Who Owns Property? This is a fundamental questions that must be answered before we can determining what the role of government is and how it will interact with the people it governs.
Is this shovel mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this land mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this education mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this life mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
This Shovel is Mine:
If you find yourself saying that these things belong to an individual you're probably into individualism and you may even be leaning libertarian or toward classical republicanism. These folks believe that only the person who owns said property is entitled to said property.
Lately, I've heard a few of my colleagues bemoan the rights of the individual, passing blanket statements that make individualism come off as just plain greed in disguise. Just to be clear, while it’s tempting to depict those who believe in individual ownership as inherently greedy, this is a misnomer. For greed comes when one cannot be satisfied with what he already has. It means that he want more and more and no matter how much enters into his possession, he will never be able to say “That’s enough.”
An individual who is content with what he has IS NOT greedy. An individual who does everything in his power to amass more and more without ever finding satisfaction in his property IS greedy.
This Shovel is Ours:
But perhaps you find yourself siding with the second group of ownership descriptors. You might believe that everything on this earth belongs to everyone. This is generally how collectivist groups and socialists think. Modern Democrats may not view resources and property exactly this way, but it's pretty close. The idea of public land, public art, public funds, and the like are all within the realm of "ours."
For these folks, the idea of redistributing wealth is ideal because, after all, it belongs to everyone whether it's redistributed or not.
This Shovel is the Government's:
Lastly are those who believe that governments, organizations, monarchs, overseers, or other meta-entities are the ones who own everything. Those who agree with this mindset tend to be Fascists, or Corporate Fascists. Some of them even find landing points in some of the doctrine of the Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal movements.
These folks truly believe that governments, establishments, and principalities are the best equipped to make decisions about what's right for the people they "serve."
At the suggestion of Micah Tillman, I recently picked up Tim Keller’s The Reason For God from the library. So far, it’s been pretty reasonable even though it doesn’t have any particularly new ideas. Much of his work here is borrowing from CS Lewis or dressing up old arguments in new clothing, but it’s a good refresher course on basic apologetics.
As I get further into the text, perhaps I’ll throw in some commentary on Keller’s ideas, but so far I've decided that he’s one of the few Christian writers who know how to use theology and philosophy together in a way that makes sound use of each. Some writers, like John Piper, are really great on the theology end, but don’t use philosophy very well while others, like Brian McLaren, are powerhouses of Christian philosophy but don’t really do well at articulating their theology.
Keller seems to have his feet grounded in both realms.
It's quite refreshing.
Here’s a link to his book on Amazon:
I’ve been getting a lot of hits on my site lately from people searching in Google for the difference between Ethics & Morality. They’re probably getting here to this site because of this post I wrote a few weeks ago. Because of this, I thought that I'd flush out my own opinion on the subject a little bit more today:
Ethics is a term that most people unfortunately use interchangeably for morals. What I mean is that when they say that they want or expect another person to “act ethically” what they’re saying is that somewhere deep inside of them, they believe there is a behavior code that other people are expected follow. This code is based on a number of things- religious beliefs, normative social behaviors, public policy, and cultural beliefs.
But that’s not Ethics.
Ethics is historically the pursuit of ‘the good life.’ It’s an ideal. It’s a theoretical. It’s a utopia of sorts that we hope to move toward as we make our world a better place. Thanks to Mills (although we can see the roots of this ideal as far back as Socrates), ethics is normally used on a macro level rather than an individual one. Basically, his theory of utility says that the highest good is when the greatest amount of peoples enjoy a happy life. Different ethical theories hardly ever counteract this matrix although there are plenty of disagreements regarding the semantics of what good, happiness, and the greatest amount mean.
A little current events application:
When we ask a business to act ethically (if we really mean ethically) we’re saying: “Do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people and make the most people happy as you can.”
Most people assume that this means that no one lies or disregards other people’s money- but in theory, if a business can prove that lying and cheating a bit leads to greater returns for the majority of the people, they might have grounds to claim that they are acting ethically (for the good of all) when they deceive us.
