Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • I’ve been saying that we need to reexamine the influence of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in politics and religion. As it happens, that conversation is already underway. The following discussion is based on an article about Plato’s influence in Russia. Mikhail Epstein, Professor of Russian and Cultural Theory and Co-Director of the Center for Humanities Innovation, identifies the Russian approach to Plato as the source of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union. However, the Russian experience should have as much meaning for the West as it does for Russia.

    He begins by asking, What is philosophy? He answers by saying that although there is no simple, universal definition, the most ‘credible attempt is a nominalistic reference: philosophy is what Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel were occupied with.’ Then he provides what he calls the most broadly cited definition, that of A. Whitehead: ‘philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.’((Epstein, Mikhail, An Overview of Russian Philosophy. Intelnet. Cited on May 16, 2014. Available: http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/rus_thought_overview.html))

    If this is accepted, he argues, Russian philosophy must be seen as a part of the Western intellectual tradition. Russia, and especially the Soviet Union, has been unique in its literal incarnation of the teachings of Plato. This was made possible by the tendency of Russian thought to ‘philosophize reality, to transform it into a transparent kingdom of ideas.’ In the Soviet Union, this resulted in philosophy becoming a supreme legal and political institution, and ‘in its unrestricted dominion [it] was equivalent to madness.’ However, non-Marxist and anti-Marxist thinkers in Russia belong to the same tradition. The hard-won understanding they achieved in this process can provide an invaluable lesson for the West.

    “One might even say that the philosophy of the Soviet epoch is the final stage of the development and embodiment of Plato’s ideas in the Western world. During this stage, the project of ideocracy came to a complete realization and exhausted itself. The czardom of ideas arrived at the threshold of self-destruction because the substance of Being resisted the yoke of idealism, and it is now in the process of returning to its primordial identity. Thus Russian philosophy both summarizes and punctuates more than two thousand years of the Platonic tradition and points the way for a return to foundations which are not susceptible to ideologic perversions.

    “A relatively short period of years sums up a two-millenium adventure of Western thought which escorted Plato in his search for the world of pure ideas. Among these footnotes to Plato, Russian philosophy appears to the attentive eye as the final entry, signifying ‘The End’.”

    Still, I suppose someone could argue that the problem is not Plato, but one particular approach to Plato. Epstein mentions this as a possibility, but says the question has yet to be answered.

    “The question is: Now that Platonism in its Marxist guise, has been overcome by Russian thought, is it still possible to find inspiration in Platonism as such, in its sublime idealistic and religious interpretations? Or does the experience of Russian history convincingly argue that Platonism has exhausted itself as a spiritual resource for humanity and that all attempts to Christianize it are just wishful illusions? (Russia slipped into the pagan version of Platonism, while in the West, Plato’s ideas were Christianized.)

    “Whatever the answer may be, it is indisputable that the ongoing relevance of Platonism for Russian thought will provide the ground for its intensive dialogue with…Western philosophy also rooted in Plato’s heritage.”((Epstein, Mikhail, The Phoenix of Philosophy: On the Meaning and Significance of Contemporary Russian Thought. Intelnet. Cited May 16, 2014. Avaliable: http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/ar_phoenix_philosophy.html))

  • Previously I said that it was Putin’s turn to respond to Ukraine’s attempts to restore harmony. Recently he has demonstrated his good intentions. He sent a special envoy, Vladimir Lukin, to the region to help facilitate the release of international military observers being held in Slovyansk. He’s also called for dialogue between Kiev and the separatists. ((Ukraine Resumes Operations Against Separatists, Stratfor Global Intelligence. May 2, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/ukraine-resumes-operations-against-separatists))

    According to one analyst, the framework of the Geneva Accord still has the potential to promote peace, in spite of the fact that it appears to have broken down. ((Pro-Russian Separatism Poses a Threat in Eastern Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence, May 1, 2014. available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/pro-russian-separatism-poses-threat-eastern-ukraine)) The least the West can do at this point is take Putin seriously. It can’t be denied that he has clearly defined Russia’s stake in the region and in this conflict. The degree to which Ukraine and the West are willing to compromise with him will determine the extent of Russian aggression.

  • I’ve changed my tune on Ukraine. What made the difference? We live in an us-or-them world in which people are eventually forced to take sides. This is not only true of Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is never anything more than a waiting game there will always be places in the world where conflict is possible and where political leaders feel they must protect their interests. Unfortunately, the last four posts illustrate how this can derail the conversation. The us-or-them world won’t change unless we change it, and if we want to change it we have to continue the conversation.

    How does change happen? I’ve begun to think that on a certain level it’s simply a choice. However, before we can choose, the choices must be discovered and described. One of the most basic choices would be peace and prosperity—peace is a choice, not a happy accident. The basis of peace and prosperity is justice. What does justice look like? That remains to be discovered, but we could start by describing what injustice looks like.

