Every school kid knows that amorality is what makes Capitalism work. It’s an indisputable principle that the moment you start to worry about the other guy the economy falls apart. There will always be delusional people who insist that ethics are important, but those at the top know the economy doesn’t operate ethically.
In ordinary language, the term ‘amoral’ is highly ambiguous. It can be confused with similar terms, ‘unmoral’ and ‘nonmoral’. Further, although the terms ethics and morals are often used interchangeably, ethics cannot be considered relative in the same sense that morals can be.((Thanks to Lander.edu for the portions in bold text. Available: http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/amoral.html))
Geopolitics is amoral as well, meaning that the strong stay on top by any means necessary. This often has dire consequences for civilians, especially children, but you have to learn to live with that if you want to rule the world. It may seem cruel, but the world would be much worse off without powerful leaders who are able to make people behave.
There are very few actions that can be considered strictly amoral. ‘Almost all examples involving human intention, volition, or behavior are described in terms of moral categories, since they involve the possibility of helping or harming oneself or others.’
If the little people get upset when they see pictures of dead babies or the trampling of human rights…it’s probably best if they don’t see them.
I suppose you could say that amoral actions or events are those that exhibit indifference to the moral rules or codes of society, and the refusal to abide by them. For example, if a person tells a lie without concern for the society’s moral code, he or she has acted amorally. (Note that this view makes the use of ‘amoral’ intentional.) On the other hand, A sociopath and a very young child can be called ‘amoral’, regardless of whether society considers their actions immoral, since they have no feeling or understanding of the concepts of right and wrong,
I’m afraid I’m still focused on the presidential campaign. I didn’t intend to spend so much time on this subject, but it seems the activities of Black Lives Matter and the support they have received from the ‘liberal’ media need some kind of explanation. The media pretends it’s a question of whether BLM members have a right to be angry about structural racism. They do, but that’s not the point. The point is whether it makes sense for progressives to shut down Bernie Sanders. What can explain this mystery? A word of warning: we can’t blame all Black Lives Matter activists for this. Apparently some Seattle members of Black Lives Matter were shocked when they learned that Bernie’s speech had been shut down.
Strangely, the ACLU seems as untroubled by this spectacle as the media. This organization has been sending emails asking for signatures and donations to fight government surveillance of Black Lives Matter. They seem unaware that many of us don’t agree with what they are doing. It turns out that the ACLU does not necessarily represent progressives. In fact, since the 1970s the ACLU has been a leading advocate for the expansion of constitutional rights for corporations. Its advocacy of corporate rights has actually served to diminish its human rights gains.((Nace, Ted, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy. Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc. San Francisco. 2003.))
But the ACLU is an advocate for minorities, right? Not necessarily. Here is an example of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois response to a problem that Chicago’s black youth was trying to address: The ACLU bypassed black activists and made a back-room deal with Mayor Rahm Emanuel that has the potential to shut down dialogue on the issue of stop and frisk. The ACLU was negotiating their own deal secretly while claiming to support the STOP Act that the activists were trying to pass. The ACLU’s deal will not require the police department to release information about stops, as the STOP Act would have done. In other words, the ACLU’s deal won’t solve the problem, it will only make things easier for the city. ((Hayes, Kelly, ACLU of Illinois Sells Out Chicago’s Black Youth. Truthout, 14 Aug. 2015. Available: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32361-aclu-of-illinois-sells-out-chicago-s-black-youth))
The influence of the ACLU might also explain the curious fact that Black Lives Matter hasn’t shut down any of Hillary Clinton’s speeches. Maya L. Harris, one of three senior policy advisers to lead the development of an agenda for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was formerly a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. From 2008 until she took her current position, she was Vice President for Democracy Rights and Justice at the Ford Foundation. Prior to joining the ford Foundation, she served as the Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern California. ((Wikipedia: Maya Harris. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Harris))
The Nation Magazine and several other ‘Left-leaning’ magazines seem to be marching to a different drummer on the Black Lives Matter issue. Regardless of who that drummer may be, I’m going to say that the magazines’ policy on this issue is haywire. But so far they are merely issuing ‘polite’ requests that we all get on board with them in defending Black Lives Matter’s totalitarianism (yes, totalitarianism). Therefore, I feel free to decline, so far.
In any case, I think I’m safe in saying that this group seems intent on turning the travesty at Ferguson into an excuse for some very troubling behavior. We know this can happen—we’ve seen it before. Have we forgotten that George Bush’s excuse for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act was Osama Bin Laden and the carnage he caused at the World Trade Center?
Getting back to reality, I would still like to know who this movement is serving. As of today I’m moving away from the Clintons, since Black Lives Matter activists were recently barred from a Clinton event. However the group’s treatment of Jeb Bush might deserve a closer look. The media would like us to believe it was comparable to what activists did to Bernie Sanders, but it wasn’t. They let Jeb Bush finish his speech. They didn’t interrupt until the question and answer portion of the program. Not the same thing at all.
Black Lives Matter activists drove Bernie Sanders off the stage at his Seattle rally. Didn’t even let him talk. Thankfully he had over 12,000 people at another rally the same night. ((Brunner, Jim, Black Lives Matter Protesters Shut Down Bernie Sanders. The Seattle Times, August 8, 2015. Available http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/))
The activists say this is about Sanders’ indifference, but we all know that can’t be right because he’s not indifferent. Anyway, they clearly intend to keep this up regardless of how Sanders responds. The only explanation I can think of is that Black Lives Matter truly is the paid agitator everyone has been saying it is. My question? Who is paying up this time? The Clintons? The Kochs? Both?
Back off Black Lives Matter. We want to hear what Bernie Sanders has to say.