Let’s counteract this understanding of Ethics with a better understanding of Morality (or Morals).
I’ve come to believe that people often use word ethics rather than morals because morality has a religious overtone. Morality obviously elicits images of Morality Plays and other Catholic traditions. And since not all people agree on religious issues, it’s assumed that when we’re discussing the public sector (i.e. business or government) we need to use a more secular term. Now, it’s true the religion does play a big part in informing our morals. Since religious and cultural upbringing play a big part in what values we inherit, it follows that morals (loosely defined as an inherited understanding of right and wrong) tend to be at least tutored by religion if not overtly religious in nature (yes, even for the atheist).
But consider the phrase: “The moral of the story is…”
Take for instance, the old Aesop Fable of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare.’ The hare is expected to win because of his speed, but as the story progresses the determined tortoise overtakes him as he vainly takes a little nap. Victory goes to the tortoise and the “moral” (or lesson learned) is that those who work steadily rather than quickly and haphazardly are the ones who accomplish their goals.
It’s within this example that I believe we find a much richer definition of morals/morality. Morals are the behaviors and expectations that we place on ourselves as a story or narrative progresses around us. Sure, this is partly religious because we learn from the stories of those who are in a religious community with us- but it’s also very secular.
Today, I drove passed a major wreck on the highway. Afterward, I began noticing all the little “Drive Safely” markers on the side of the road that are placed there after a fatal car accident. Believe me, my behavior and expectation was shaped in that moment. My “Morals” were adjusted and I slowed down a bit. The story/narrative of this road is that recklessness=death.
Let’s go back to the Business Example Again:
Suppose we asked Businesses to act morally in addition to ethically? Suppose we expected that as the story/narrative of history unfolds they should adjust their behavior to match?
From a young age, we’ve all learned that lies are (almost) always found out and the aftermath is generally more terrible than telling the truth in the first place. And if it wasn’t learned at a young age, within the past ten years we’ve seen plenty of businesses that were caught in lies and destroyed by them.
Asking a business to act morally, is to ask them to keep their eyes on those road markers and adjust their behavior accordingly. It’s expecting them to realize that there are certain behaviors (lying, cheating, stealing, killing) that simply don’t end well for anyone. Doing those things might make them a quick buck, but it’s rather short sighted if it ends up destroying their entire infrastructure over the course of time. It makes them like the Hare in Aesop’s Fable.
We need to be more like the Tortoise.
Summary:
Ethics is a theoretical pursuit of the good life (for as many people as possible) and morals are lessons learned and behaviors changed based on the story we find ourselves in. Asking someone (or a business or a government) to act ethically might not yield the results we want if we actually want them to act morally.
I am so glad that I waited to purchase Ben Folds’ Way To Normal until the Stems and Seeds version was released.
Not only does Stems and Seeds provide the Stems for each song on the album, but it also features remastered versions of each song and B-sides that didn’t make the initial cut. In particular, I’ve really enjoyed listening to the B-sides because they remind me of the Ben Folds Five era.
Man, I loved Philosophy and Kate.
Hang on... let me explain Stems really quick for those of you who aren’t familiar with them. Stems are a new thing in the music world where an artist provides listeners with the source files of their songs- vocals, guitars, drums, etc.- split apart so that we can play with each track and create something different with it if we so choose.
In the past, I’ve blogged about Radiohead’s introduction of stems, comparing it with the ‘death of the author’ meme that’s been floating around the postmodern philosophy community. But now that Ben Folds is jumping on board, I'm suddenly filled with a new sense of excitement about the future of the music industry. This could very well be a pivotal point in music history- perhaps more important than the introduction of Rock & Roll and the advent of iTunes.
Stems are so incredibly important because they invite us to move beyond simply listening to music and push us toward interacting with it, too. When we play around with Stems, we get to create something new with songs that we couldn’t have created in the first place. In a sense, we get to “borrow” the musicianship of Ben Folds (or Radiohead or the other artists who are providing Stems) and combine it with our own ideas regarding what a song should sound like.