    Reformers always base their ideas on historical models. The model for our age was constructed from the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas have even influenced the world’s main religions. The first step in investigating our choices would be to question these ideas and the structure of inequality they have created. I’ve argued that the creation of this structure was no mistake; it was deliberate. Yet every reformer accepts it as a basis for society.

    That discussion could go on for years, but I’m trying to stay with the idea of choice. As an example I’ll use my theory that inequality begins with the subjugation of women. Even though oppression is personal to the oppressed, on a policy level it is impersonal and utilitarian. The oppression of women is the foundation of a particular social and political organization. This may not be very encouraging, but it could also indicate that the oppression of women is not an unchanging, inescapable fact of human existence. It’s part of a specific cultural construct.

    In my opinion it would be a mistake to assume from this that women must change the system single-handedly. I don’t think that’s how it works. While there are plenty of women today who speak out against patriarchy, I suspect that women as a group are no threat to the status quo. What does this say about our culture, or about women…or about change? There have been woman-centered communities in the past. Is human nature different today? How about the female gender? Maybe the world suffers from a lack of female role models and archetypes and we just need a female priesthood and a system of goddess worship. Again, I don’t think so.

    My model is Minoa. Some will object to this on grounds that we don’t have enough information about the way the Minoans lived. However we do have archaeological evidence that they prospered for at least 3,000 years, and their city was never fortified. The adjective normally used to describe Minoan civilization is ‘confident’. By the way, those arguing for a return to goddess worship also admit that they know nothing about it. Yet the same people—the ones I’m familiar with are university professors—accept the idea of human sacrifice.

    Others might object to my using Minoa as a model because I reject goddess worship. Maybe they remember reading somewhere that Minoa did indeed have goddess worship. This requires more discussion as well, but apparently this belief is due to Jane Ellen Harrison’s influence on the interpretation of Minoan artifacts. I intend to discuss this later also, but I’ll say that although Harrison claimed to be revealing ancient Greek religion, her books are categorized today as Hermetic philosophy. Harrison was a colleague of Charles Darwin. And it is no dark conspiracy that our science is hermetic. It’s descended from the Rosicrucians by way of the Royal Society.

    As long as I seem to be making an outline of the conversation, I’ll also mention that Protestant Christianity is heavily influenced by Hermeticism. I once thought that if you found a system with elements of magic and the occult, it must be a pre-Christian, or non-Christian system. That’s not true. Protestantism is indebted to mystical and occult beliefs. In fact, elements of the occult can be found in all religions. The same goes for our form of democracy. For this reason, I would argue that Christianity can’t be excluded from the conversation. In fact, it seems it would be impossible to carry on an American conversation about the past, the present, or the future, without acknowledging the influence of the church.

    But I’ve gone off the track again. I wanted to talk about choice. I’ve said that I don’t think justice is imposed single-handedly on a society by oppressed people, or by anyone else for that matter. I think it’s a choice made at a cultural level. It’s possible that theology would have a place in this process, but I’m afraid our theology has become inseperable from utilitarian elements.

    In support of the idea that people must choose justice, here is an interesting fact about Minoa. The Minoans were aware that their way of life was coming to an end and they didn’t resist. Maybe they understood that if some members of a society choose to take advantage of others just because they are able to do so, the good times are over and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

  • Stratfor's Second Quarter Forecast 2014.

  • U.S. involvement in Ukraine is counterproductive because it pushes all the wrong buttons for Russia, especially now that relations between Putin and President Obama are at an all-time low.
    “From Moscow’s point of view, any form of direct U.S. involvement in Ukrainian security operations could grow over time into stronger assistance, possibly including U.S. troops on the ground.” ((Possible U.S. Involvement in Ukraine Could Heighten Tensions. Geopolitical Diary, Stratfor Global Intelligence. April 25, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/possible-us-involvement-ukraine-could-heighten-tensions))

    However, the Russians are convinced that the latest operation by Ukrainian security forces is evidence of U.S. military assistance. On Thursday, Ukrainian forces stormed several Russian separatist checkpoints in Slovyansk, killing five separatists and one police officer. Similar to a previous operation on April 15, the Ukrainians withdrew suddenly, reportedly after receiving intelligence of an increased risk of Russian troops crossing the border. However this time the Ukrainian personnel were better prepared and had more professional gear, such as body armor and small arms equipped with high-end reflexive fire sights. For the Russians, such a drastic improvement can only mean direct U.S. involvement, specifically through the U.S. security firm, Greystone.

