith, not a Leader in a Community. If people choose to follow your example and advice, the proper mindset aught to be that they have chosen you as a Good Representative for their beliefs, not their Leader. The same applies to Politicians. A President is the Representative of a Nation, not The Boss of the Nation. The sooner this idea takes root, the better off the world will be.

[Shadowstar1370]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NexnmXDkDCc Indoor Nazi rally in South Carolina, 2010


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYh8MOnAgv8&feature=related KKK march on Washington DC, 1928


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Rv7UAKkaA&feature=related Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam

Racial and Ideological supremacism are, at their core, the same. The idea that one group of people is inherently better than another is an idea born of cowardice that can only serve to stifle the spiritual development of humanity by holding us in a mire of negativity. It is really quite amazing that some of us can claim to live in such an advanced and wonderful society, and yet there are still those of us that continue to embrace childish notions of "I am better than you because..." Does following the teachings of the Gautama Buddha impart a different color to your blood than following the teachings of Christ? In what demonstrable way is an Asian inferior to a Briton? We are all humans, and as such equally glorious in our flawed natures. Our Right to pursue happiness as we see fit so long as we harm none is also our Right to pursue divine transcendence in whatever manner speaks to our heart, be it through the words of the Gautama Buddha, Krishna, Blavatsky, or Jesus Christ, and the color of our skin or the gender we were born to matters not one whit in this venture.

[PurpleLama]

God(dess) bless us, every one.

[Steven]

God(dess)...

Subtle, but quite on spot!

Namaste, Steven

[Shadowstar1370]

Much agreed.

"These are the times which try men's souls."- Cannot recall who said this but it is very true.

Times such as these can go any direction. How can you really discount the possibility of the Anglo Saxon Mission when you have companies being busted for putting arsenic in our food and our government putting fluoride in our water? Our president wants to sign on with the UN Gun Control bill and thereby delete the second amendment from our constitution when we are giving guns to mexican druglords so they can use them against us, and there still those with their heads stuck in the ground or blaming the love of money for all our problems! It isn't about money, its about power. Money is nothing more than a convenient tool along the road to power, but like any other tool it is disposeable.

Love, Light, Godmind be with us in our quest to expose those who think they know better and deserve to write the rules.

[777]

http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86209/moral_absolutism_and_the_rise_of_authoritarianism.html

http://www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm



In my view, the concepts of Moralism, I use the Plural because it takes many forms, represent a clear and present danger to society. I will not specify which society because many world cultures are presently the victims thereof. I personally feel that Moral Authoritarianism is the root of most problems on both the national and international scene, the idea that "I know best" which seems to pervade what I consider the International Aristocracy. The idea that "I Know Best" is the root of the mentality that leads to Social Elitism. This is the basis of the notion that "The Ends Justify the Means", which is the underlying motivation behind every political/religious organization of ill repute from The Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Khmer Rouge, and the Nazi Party on down to individuals such as David Curtiss Stephenson and Charles Manson. The recognition of this, however, is not enough. The problem lies in figuring out how to avoid it, as it is an insidious and seductive abstract. Many of us are brainwashed from childhood to embrace notions of Moralism, be it from the Bible, the Koran, or Confuscius. We are taught to embrace the concepts contained therein above all others and are impregnated thereby with the idea of a Golden Road to a Utopian society that embraces these laws above all others. The thing to bear in mind here is the root definition of Utopia. No Place. The Road to Utopia is the Road to Nowhere. This is the trouble with Moralism, it is not Morality. This seems contradictory at first glance, but this is just another manifestation of the insidious nature of it and a further difficulty in defeating it. An obvious solution to defeating Judicial Moralism and Legal Moralism is instilling in our Law Schools and Universities a curriculum advocating a "Less is Better" approach to Law, my thinking on this being that Laws do not protect liberty. They are a necessary evil, only. Therefore, less is better because any time you use the law to protect one group, you are infringing upon the liberty of another. This ideology extends to religion as well. The core of the debates/wars between the followers of the various major religions of the world, in my view, is a failure to grasp that we are all here trying to accomplish the same thing. Killing each other over a disagreement on the Proper Intercessor to acknowledge, IE Mohammed or Jesus, is little better than killing a man for being a Democrat instead of a Republican and seems to me to be a manifestation of the same, dare I say Moral?, disease. The proper perspective, I think, in matters of Politics and Priesthood, should be to think of oneself as a Representative instead of a Leader. A priest is a Representative of the Faith, not a Leader in a Community. If people choose to follow your example and advice, the proper mindset aught to be that they have chosen you as a Good Representative for their beliefs, not their Leader. The same applies to Politicians. A President is the Representative of a Nation, not The Boss of the Nation. The sooner this idea takes root, the better off the world will be.

Great post. Much as I agree with the sentiment and the logic completely I'm going to take the liberty to play devils' advocate. Might I suggest that this ideology you've excellently outlined here is just as justifiably akin to moral elitism as the very authoritarian systems you seek to remedy? Each extremity is born of an ideology that is subjectively correct to that person or group, yours carries no more validity (much as I agree lol!) than theirs. Surely if we seek to move towards a more caring, loving, open society then moral transparency and extremity is to be encouraged in the cradle stages of societal development? Or is that me now imposing my ideological angle?

