>Do [honesty and truth] exist at all, or are they simply goals whose objective shifts over time?<
I am persuaded that truth is absolute, but the question of truth refers to a realm so far removed from our shared reality that to discuss it rationally is ultimately impossible, and even the attempt will leave me sounding a fool to you.
>So far its been pointed out that honesty is often elusive in the absolute sense. Sometimes one can pin down a simple act to a yes/no response like ".. did you open the door?" More often however, complex behavior is impossible to reduce. For example how do you let a child appreciate the President's role of leadership and his wrong behavior.<
Of course it depends upon the child. My sons are young (3-10) and they all think I am a benevolent God (to them I am the richest man on earth, the smartest, strongest and coolest man they know. When I tell them Bill Gates has more money than I, I think they literally have a hard time believing it. They also think I am as honest as they come because I have never lied to them, and I have never broken a promise.) Using my own moral authority then, I teach them about value and truth. I have taught them to respect the Presidency and to respect the man fortunate enough to hold that office. In that I have done this, I am now in their minds associated with the Presidency and with Bill Clinton. I have, in a sense, by my own position, given to Bill Clinton the power to command the respect of my children. This is how I have taught my children to "appreciate the President's role of leadership". The president leads the country, I respect him, my children respect me, and so they hold the president as one worthy of respect (of course eventually they will grow to see the logical mechanism behind why the Presidency is worthy of respect, but if our country is determined not to hold it to the highest standards, rejecting those who would conduct themselves in a manner unworthy of an American President, I will be forced not to hold the office in respect before my children).
To have them appreciate the President's wrong behavior, I merely rely again on my own moral authority. In their minds, my leaving their mother to embrace another woman is to reject all they think is true and right. It is to do what is fundamentally incompatible with what they know and have seen to be good character. So then to teach them of the gravity of what the President has done, they merely need try and image me doing the same thing. They merely need imagine me lying to them repeatedly. They merely need to imagine me attempting to cause others to lie, etc. etc. We all make mistakes, and my children have seen me make several (so perhaps they think I am God with a little "g"), but they have learned from me that for every mistake, a definite re-calibration of the moral machinery is in order, and that until that re-calibration has occurred a separation exists between themselves and anyone who is wronged by them. Bill Clinton has not made this re-calibration and indeed continues to lie. Therefore, I have had the unfortunate experience of separating myself from him in the minds of my children (at least my oldest ones), by having them imagining their father doing the same things. I have told them that what Bill Clinton has done is as ugly and wrong as if I had gone out and taken a woman other than their mother, lied to them about it and schemed so as not to make the necessary re-calibrations of the moral machinery. In this regard, Bill Clinton has threatened my entire value system, and so I have had to portray him to my children as one who is at odds with their father. They now rest in the comfort that their father thinks such behavior utterly reprehensible, and they see that because of my disdain of the President, I would by no means ever harm them in the way he has harmed his family and the nation.
>How much focus does one give to the many good deeds, how much to the many bad, how does this all come together in a child's mind for appreciating future Presidents and the role of government.<
It depends upon the deeds, and how one handles them. If the President had acknowledged his failings and humbly re-calibrated, then he would have revealed himself a man. I understand the politics of the matter, but for some things a man must rise above politics, regardless of the circumstances. Truly, I believe had he sincerely and earnestly repented immediately, he would have finished his term with extraordinary respect, and I for one would have been free to focus exclusively on rejecting his politics and not the human being himself.
Had his bad deeds not harmed public trust in such a terrible manner (had he been caught speeding, or even worse things that did not assault society), then I would not have focused upon them. Were he, even for a small error, to compound his error by adding to it the great error of lying and scheming, then I would be forced to focus on the bad error to distance myself from him. I would be compelled to focus upon any unrepentant error that denies my person, my moral existence, that betrays my trust.
Lying is ultimately an attack upon the individual, and thus upon the fabric of the family and thus that of society; and because it will be such a long term detriment to the character of a child, I as a father am compelled to focus upon it, using my own moral authority to show the child how reprehensible it is. In this way, my sons will learn what it takes not only to be a great president, but what it takes to be a great man in whatever role he might be.