    Their evidence is circumstantial and the Ukrainians have been denying similar claims for some time, but on Wednesday the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister didn’t help matters when he said, “Each day we receive [dozens of tips] on how to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We even conducted consultations with American experts, which…have decades of experience on combatting terrorism and they said that we are conducting a good anti-terrorist policy.” [backref name=“Possible U.S. Involvement Could Heighten Tensions”]

    If the United States really wants a diplomatic solution, this is not the way to go about it.

  • The situation in Ukraine has alternated between rhythm and discord. The music began when Ukraine decided to pursue an Association Agreement with the EU. The first discordant note sounded when the Ukrainian president was told that he must end relations with Russia. His decision not to sign the AA resulted in local protests, which culminated in Victoria Nuland’s phone call. In retrospect, this phone call was probably misleading. Unfortunately, it’s given credence to Putin’s focus on the United States. Conflict between Russia and the United States is certainly safer for Putin in the short term than conflict with the EU. However, he seems to be using the U.S. to avoid dialogue with his closer neighbors. In my opinion, Putin is on the line to respond appropriately to Keiv’s latest attempts to restore harmony.

    Ukraine’s leaders have responded to his concerns in two ways: by addressing the radical right, and by indicating a willingness to discuss the federalization of Ukraine. These things should have the potential to end the crisis, but at this time the pro-Russian groups in Eastern Ukraine are out of step. Regardless of whether Russia is supporting them, if Putin fails to call them to order he is at fault.

    Some are now saying that the United States’ presence in Poland is part of the problem. However, the American strategy has clearly been defensive so far. The administration probably wants to demonstrate support for Central Europe, as has been stated. The reason: if these countries believe they have been left on their own to face Russia, they might decide they have no choice but to make peace with Putin. NATO can’t handle Central Europe’s requests for help because NATO is cash-poor and divided. Therefore, the United States has to take up some of the slack. [ref]From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence. March 25, 2014. available:http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/estonia-azerbaijan-american-strategy-after-ukraine?topics=286[/ref]

    All things considered, it’s difficult to make the case that this is another Cold War as some on the Left would like us to believe. It’s not a conflict between the United States and Russia, except perhaps for purposes of propaganda. The U.S. has clearly been playing a supporting role to the EU and Obama’s continuing restraint supports this view. Harsh retaliation has been ruled out because it would damage the EU as much as Russia.

    No one is forgetting that Russian security was threatened, but Russia is not under threat from the United States at this time. Putin must work with his neighbors in the EU and Ukraine. Perhaps he believes his focus on the U.S. will win support for his personal agenda. Too bad Obama hasn’t taken his bait.

    It’s Putin’s turn to strike a chord. He should end this.

  • I’m reading George Friedman’s “A Forecast for the 21st Century”. So far, it’s reinforced something I’ve read between the lines in analyses of past administrations.  The world’s governments don’t act irrationally.  Our current administration is no exception.  A 2012 article on stratfor.com helps to explain the U.S. behavior.  Perhaps it even explains Harper’s panel discussion on the EU in which representatives of the UK, the United States and France expressed concern about Germany’s power.  It certainly provides a different slant on so-called American imperialism. While America’s actions might appear as evidence of an offensive strategy, they are primarily defensive. U.S. foreign policy is the result of unheard-of power combined with fear.  I’m not qualified to answer the question of whether the level of fear is grounded in reality in any particular circumstance, but after reading this article, you can decide whether it is justified in the case of Ukraine.

    Largely due to the rise of competition with Russia’s role as supplier of Europe’s natural gas, Russia is trying to create strong buffers in Central and Eastern Europe.  She hasn’t been hugely successful, but her cause has been helped by decreasing military budgets in the EU.

    The wavering of NATO’s focus on Central Europe has added to NATO’s problems, for example in Afghanistan. In addition, France has supported military coalitions in places not strictly of interest to NATO, such as Libya.  

    For the past ten years, NATO has easily contained Russia militarily, while the EU contained her economically, but since the Greek economic crisis of 2010 the EU has had fewer resources.  Russia, on the other hand, has a $600 billion surplus from energy sales and $500 billion in reserves.  

    By 2012, the Russians had increased their troop presence near Estonia.  They had an agreement with Belarus to deploy troops there in a wartime scenario, and they had deployed S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems in Kaliningrad. They also had plans to deploy the Iskander missile system there.  

    Russia has also been buying assets at the end of the energy supply chain in Europe, which will give it more leverage in the foreign policies of European states.  In this case however, Russia is in need of European investment, which will increase EU leverage over Russia. 

    These facts provide some of the background for Russia’s current involvement in Ukraine, which is tremendously important to her strategic plans.  Russian influence in Ukraine would integrate Russia into Europe, but it would also allow Russia to truly challenge Europe.  

