Many people are frustrated with the current political climate in the United States. The major parties have chosen candidates that have become quite unpopular. Within the Republican party is a strong "never Trump" movement, and there are many people who had supported socialist Bernie Sanders and have become disgusted with the system that vaulted Hillary Clinton to becoming the nominee of the Democrats. On the one hand, Trump makes outrageous claims and impossible promises (much as Obama did) to try to gain support. On the other hand, the director of the FBI exposes most of the claims that Clinton made with respect to her handling of sensitive confidential information to be outright lies.
There is a growing number of people in the country, who, when analyzing the choices before Americans ask how could this happen?
Some might point to our education system. Though it is taking larger amounts of money, it seems to be producing diminishing returns.
Others point to economics. Many on the left use the gap between successful and unsuccessful as justification for government intervention in the free market.
There is no shortage of issues to which blame can be attributed. From racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia, to "white privilege," there is always some monster in some faction of our culture (not the faction to which we belong mind you... some other faction) onto which people will affix fault... a societal scapegoat.
Part of what make these issues easy to blame is there are legitimate problems in most of them. We are, as Mike Rowe said, "...lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist." There are maneuvers attempted by large corporations that can best be explained by corporate greed. In other words, there are legitimate concerns expressed by both liberals and conservatives.
Ultimately though, even if everyone agreed to a single plan that would completely re-work the education system in the country, and even if every corporation was legally bound to ethical behaviors, society would still be burdened with envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony.
A civilization that is obsessed with how the choices of others negatively impact them is a civilization on the brink of disaster. It creates an urge to control (by any means) the choices of others. While it may start with the power of persuasion, it is far too tempting to avoid using the persuasion of power.
Of course, this does not mean that power should not be used in dealing with legitimate threats: crime must be punished. We should not tolerate the retention of the robber's stolen goods, the freedom of the abuser, or the life of the pedophile. Additionally, military force is necessary to protect our nation from foreign malefactors.
What this does mean is that people who are preoccupied with the flaws of other factions in society are easily manipulated. This tendency is observed in the Old Testament book of Joel:
"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong." (Joel 3:9-10)
The imagery of reworking plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears is not intended to be limited to inanimate objects. People who might otherwise be reasonable can be whipped into a frenzy if they focus on problems beyond their direct control. It has been used to make people believe the source of their difficulties can be attributed to Jews, to whites, to blacks, to Republicans, to Democrats, to the wealthy 1%, to corporations, to unions, and to churches.
If the divisive trends that politicians exploit to sway their factions continue, then the situation in this nation is going to get worse... it's going to get much worse.
Jesus taught a parable to illustrate the point:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
Though there are new and clever ways to express outrage and frustration with the flaws of others, they are, at the core, not so very different from rending one's garments, as was done anciently. Because of the central similarity, the counsel from Joel all the more applicable:
"Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." (Joel 2:12-13, emphasis added)
This is the key to avoiding the problems associated with obsessing over the flaws of others... addressing the flaws in yourself. Compare the amount of time spent in trying to fix the behavior of others to the amount of time spent trying to become better yourself.
In the end, Christ will come again, and he will take care of the great injustices in the world. Those who have indulged in envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will reap what they have sewn. Those who have spent their efforts to try and purge themselves of their envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will be rewarded.
Circumstances are likely to get much worse, but regardless of circumstances, the power of Christ can help you to be better.
Showing posts with label #behavior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #behavior. Show all posts
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Monday, July 1, 2013
Tolerating Unethical Behavior
John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks. He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down. He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)