Besides redefining the role of listeners, there's also the ability to make a lot more money. I'm sure Radiohead and Folds are attracting listeners who might not be interested in their work aside from the fact that they can take it and make it into something they DO enjoy. There's a lot of creative people out there who are willing to drop some money into the coffers of artists who provide this sort of thing.
Third Eye Blind is capitalizing on this idea and using it as a promotional tool. On the social music side indabamusic.com, they've released Stems from a few songs off their new studio album (for free) and invited fans and friends to remix them. The best ones have been reviewed by the band and are possibly going to be featured on an extended release of the album.
In doing this, 3eb created momentum about their new album. Inbada users were able to hear tracks before they were “released” and get excited about it They were also given the chance to truly influence the direction that Stephan Jenkins and his band took the music.
Just as social networking is making music better, I’m really hoping that we can figure out a way to do integrate it into other mediums as well.
For instance, I’ve really enjoyed watching recut trailers of movies. Is there a way for filmmakers to give viewers the chance to interact with their films and make our own “audience cuts?” I would think that big fans of certain films would be willing the pay extra for a DVD with source materials that they could re-edit in Final Cut, iMovie, or Windows Movie Maker (I’d LOVE to re-edit Donnie Darko or BladeRunner).
On a more personal level, I’m wondering if there is a way for me as a blogger/author to provide readers with more interactive texts? I think that the “comments” space is a good start, but I’d love to see it go even further without resorting to “choose your own adventure” type stuff.
I think it takes a bit of humility on the part of the artist to surrender his work to the public. But I don’t think it’s “giving up” the rights to releasing your music, films, prose, etc the way you want to. It’s a really amazing thing to present a piece of art and then see how other people interact with it and respond to it.
Screw copyrights, let’s make something together.
Here’s a paradox for you.
A guy walks into Starbucks and orders a Grande Chai Latte. The Barista gives him a funny look, nudges her friend and he starts looking at the guy out of the corner of his eye, trying (unsuccessfully) not to make eye contact. When the drink is up, she tells the guy that it’s on the house.
He mutters a quick ‘thank you’ and makes his escape out the front door. And as the door shuts behind him, the exclamations begin:
“Oh my gosh, can you believe he was in here?”
“I can’t believe we met him.”
“Was that really him?”
Turns out, the guy was Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby or Buffalo Bill or Mr. Bill or some other famous Bill up on Capitol Hill. And he got his free coffee because of the fame, money, or influence he carried with him into the store. It doesn’t matter that he’s the one person in the Coffee bar that has so much disposable income that paying $3.50 for coffee isn’t even a concern. He still gets his for free.
I use Starbucks as the example, but it’s the same with huge rock bands who are “sponsored” by guitar brands and huge corporations who get freebies from smaller companies.
Why is it that those who can pay sometimes get theirs for free while the rest of us have to scrape and save for everything?
Personally, I think it’s because we’re obsessed with power and influence.
The main reason we bend over backwards to help the rich and affluent is that we’re somehow wired up to go to any lengths necessary to impress those with power and influence.
Perhaps it’s because we want their power and influence, too, and we think that if we do something nice for them they’ll remember us and offer us a job or a pat on the back or something else that will “add value” to our lives. Heck, even having an encounter with a celebrity may make us feel more valuable.
“Honey, you’ll never believe what happened to me today! Bill Cosby came in and ordered a coffee from me! Bill Cosby… man, I love my job!”
Then again…
The rich and influential also pay a lot more taxes- shouldering the weight of education, healthcare, infrastructure, and all the other social services that the rest of us enjoy. Without them, we’d have to shoulder those expenses on our own. Without them, we might not have the movies, products, and services that we enjoy either- after all, they’re the actors, thinkers, and doers that have made western world what it is today.
Perhaps they deserve a free cup of coffee and our appreciation?
Liberals often use "Quality of Life" as a reason to keep abortion on the table.