    In view of Germany’s rising power in the EU, this writer believes–or he did in 2012–that a German-Russian condominium is a possibility.  Germany has always been conflicted between Atlantic Europe to the West and land-bound, autocratic Europe to the East.  A subtle turn by Germany toward Moscow would be a serious matter.  

    Europe is very much in play. Its future as an economic, political and moral powerhouse is not written in advance — as was smugly assumed a few years ago. The EU debt crisis is only the beginning of the story, with geopolitical aftershocks that will only become apparent over time.[ref]Global Affairs, Stratfor.com, May 23, 2012. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/europes-russia-factor#ixzz2vCJdWzhd[/ref]

  • February 22, 2014

    In this this article, I had two aims: to illustrate a principle about women and custody; and to help this woman avoid prison.  I’m still of the same mind, but I wish I hadn’t combined Barnett’s story with the source about battered women.  The source does describe what happens to women like Dorothy Lee Barnett in the courts, but it doesn’t fit Barnett’s case exactly, so I’ve deleted it. We shouldn’t demonize people who make mistakes. The culprits here are the court system and the judges, who should know better.   Family courts are influenced by the men who run Fatherhood Initiatives.  These men are also responsible.

    Dorothy Lee Barnett is awaiting trial for extradition to the United States. She is charged with kidnapping her own daughter from her estranged stockbroker ex-spouse. Almost two decades ago, her ex won sole custody, even though the child was only nine months old and still nursing at the time. She felt the child was in danger, so she took her out of the country. If extradited, she faces up to 23 years in prison. I just signed the petition “US Attorney Office in Columbia: Free Dorothy Lee Barnett – Mother of Savanna Todd” on Change.org.

    It’s important. Will you sign it too? Here’s the link:((http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/us-attorney-office-in-columbia-free-dorothy-lee-barnett-mother-of-savanna-todd))

    Updated, Feb. 20, 2014:

    Here’s the post of a signer of this petition, Bruce Michell of Australia:

    Dorothy Lee Barnett was let down by people within the system.  During her trial she was subjected to abuse and vilification, and the judge neglected, failed and refused to file his orders into court within the mandated 30 days and in fact did not file for 75 days.  During that period, and without the signed order, Lee was unable to appeal and was effectively locked out of the legal process which should be everyone’s right to access.  The evidence accepted by the judge upon which he wrote a scathing decision was in the main, based on the uncorroborated word of the father.  She was castigated as an untruthful person for denying that she had a mental disorder and all evidence supporting her and contradicting the father, was suppressed.  There is such a gulf between the evidence and the final order, coupled with the misconduct of the judge, that the influence of the father, his attorney and the Guardian ad Litem must be considered suspect and should be the subject of a proper investigation by the authorities.

    On the second visitation after the father had custody, whilst the judge had not filed the orders, the baby was injured whilst in the care of the father.  The injuries were consistent with those described by the father in his ‘autobiography’ during the hearing where he wrote that it was “OK to kick a baby in the face.”  Lee was extremely fearful for her baby given those circumstances, but could not appeal, given the lack of a signed order.  Lee waited another 6 weeks after this incident but still the judge refused to file the order.

    Locked out of the legal system, fearing for the safety of her baby she obeyed the fundamental law of humankind which was to flee to safety.

    These events are recorded in the chronology and the details are contained in the trial transcripts.  Lee was terrified of the power and influence of this man and remains that way today.  If he and his cohorts could influence a judge and subvert the judicial system, then the system of justice in South Carolina was corrupt and it is reasonable to question whether that power and influence still remains today.

    It seems that Barry Goldstein may have been too kind when he said the family courts were making mistakes.  It seems this judge was acting deliberately.  This is his own responsibility.

    Original Article:

    We recognize what Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail as sound principle because it’s in our Declaration of Independence. “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”

    In King’s words:

    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ((Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. April 16, 1963, African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.))

    Child custody law is broken, and American family courts are perpetuating injustice. Both mothers and their children suffer from this injustice, but it is the children who are in danger. Watch the video from the APN Newsdesk.((http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/mother-facing-years-jail-over-kidnapping-daughter/2153734/))

     

  • The dialogue about women has not been flattering lately. Officially, it’s centered around reproductive rights, but in between the lines the brutal tactics convey something else. Most recently we’ve been confronted with callous hospital policy. One hospital risks a mother’s death from complications of pregnancy. The other keeps a dead woman on life support against her wishes. Supposedly the abortion debate is about protecting life, however these extreme cases represent a clear statement of low female status. How did it come to this?

    Status is the value of one person in relation to another. There is evidence that female status was high at one time. The belief in the gigantic size of the Amazons was probably based on a misunderstanding—they were depicted that way to indicate high status. By contrast, pictures of Hindu gods with their consorts, indicate low status for females.

