Ken

SO—IS MORALITY a good thing?

In the previous posts I've pointed out that humans are innately moral beings: we can't get through a day without gauging whether a particular act, or our own or others, is good or bad—whether we should or shouldn't do this or that.

And, of course, it leads to the kinds of problems that proponents of the first two approaches—like Osama bin Laden or Sam Harris—would like to avoid.

But it's also true that these constant moral judgments lie behind both our best behavior and our worst.

Our cultures are full of moral maxims like "spare the rod and spoil the child" which advocate things like child beating.

Contrary to popular usage, the term "moral" doesn't necessarily mean "good" or "wise".

There are many different ways to try to unravel this paradox at the center of human morality, to try to explain it away.

Here are three:

RECENT POSTS IN THIS series have dealt with the question of morality, and its relation to the main problem we each face at our spiritual center—that part of us which struggles to discover how to go about being a human.

Those posts pointed out that each of us has been taught, in one way or another, that:

1. We are intrinsically defective, that
2. We need moral guidance to keep from being naturally bad, and that
3. The essence of morality is obedience to some master.

In some cases the "master" is a parent, in some cases a superior officer, in some an employer or a policeman or God (as relayed to us by the leaders of our particular religion), but in each case our role is servant or slave or subject to an external authority.

THERE'S A LESSON in the Egyptian revolution for gun-rights activists in America.

We don't need guns to defend ourselves from a dictatorship.

Let's break that down:

1. Egypt just overthrew a dictatorship, which itself had depended upon force, without violence.
2. Because they did it that way, the movement is in a better position to put a real democracy in place.
3. Because they did it that way, the casualties were kept at a minimum.
4. It was the dictatorial government that tried to move the demonstrations toward violence—because that would have given them the excuse they needed for a more violent crackdown.

Even though there has never been—and isn't likely to ever be—an official attempt in America to get rid of all guns, the gun lobby continues to make the case that Americans would helpless against potential dictators if they didn't have guns.

In other words, they think we would be less brave, less resolute, less capable than the Egyptians.

I disagree.

If Americans were ever faced with a real dictatorship, we would be just as strong, just as smart, just as brave.

We wouldn't need guns either, and hopefully we, too, would be smart enough not to use them.

At least, that's what I think today.

THIS IS THE FINAL installment in an analysis of a "conservative" email that's been going around.

The email began with a pretend conversation between a "conservative" father and a "liberal" daughter, which twisted the meaning of those two words so completely that by the end it was hard to tell who was who.

It continued with a list of differences between "liberals" and "conservatives"—again completely distorting both points of view.

So far, that list has distorted the positions of true liberals and true conservatives on the subjects of guns, forcing your ideas on others, providing for our families, and helping others.

It continues like this:

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

LAST TIME, WE FINISHED working our way through the first half of a "conservative" propaganda email which outlined a conversation between a "conservative" father and a "liberal" daughter.

The daughter thought that people who worked hard for American prosperity ought to be allowed to hold on to some of it.

The father thought that freeloaders and scam artists ought to get to live incredibly well off of other people's hard work.

The author wanted us to agree with the father.

The email now continues to part 2—a list of propositions about the nature of "conservatives" and "liberals":

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!