Conservatives often use the "Quality of a Life" as a reason to keep capitol punishment on the table.
* * *
The former assumes that no child should be born into a family that can't provide for her needs- whether they are financial, emotional, or physical (especially in the case of disabilities in the child).
I have a hard time with this line of thinking, because even the poorest of the poor would rather be alive than dead and even children and adults with disabilities want to be alive. So, when we make an assumption that it's OK to terminate a pregnancy because someone isn't able to provide the kind of care a child needs- I wonder if that's really a fair reason.
It's especially odd that this sort of rationale is provided primarily by progressives who are usually in favor of government programs that support those who are in need. If Libertarians or Republicans made the vow that we should terminate pregnancy rather than give them money and help, I might at least understand the principle... but as it stands, I don't think it makes sense. Even orphan kids in third world countries fight to stay alive.
They'd rather be hungry than dead.
* * *
There's a similar thing that happens when we assume that a man should be put to death because of actions he's committed.
Just as Liberals assume that a child's world cannot be redeemed if they are born with a disability or into a home that doesn't want them- conservatives believe that some people are beyond repair because of what they've done. They believe that because of certain actions a person is better off dead than alive.
They dismiss rehabilitation. They see only vengeance.
* * *
I think both of these prove that people tend to value circumstances rather than LIFE itself. It's a shame, really, that we treat life with such disdain.
And I truly hope that Liberals AND Conservatives get it right soon, because both of these perspectives are just inches away from genocide.
Once we cross over into assessing quality of life and who has the right to live or die based on circumstances, we're thinking just like Hitler did. He decided that the world would be better off without certain races, religions, and people predisposed toward certain sexualities. He wanted to make the best of the world, even if it meant a little blood on his hands.
Let's hope we're not guilty of the same thing.
My good friend Chris has argued for some time that the right to life is a progressive rights issue rather than a Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue. Today, I want to add some of my own thoughts to what he's already begun.
* * *
The founders of the United States of America, as influenced by Hobbes and Locke, were certain that human beings were, at the very least, entitled to three thing: their Life, Liberty, and Property (yes, I'm aware of that famous "Pursuit of Happiness" line, but the rest of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Articles of the Confederacy, etc don't really spend much time on happiness so I think it was a flowery line they meant but didn't really care about.).
They didn't always uphold these rights (i.e. slavery), but I believe they made a pretty noble go at it and in the process laid the groundwork for the progressive rights and liberties that we enjoy today.
But these three are not always equal to each other in importance. At least, they aren't equal once you begin to interact with other people. Eventually, when other people enter the mix, there's bound to be some sort of conflict when two people have competing interests and a "right" to their actions or person. So when these rights conflict with each other, we need to have a keen understanding of which rights are the most important to uphold.
I think that the way that they are articulated in the Declaration of Independence and outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America serves as a valid hierarchy.
Thus Life come first, then Liberty, then Property.
Therefore, I have the right to use a gun (property). I have the right to point it in any direction (liberty). But, I don't have the right to pull the trigger when another man is standing in front of me (life).
Therefore, I have the right to use my body sexually (my person=my primary property). But, I cannot use my sexuality in a way that deprives another person of their choice (rape deprives another person of their liberty).
As rights have become more and more progressive, we've decided that even animals have the right to life and liberty. A person cannot attack or abuse an animal without paying fines or serving prison sentences (in extreme cases). In fact, if PETA has their way, we won't be allowed to use animals for food or clothing if they have to give their lives for us to use them.
So we see that the right to life is becoming progressively more and more important in our hierarchy. We value it above all other rights.
Except the lives of those who haven't been born yet.
* * *
NOTE: What comes next is written toward our POLICY on abortion and NOT toward those men and women who are actually deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Please accept this distinction because I am not trying to compare women who are making tough choices to either of the criminal examples that follow.
* * *
We never allow a rapist to argue- "it's my body, I get to choose what to do with it" if he violates another human being's right to liberty. His derogation of another person's rights is unacceptable.