    From Moor's Hindu Pantheon
    Vishnu & Lakshmi on Sesha or Ananta

    Unfortunately, because hospital policy is premised on the absolute equality of a woman’s life with the life of her fetus, women in the United States would have to be drawn no taller than a man’s ankle. This doesn’t seem consistent with our ideals, but we don’t realize what it means when the issue of status is built into the world’s three main religions. The Bible wastes no time in ranking the first two humans in relation to each other.

    We don’t know what factors were behind the high status of the Amazons. However, there is evidence in the custom of bride wealth that it had something to do with the female role in procreation. Defenders of patriarchy claim that this changed after the discovery of the male’s part in conception. However, that’s not supported by the evidence. In any case, the male part is minuscule compared to the female part, and this was recognized in the custom of bridewealth.

    The value of the female role in procreation can be framed in the form of a cost analysis. Costs to the female include physical hazards as well as the time required for each pregnancy—9 months, not counting 2 or more years of breast feeding. Costs to males are non-existent.

    Consider also what bridewealth says about the value of females to their families. Bridewealth was a form of compensation to the bride’s family, especially to her mother, for the loss of her companionship and help. it was also compensation to the bride’s parents for the loss of her offspring. If not for the payment of bridewealth, her children would keep their name and remain with them.

    It was not the discovery of the male role in procreation that began the loss of female status. It was a philosophical attack on the relative contribution of the female. We know that Aristotle asserted the superior contribution of the male in the creation of life, and much later, Aquinas concurred. They claimed the father was the active agent and that the man’s sperm and the physical motion of intercourse ‘organized’ the lifeless matter in the menstrual blood. Further, both Aristotle and Aquinas said the ‘sensitive soul’ was entirely produced by the male. The semen is an instrumental cause, while the soul of the male parent is the principal cause.

    Aquinas added to Aristotle’s scheme by saying that the human soul was directly created by God. Nevertheless, he didn’t alter the superiority of the male’s contribution over the female’s. Theologians in the Middle Ages thought the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks.

    Later, Thomas Fieinus (1567-1631) argued that the soul is present from conception. The development of the fetus consists of successively emergent functions attributable to a single original principle brought to life by the motion of intercourse. Following Fieinus, Paulo Zacchia (1584-1659) argued that the soul which organizes the development of the ‘conceptus’ is internal to it.

    Finally, an 1879 article, Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life, argued that the principle of formative development is ‘immanent’

    With the development of embryology, you might think the female role would be vindicated, but that was never in the cards. On the contrary, the fetus is now said to be a separate individual whose right to life rivals the mother’s.

    But what about the physical costs of each pregnancy? They can’t explain that away, can they? You will recall that in Eve’s case, marriage was a punishment, and according to Christianity, there is no value attributed to the female for her role in procreation. At best, it might redeem her from her wretched state! The strange thing is that we see the practice of bride wealth, or rather bride service, in the Old Testament. Jacob worked 7 years for each of his wives. Jacob and Adam seem to represent two entirely different cultures.

    We can’t improve things for women if we don’t understand the problem. The female role in procreation was the basis of female status, but the protections and privileges associated with it have been systematically removed.

    The President is currently talking about higher wages for certain groups of people. This would be an improvement, but the lower wage paid to women is a special case. It is a conscious statement of lower status. On the other hand, if you think that your becoming a priest will improve the status of women, you don’t understand your own religion. And the abortion debate? It’s simply the effort to close the last loophole available to the world’s perennial subject class. In the process, its extreme nature masks the attack on female status. Those who are fighting Roe v. Wade may not realize how this draws women into the debate who would never consider an abortion for themselves.

  • The question of morality in political and economic systems has been brought into the national conversation by Paul Ryan, a follower of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand’s definition of morality is the morality of rational self-interest. She argued that rational and ethical egoism should be the guiding principle of morality, and she defined egoism as the virtue of selfishness. Morality, she said, is based in the needs of man’s survival, and ethical altruism is incompatible with the requirements of morality. Individual rights should be pre-eminent and laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that can protect them.

    Perhaps those who interviewed the young Ayn Rand on their talk shows were fooled by the fact that she was simply a novelist. Maybe they thought that if her ideas were simply made known to the public, the public would see through them. That could explain why they offered no substantial challenge to Rand’s claims.  I suspect they have helped to ensure Rand’s continuing influence. You might want to watch her interviews again with this in mind. She was interviewed by: Mike Wallace ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y)); Tom Snyder ((Ayn Rand and Tom Snyder, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFKnfN4bfk)); James Day ((Ayn Rand and James Day, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Zv8VpKmE)); and Phil Donahue ((Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q)).