>Human truth is elusive. There's the truth we bend ourselves to through dicipline, fixing on the precepts of a religion, rules, laws in the most rigorous sense of interpretation. There's also the truth that we have many intense desires and feelings that go unexplored. Simply being truthful to oneself would guide one to immoral acts in a world of unlimited possibilites.<
Well here, again, I'm afraid I will become here a fool. I believe in one truth, and that our inner desires are all either in conflict or agreement with it. I believe this truth is absolute and objective---the same for me as for you.
One may be truthful to oneself, and still not be carried away by one's impulses. Simply allowing oneself to do what one feels is not being true to oneself. Sometimes one may feel like committing suicide, and this by definition is not being true to anything in that it is anti-self. Being truthful to oneself does not mean doing according to or admitting the existence of a certain thought. It is being in conformity with Utter Perfection, and this is why human truth is illusive. It does not exist.
Some believe ultimate truth is that which promotes harmony or progress or existence, etc., but by no means can they claim this objective. Other people may, and I dare say do sincerely believe that ultimate truth is pure nihilism, and while we might say this is illogical, those people may ask honestly "who gives a flying rip?" A seamless, consistent application of reason is literally no way to live for some people, and there is no ultimate logical basis upon which we might declare them wrong.
>Most of us therefore create and live with an adaptable inner and outer morality.<
Yes, and as you have said, this dichotomy exists as a happy medium between what is morally and legally allowed, and what we crave. Were it generally acceptable that we take one another's wives, we would do it. Indeed, as it becomes more acceptable to commit adultery, adultery occurs more frequently.
>The structure of truth for society and the structure of truth in being human are very different. Finding a life of constructive overlap and moderation suits most people. But for others, their personal truths are a constant challenge.<
I agree that they are different, but I do not think they should be. Many of us are on a quest for what I think is nonexistent human truth, and so we perceive what is true differently, never arriving at the same end because the end is not there. Some (most?) are guided toward this nonexistent truth based on their feelings or what they see or sense with their bodies, and the extent to which they arrive at their "truth" is quite possibly purely the result of biology. Even if transcendent truth exists, they would be unable to acknowledge it because for them, "the world simply doesn't work that way". For others Truth is external, and even the perception of this truth, having to filter through so much human flesh, can be greatly warped by biology. Hence the differences of truth and morality in a society. I think there is One Unifying Truth that while it is not yet self-evident to all, will be.
> Which type of person is more valuable to society in the long run, the law abiding or the rebels.<
This depends upon the laws and the perspective of the one making the determination. Pre-Civil war rebels such as John Brown, etc., were considered horrid for society. Reformation rebels such as Wycliff and Luther were once considered horrid. Now they are heroes. In Nazi Germany, Hitler was a hero and men such as Dietrich Bonhoffer were rejected. Now its has all been reversed. Had Hitler conquered the world, who would there be to declare him wrong? No one, and so Hitler would have been right where human truth is concerned. There is a truth external to humans that will always declare him wrong. It is not human, it is absolute.
>Which type of person is more valuable to society in the long run the accountants or the entrepenuers.
The entrepreneurs, definitely. (sorry accountants, a joke).
>The truths of the universe are constantly being pulled out from under us. We force our own change and adapt or die. Where Netownian physics once provided a floor to stand on, we now find ourselves in a causitive world of probabilities. Morality too, has become a world of probabilities. Even light and time are being challenged as absolutes, morality struggles to hold its place. Instead of grasping for right or wrong we instead calculate the probabilities of right and wrong.<
But this is no commentary on truth, but only on our perception of it. Newtonian physics claimed apples were round. Einstein came along to add "Dees depends upon how vee loowk at eet." But the fact is the apple has always had a transcendent reality, regardless of our perspectives. It is not exclusively round or flat, but all of the above, and it has always been thus. Einstein gave us nothing new, the truth has always existed and always will. Einstein merely helped us move just an infinitesimal, a veritably imperceptible distance toward truth. |