Likewise, we never allow a murderer to argue- "it's my property and liberty at stake here, I can shoot wherever and whenever I want" if he violates another another human being's right to life. His derogation of another person's rights is also unacceptable.
But for some reason, when it comes to the lives of unborn children- we still value the property (mother's body) and liberty (choice) of individuals rather than the life (the right to be born once conceived) of children.
Do dogs really have more of a right to their own life than embryos do?
* * *
Now, before I get a bunch of comments on Women's Rights and how a reversal of Roe V Wade would be a step backward for women...
I completely understand the limited rights that women have had in the duration of the history- especially in conjunction with pregnancy. Please understand that this is not an attempt to "put women in their place" or limit their ability to choose.
This is a discussion on Universal Rights and whether or not life is more important that property and liberty. So, if you're really offended that I'm bringing this up- I'm really sorry that you feel this way but I'd love to hear a sound argument for why an individual would deserve to have their rights to their body and their choices protected over the actual life of another human being.
Also- Please understand that this is not an attack against every single abortion decision. Aborting a pregnancy should never be completely off the table! For there are times when it needs to be available.
For instance:
When the life of a woman is put into danger by the life of an embryo, I believe that she's entitled to make the choice to terminate her pregnancy. This falls into the same category as when the need arises to separate conjoined twins. There is usually a risk of losing one of them in the process, but when two lives are at stake it's a different discussion than when it's just one life at stake.
Or to put it another way, there is a different dilemma in life vs. life rights than when it's property rights or liberty rights vs. life rights.
But for the purpose of this discussion, I believe that life trumps property and liberty every time. Therefore, without bringing religion into the mix at all, I believe that as people who respect Human Rights we need to rethink our policy on abortion.
But that's just me... What do you think?
"Who are we saving them from?" asks NiteOwl in a moment of concern.
"From themselves." Answers the Comedian as he takes a drag from his cigar, grins like a fool and tosses a smoke bomb toward a young man. As the bomb explodes we see that he's been spraying 'Who Watches the Watchmen' on the darkened wall of an alley. * * *
When viewing Watchmen in the Theater, I was struck by how dark their world truly was. One film critic remarked that it was the darkest, most serious superhero film ever made- one without "comic" appeal. There wasn't even a moment of jest or comic relief to break up the brooding tension. It was serious, slow, and violent.
I'd honestly be surprised if anyone outside of fans of the graphic novel could sit through it without being bored to tears or utterly confused. At 2:35 it's a long trip through the darkness of man's heart.
About halfway into the film (when I was sitting there thinking, "yup, it's pretty much the same as the book only trimmed down to the point where it's going to seem ridiculous to all the people who haven't bothered delving into the real version") I suddenly became really overwhelmed by the words Nietzsche put in the mouth of his Madman Character to mourn the loss of God. I firmly believe that although he was convinced that God did not exist that he was equally convinced that the idea of God was a good thing and that in killing the idea of God, the would would be worse off:
"Where is God?" [The Madman] cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?"
Do you hear the sorrow in his prose?
This profound sense of loss that Nietzsche relates in his parable was also indicative of the film Watchmen. In it there is a heavy sadness. It's a world where men have usurped the law and enacted their own sense of justice. They're a cold bunch, full of flaws. They're practically criminals (some of them, like Rorschach are definitely criminals) and they rule the world around them- sometimes reluctantly- as it slips further into perversion and debauchery.
* * *
My own personal opinion is that this film is a great picture of what happens when men abandon God and set themselves up in His place. It becomes a terrible place where violence begets violence and the only way to find peace it through fear. Adrien knows this, and that's why he enacts his master stroke- blowing up the world to save the world.
The apostle Paul knew it too. In fact, much of the first chapter of his letter to the Romans seems to give a similar picture of darkness and fear. The world does become colder when its inhabitants try to play Ubermensch. That's just the way it works.
* * *
A few questions to wrap up WATCHMEN WEEK:
1. Whether or not you believe in God- do you believe that the idea of God is a good thing that should be mourned when it's missing from society?