    It is revealing that Rand herself chose to talk about right and wrong, good and evil, and it is therefore appropriate that the Catholic Church has been one of her main critics.  However, Rand had another purpose besides the promotion of her definition of morality. She claimed her views represented the ultimate truth about America, and she posed as a patriot when all the while she was working to redefine who and what America is. It is therefore appropriate that President Obama chose to enter the debate, stating that her ideas do not define who we are. ((Brinkley, Douglas, Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview. Rolling Stone Politics, Nov. 8, 2012. Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025))

    What do we mean when we talk about morality?

    The following definition of morality is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    “It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.”

    America’s definition of morality, on the other hand, will require more discussion. [intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]We have seen[/intlink] that the creators of the secular foundation for morality had no intention of creating a new code of behavior. Their task was to develop a new basis for the old code. This was necessary because the moral authority of the church had been destroyed in the Protestant Reformation.

    The Church’s morality is based on natural law theory. Natural Law theories assume any rational person can know the kinds of actions that are prohibited, required, discouraged, encouraged, and allowed.  The theological version of natural law, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, assumes that God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons.  The secular version of natural law, attributed first to Thomas Hobbes, assumes that natural reason allows all persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. These are not empirical claims about morality but claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by ‘morality’ when it is used normatively.((Gert, Bernard, “The Definition of Morality”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/>.))

    Ayn Rand claimed to have dispensed with all previous rational arguments for morality with her critique of Emmanuel Kant. However, of the moral philosophers who contributed to America’s form of government, Kant’s ideas were probably the easiest to refute. Kant, by the way, was not a natural law philosopher.

    Theories of Morality in Perspective

    According to Bernard Gert, the term ‘morality’ is used in two ways: descriptively or normatively. Descriptive codes of conduct are put forth by a society or some other group such as a religion, or by an individual for her own behavior.  On the other hand, the assumption behind a normative code of conduct is that all rational persons would agree to it, given specified conditions.

    A descriptive morality might appear to be a normative system within small homogeneous societies. However, in large societies not all members accept the same code of conduct. A natural response to this problem is to switch attention from groups to individuals. However, when individuals propose a moral code, they imply that their guide to behavior should be universally adopted, or at least accepted by everyone in their group.

    When an individual claims that morality prohibits or requires a given action, the term ‘morality’ is ambiguous. It is not clear if she refers to a guide to behavior put forward by a society; a guide that is put forward by a group; a guide that a person regards as overriding and wants adopted by everyone in her group; or a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. But when she refers to her own morality, she invariably speaks normatively. I believe this is how Rand meant her ideas to be understood.

    When the term ‘morality’ is used descriptively, the proposed code of behavior has no implications for individuals not belonging to that group.  A person who accepts a normative definition of morality, however, commits herself to that code of behavior. For this reason, there are serious disagreements about which normative definition to accept.

    The Reformers Compared

    Thomas Hobbes’s remedy for the chaos of the Reformation was to establish a new basis for the old morality–not to create a new morality. He thought that “If higher laws are not equated with intangible goods like virtue, wisdom, and salvation, then the ills of civilization can be avoided and mankind can enjoy enduring civil peace.” Hobbes identified the same human traits as Ayn Rand, but while Hobbes considered them regrettable, Rand arbitrarily called them moral. This is typical of Rand’s thought, but it is also evidence of a continuing ‘[intlink id=”96″ type=”post”]process of forgetting[/intlink]’, which was already evident during the Enlightenment.

    Hobbes insisted that there is no utmost aim or greatest good as put forth by the ‘old moral philosophers,’ Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Rand insisted there is in deed an utmost aim, survival. Further, the individual’s moral purpose is his own happiness. Finally, according to her fictional hero, John Galt, human perfection is ‘an unbreached rationality’. ((The Ultimate Philosopher, Ayn Rand on Human Perfection. Available: http://ultimatephilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/03/ayn-rand-on-human-perfection.html)) While Hobbes lamented that human nature is restlessly striving for power after power that has no end and therefore no happiness or perfection, Rand considered such striving to be a virtue.

    “Hobbes presented the materialist account of man as a creature of appetites and aversions: seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, and desiring power after power. The materialist account supports the view that no natural end for man really exists, only the ceaseless motion of a complex machine. The materialist account also strengthens the case against the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of man as a rational and social animal naturally suited by language and friendship to live in a political community. Hobbes’s model shows that human beings are selfish, competitive, and anti-social and that they are rational only insofar as reason serves the selfish passions. The logical conclusion was [his] ‘state of nature’ teaching, which describes the anarchical condition of individuals without an artificial social contract and a coercive sovereign to hold them together.” (Leviathan, Part I, as summarized in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Of course, Ayn Rand thought selfish striving was moral and that it should be given free reign.  Now back to Hobbes:

    “The mechanical model of man, however, [was] not sufficient to refute classical natural law. Hobbes develops a second argument based on moral experience, showing that human beings are motivated not only by pleasure and power but also by vanity–a false estimate of one’s superiority to others. In historical writings, Hobbes shows how the passion of vanity has undermined traditional political authority where kings have relied on higher law to gain obedience from the people. The defect of this arrangement is that traditional higher law doctrines are easily exploited by vain and ambitious men who claim superiority to the sovereign because of privileged knowledge of divine, natural, and common law. Hobbes’s account of the English Civil War (1642-60) in Behemoth illustrates the problem: King Charles I was overthrown by Puritan clergymen, democratic Parliamentarians, and lawyers of the common law who sought recognition for their superior knowledge of higher law yet who could not agree among themselves about whose doctrine was right, producing sectarian wars that reduced English society to the anarchic state of nature.”

    By contrast, Ayn Rand thought she could determine who among her acquaintances deserved her love.

    Today, Hobbes is notorious as an atheist materialist and advocate for absolute monarchy over constitutional government, but he was a major influence behind the natural rights principles of modern liberalism that became the middle-class materialist view of morality. Still, he would have disagreed with later thinkers who advocated constitutional limits on state power because he thought the sovereign’s absolute and arbitrary power was the only way to keep people in line. The movement to limit the scope of government to the protection of rights led away from Hobbes’s absolute monarchy and toward constitutionally limited government. This movement was led by Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, and the Federalist. ((Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/>.))

    Ayn Rand in the Real World

    The limited government debate should be taking place in the context of this evolution from Absolutism to limited government. In a more specific sense, the discussion of Ayn Rand’s ideas should be carried on within another context. Because of her support for both Big Oil and Israel, a tendency she shares with Paul Ryan as well as the neoconservatives who emerged from RAND Corporation, it seems reasonable to compare her ideas and influence with theirs.

    The RAND Corporation used positivism to develop ideas similar to Rand’s. Ayn Rand was motivated by personal experience with Marxism; RAND Corporation was motivated by a perceived need to defend against the Soviet threat to the United States. Also, both efforts aimed at redefining America: Ayn Rand wanted to promote unfettered capitalism; RAND Corporation wanted to promote American imperialism. Their methods differed, but the effects on the body politic were complementary.

    RAND Corporation

    “At its most basic, Kenneth Arrow’s work (at RAND) demonstrated in formal terms–that is, in mathematical expression–that collective rational group decisions are logically impossible. Arrow’s paradox, or Arrow’s impossibility theorem, as it came to be called, presented an unshakable mathematical argument that destroyed the academic validity of most kinds of social compact. Arrow utilized his findings to concoct a value system based on economics that destroyed the Marxist notion of a collective will. To achieve this result, Arrow freely borrowed elements of positivist philosophy, such as its concern for axiomization, universally objective scientific truth, and the belief that social processes can be reduced to interaction between individuals.

    “Arrow assumed that individuals were rational, that they had consistent preferences that they sought to maximize for their own selfish benefit. Arrow also assumed that reason, as he defined it, was not culturally relative but identical in all human beings, who act according to the same rules of logic.

    “Furthermore, Arrow assumed the objectivity of science–that its laws are universal and that there aren’t two different sets of choices for capitalist and Communist societies, as some economists had theorized before World War II…[He] posited the individual as the ultimate arbiter of decision, using the phrase ‘consumers‘ sovereignty‘ to signal individual preference as the basic building block of any economic system.

    “Arrow’s impossibility theorem, then, lay a theoretical foundation for universal scientific objectivity, individualism and ‘rational choice‘ while undermining Marxism, totalitarianism, and the idealistic democracy. Simply put, he posited that immutable, incontrovertible science tells us the collective is nothing, the individual is all.”((Abell, Alex. Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire. Harcourt, Inc. Orlando Austin New York San Diego London. 2008))

    Note that axiomization was also a concern of Ayn Rand.

    Paul Ryan

    As for clues to Paul Ryan’s intentions behind his proposed privatization of Social Security, Israel would be the place to look.

    About fifty years ago, a certain Ja’akov Levinson, the head of Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, took over Histadrut’s retirement funds…