The can of worms is open.......

[ceetee9]

In my view, the concepts of Moralism, I use the Plural because it takes many forms, represent a clear and present danger to society. I will not specify which society because many world cultures are presently the victims thereof. I personally feel that Moral Authoritarianism is the root of most problems on both the national and international scene, the idea that "I know best" which seems to pervade what I consider the International Aristocracy. The idea that "I Know Best" is the root of the mentality that leads to Social Elitism. This is the basis of the notion that "The Ends Justify the Means", which is the underlying motivation behind every political/religious organization of ill repute from The Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Khmer Rouge, and the Nazi Party on down to individuals such as David Curtiss Stephenson and Charles Manson. The recognition of this, however, is not enough. The problem lies in figuring out how to avoid it, as it is an insidious and seductive abstract. Many of us are brainwashed from childhood to embrace notions of Moralism, be it from the Bible, the Koran, or Confuscius. We are taught to embrace the concepts contained therein above all others and are impregnated thereby with the idea of a Golden Road to a Utopian society that embraces these laws above all others. The thing to bear in mind here is the root definition of Utopia. No Place. The Road to Utopia is the Road to Nowhere. This is the trouble with Moralism, it is not Morality. This seems contradictory at first glance, but this is just another manifestation of the insidious nature of it and a further difficulty in defeating it. An obvious solution to defeating Judicial Moralism and Legal Moralism is instilling in our Law Schools and Universities a curriculum advocating a "Less is Better" approach to Law, my thinking on this being that Laws do not protect liberty. They are a necessary evil, only. Therefore, less is better because any time you use the law to protect one group, you are infringing upon the liberty of another. This ideology extends to religion as well. The core of the debates/wars between the followers of the various major religions of the world, in my view, is a failure to grasp that we are all here trying to accomplish the same thing. Killing each other over a disagreement on the Proper Intercessor to acknowledge, IE Mohammed or Jesus, is little better than killing a man for being a Democrat instead of a Republican and seems to me to be a manifestation of the same, dare I say Moral?, disease. The proper perspective, I think, in matters of Politics and Priesthood, should be to think of oneself as a Representative instead of a Leader. A priest is a Representative of the Faith, not a Leader in a Community. If people choose to follow your example and advice, the proper mindset aught to be that they have chosen you as a Good Representative for their beliefs, not their Leader. The same applies to Politicians. A President is the Representative of a Nation, not The Boss of the Nation. The sooner this idea takes root, the better off the world will be.

Great post. Much as I agree with the sentiment and the logic completely I'm going to take the liberty to play devils' advocate. Might I suggest that this ideology you've excellently outlined here is just as justifiably akin to moral elitism as the very authoritarian systems you seek to remedy? Each extremity is born of an ideology that is subjectively correct to that person or group, yours carries no more validity (much as I agree lol!) than theirs. Surely if we seek to move towards a more caring, loving, open society then moral transparency and extremity is to be encouraged in the cradle stages of societal development? Or is that me now imposing my ideological angle?

The can of worms is open.......
I agree with 777 that this is a great post Shadowstar and I appreciate 777 playing devil's advocate. However, I see a major difference between those of us who believe in the principal of "live and let live" (i.e., follow the Golden Rule) and those who need to create laws, rules and regulations or otherwise coerce the masses into behaving a particular way. The first group has no need for power and control and trust that the overwhelming majority of people will do the right thing for the things that truly matter in life; whereas the second group needs power and control because they do not trust people and believe that they know what's best for society and, as such, it is their right and duty to ensure the masses are controlled--if for no other reason than to protect themselves from all those dastardly evil-doers out there (never considering for a moment that it is themselves from whom they need the protection).

Consequently, the real difference is the second group could exist in a world where the vast majority of people adhered to the principals of the first group. If people wanted to be controlled they would be free to allow themselves to be controlled by those of the second group (i.e., their "leaders"). But the first group could not exist in a world dominated by people who adhered to the principals of the second group. If people wanted to live free they would be imprisoned or killed by those from the second group. You know, kinda like what we have now in the world.

Nah, that's crazy talk! We just need more and better controls and drugs to get all those free thinkers to see the light.

[Shadowstar1370]

777 and ceetee, always dig the props :). I cannot deny the logic of your counterarguement. The source of your rationale can be found readily with but a glance at the Yin and Yang symbol, there is no perfect solution. Some even believe that Xenophobia is actually programmed into us at the genetic level. I find this notion laughable, but I cannot argue with the idea that it permeates every level of our society and therefore has to originate somewhere. This is a secondary issue to finding a solution, however. Perhaps the two are connected, the solution and the source, but nevertheless. This is the problem with arguing Abstract concepts, it tends to devolve into a discussion of semantics. For this reason, I recently hit on the idea of stylizing myself as a "Liberty Supremacist" just to shine on the haters. :)