2. Do you think that people respond better to fear or love?
3. Have you ever read a philosopher you disagreed with and found some truth there regardless?
* * *
* Those who avoid reading Nietzsche because he's associated with the phrase "God is Dead" miss out on a lot of his great contributions to Philosophy. It's true that he was an Atheist- but if we consider his teachings without condemning his beliefs, he's actually got a lot of interesting things to say about what life is like when people reject the idea of God.
One can reject the idea of God without debating whether or not God exists- for "killing God" in society or in your heart doesn't depend on His existence. Plenty of people who believe that God exists still reject Him. So talking through Nietzsche doesn't mean that we become Atheists, it means that we admit that we live in a culture who have in some ways "killed God" by ignoring or rejecting Him outright.
This is going to be a very short post today because my parents are on their way over to help us celebrate ONE YEAR with our little boy Ethan. Hopefully, tomorrow I'll be able to finish a post I've been working through in Nietzsche's superman and the dark nature of the Watchmen World. Until then, here's some brief thoughts on fear...
* * *
At the end of the film version (the ending is different than the book, in case you didn't know this), Lori wonders if peace will truly last. Dan answers by muttering a line that's stuck with me this past week: "As long as people think Jon's watching us, we'll be alright..."
Jon is blamed for the destruction of cities all over the world. So as long as he's still out there- an enemy waiting to strike- perhaps the world had better behave.
* * *
Or to put it another way: "as long as people are scared of some mutual enemy- we'll be alright."
* * *
Pluggedin-Online made the assumption that this was a subtle reference to God- the Old Testament version that many see as vindictive and fearful. Does Jon represent "god" for a lot of people? An omniscient being that dishes out punishment whenever we cross Him?
My friend Seth made another connection. The WTC towers (featured prominently at least 3 times in the film) allude to the fact that this film is about terrorism. Perhaps Jon represents Osama Bin Ladin and other terrorist cells? As long as we know he's out there, planning and plotting, are we liable to let the government do what they will with our lives?
At the end of Watchmen, we're left with a really important question:
Do we tell truth and reveal the reality of the situation? or Do we keep silent and let everyone believe what they want about the things that have just occurred?
For those of you who have NO idea what I'm talking about- at the end of Watchmen, Adrien Veidt blows up New York City (and a few other cities in the movie). It's his master plan to create peace... In a world on the brink of nuclear war, he creates a bigger, badder enemy who is able to wipe them all out. The unification of fear is a powerful thing.
But for the plan to work, no one can know that it was masterminded by Adrien. They must think that it was an Alien Invasion (in the book) or Jon's frustration (in the movie).
World Peace hangs delicately on ignorance.
Rorschach, who doesn't have the ability to get beyond the black and whiteness of the issue, is bound and determined to tell the world what has transpired. He pays for it with his life.
* * *
In the Christian Bible, there's a passage where a prostitute named Rahab lies to protect the lives of some Hebrew Spies who are hiding with her in the city of Jericho. Later, in the letter to the Hebrews, the writer tells us that she is to be praised for her FAITH by hiding and protecting them.
Her lie is actually considered Faith?
It's so strange that in a book that's used to promote honesty and truthfulness (we swear on the Bible to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in court) such a contradiction would occur. I wonder if it's possibly that our understanding of truthfulness and honesty is a little smaller than what's required of us? Perhaps there's more to THE TRUTH than simply speaking accurately about events that have transpired.
Perhaps The TRUTH is bigger than a specific event?
* * *
What do YOU think?
1. If you knew that peace had been obtained through a lie- would you expose it?
2. What if it were economic gain that secured your job in a company? Would you keep silent so you could keep your company in business?
3. What a friend or a relative committed a crime? Would you make their actions known or stay silent to protect them?
4. What if (and here's the biggest Ethical Dilemma) there are Nazis at your door asking about the Jews you have hiding in your attic? Do you tell them the truth, or lie to protect the lives of those living with you?
5. When is it OK to lie? When is it wrong?
|