    “During the recession of 1965-66, these pension and provident funds, which were previously managed by various organs of the Histadrut, were brought under one roof. The immediate purpose was to boost the ailing finances of companies such as Solel Boneh, Koor, and Teus, which were hurt by the slowdown. The plan was backed by Labour Minister of Finance, Pinchas Sapir, and the man in charge of the operation was Levinson. In a typical manoeuvre, Levinson, who had no intention of having the Histadrut executive looking over his shoulder, merged the previously separate funds into a separate pool named Gmool, which he then turned into a department of his bank, far from the peering eyes of the Histadrut Controller. Gmool’s deal with the government was sweet and simple. Half of its funds had to be kept in government bonds. The other half was earmarked for investment and subsidized credit, with the interest rate financed by the government’s development budget. The beauty of the deal was that the precise allocation of these funds was up to Gmool’s managers to decide – that is, for Levinson. In this way, Levinson crafted for himself an enormous leverage, far greater than any of his competitors, and one which he quickly put into use. The mechanism worked more or less as follows. Workers and employers would make monthly contributions to Gmool. After putting half of these in government bonds, the rest was up for discretionary investments. Of that half, part would be earmarked for buying new stocks issued by Hapoalim and its subsidiaries; this part provided Levinson with ‘free money’ (since Gmool had no ability to exercise ‘control’) as well as a powerful vehicle for manipulating stock prices (since it enabled him to control both supply and demand). The other part would be invested in, or lent to Histadrut companies; in order to get these loans and investments, however, the companies had to mortgage their assets to Hapoalim, open their books to Levinson’s peering eyes, and accept his representatives as director on their boards.” ((Nitzan, Jonathan and Shimshon Bichler. The global Political Economy of Israel. Pluto Press, London, Sterling. 2002))

    You might say that both of these examples are ancient history, that they don’t explain the Ayn Rand resurgence today, but it looks like they were merely forerunners of today’s Rand-inspired injustice. It is likely that the interest in Ayn Rand today is the response of ruling corporations to Dodd-Frank. ((Reese, Frederick. Defang Dodd-Frank to Protect Wall Street Vampires: A Look at the Proposed Changes. Mint Press News. May 7, 2013. Available: http://www.mintpressnews.com/defang-dodd-frank-or-protect-wall-street-vampires-congress-to-decide/157026/)) Although Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, it hasn’t been fully implemented. The House Committee on Financial Services continues to try to overturn its regulations, in spite of the fact that the four largest U.S. banks that would be affected by it constitute half of the nations entire economy and hold more than half of the nation’s fiscal deposits. These are: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. The collapse of any one of them would have the potential to permanently compromise the nation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was created as a way to guard against this threat, but from the beginning it has been challenged by Republicans in the service of the banks.

    Most of the Republican caucus insists the 2008-2009 mortgage crisis was a fluke and therefore, they say, the banks should continue to regulate themselves. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of denial. We saw the same thing after the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1997. ((Roger Lowenstein. Long Term Capital Management: It’s a Short Term Memory. The New York Times, Business. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-07ltcm.15941880.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&))

    Goldman Sachs

    I previously mentioned two firms that were top donors to Tea Party republicans, one of them being Goldman Sachs. According to one article, a managing director of Goldman Sachs is the Co-Chair of the Ayn Rand Institute. ((Martens, Pam and Russ Martens. Resurrecting Ayn Rand: Hedge Fund Money Teams up With Koch & BB&T. Wall Street On Parade: A Citizen Guide to Wall Street. Feb. 28, 2012. Available: http://wallstreetonparade.com/resurrecting-ayn-rand-hedge-fund-money-teams-up-with-koch-bbt/))

    What’s really at stake?

    This isn’t really a partisan issue, although Rand, Ryan and others try to frame it as such. It isn’t capitalism against big government at all. This is about a few powerful corporations becoming more powerful than the government. In support of this assertion, I’ll close with a strongly worded critique of Rand’s ideas in the Wall Street Journal. It seems a fitting conclusion to the discussion that Ayn Rand initiated about morality:

    “We have lost the collective spirit that led 57 capitalists to risk their lives and fortunes signing the Declaration of Independence. That’s dead. Today it’s “every man for himself” in a capitalist anarchy.

    You ask, why do we embrace our own demise like out-of-control addicts? In behavioral economics, as in classical Greek drama, Jungian psychology and cultural mythologies … all the battles we see “out there” are actually projections of unresolved conflicts raging deep within our own souls … we’re rehashing old traumas projected on the outside world as battles between our highest ideals and our darkest secrets … classic battles between good and evil.
    But they are conflicts buried deep in what Jung called “The Shadow,” a prison of dark secrets we cannot admit even to ourselves. In there, fierce battles are fought for the possession of our immortal souls … projected onto news, politics and finance, in television and films, theater, literature, history and dreams, at the dinner table and in the bedroom, “out there” we try to resolve our innermost secrets, never fully understanding how our minds are tricking us into inaction.

    And as our individual souls and our collective unconscious splits further and further apart, eventually we will collectively implode and collapse.” ((Farrell, Paul. B. Ayn Rand’s Death of the Soul of Capitalism. The Wall Street Journal, Market Watch. June 14, 2011. Available: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ayn-rands-death-of-the-soul-of-capitalism-2011-06-14?pagenumber=2))

error: Content is protected !!