In honor of the day after President’s Day, here is the top five presidents according to a Gallup poll:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Ronald Reagan
3. John F. Kennedy
4. Bill Clinton
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt
To show that Americans know little of their history, George Washington comes in sixth, followed by president’s of recent memory Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter and George W. Bush; along with Thomas Jefferson.
All of this is subjective, but there is no way John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush deserve one vote for greatest US President ever, they should not even be near the top ten.
My list would probably be:
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Ronald Reagen
5. Andrew Jackson
6. Franklin Roosevelt
7. Teddy Roosevelt
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Harry Truman
10t. Woodrow Wilson
10t. James K. Polk
The farther down the list I went, the harder it got because many were advocates of things I oppose. But there is no perfect President, so each must be evaluated in light of their accomplishments and flaws.
After learning that 15% of Americans believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife, I place little stock in public popularity contest polls. Here is a scholars list from Wikipedia that more accurately reflects performance and deeds with a Presidents place in history.
# ? President ? Political party ? Average ranking ? Noted for:
?
1 Abraham Lincoln Republican 1.58 Skillful leadership during the Civil War to preserve the Union and abolish slavery, Gettysburg Address, Emancipation Proclamation, Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude, Homestead Act, Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
2 Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat 2 Leadership during World War II and Great Depression, fireside chats, New Deal, including SEC, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Civilian Conservation Corps, extensive infrastructure investments through the Works Progress Administration and other agencies, rural electrification, FDIC, Federal Housing Administration, Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Open Market Committee, National Labor Relations Act, regulations (of which the Supreme Court struck down the NRA regulations as overreaching), Good Neighbor policy with Latin America, Lend-Lease to be the "Arsenal of Democracy," Four Freedoms, Atlantic Charter, hastened the end of Colonialism, Manhattan Project, Japanese American internment, G.I. Bill, creation of the United Nations, overcame paraplegia, only President to serve four terms.
3 George Washington Federalist-leaning non-partisan 2.83 First President, founding father of the republic, establishment of many precedents through acts such as Judiciary Act of 1789, Residence Act of 1790, Bank Act of 1791, Coinage Act of 1792, Naval Act of 1794, establishment of the United States Cabinet, response towards the Whiskey Rebellion, relinquished power uneventfully after two terms. Only unanimously elected president (twice). Only president with a state named after him.
4 Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican 4.42 Set precedent for peaceful transfer of power between rival political parties, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, intellectual leadership for liberty, separation of church and state advocate, states' rights, wrote the Declaration of Independence
5 Theodore Roosevelt Republican 4.83 Charisma, conservationism, trust-busting, Hepburn Act, safe food regulations, "Square Deal," Panama Canal, Great White Fleet, Nobel Peace Prize for negotiation of peace in Russo-Japanese War
6 Woodrow Wilson Democrat 6.58 World War I leadership, created Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act, progressive income tax, lower tarriffs, women's suffrage (reluctantly), Treaty of Versailles, sought 14 points post-war plan, League of Nations (but failed to win U.S. ratification), won Nobel Peace Prize
7 Harry S. Truman Democrat 7.18 World War II and Cold War leadership, Marshall Plan, NATO, Truman Doctrine, desegregation of armed forces, Fair Deal, forced to make many tough decisions; "the buck stops here," ordered use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, contained the Korean War, established the United Nations (proposed by FDR)
8 Andrew Jackson Democrat 9 Greatly increased the power of the presidency, expanded political participation to average American citizens (but not yet women and slaves), "Jacksonian democracy," defused Nullification crisis, eliminated national debt, Bank War, Trail of Tears, refused to obey a Supreme Court decision, a colorful and popular personality, Age of Jackson, hero general of the Battle of New Orleans
9 Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican 10.73 Cold War leadership, interstate highway system, era of peace and moderate economic prosperity, emphasized free markets but kept New Deal reforms, enforced Supreme Court desegregation, World War II Supreme Allied Commander
10 James K. Polk Democrat 11.08 Mexican-American War leadership, annexation of Texas, acquisition of Mexican territories (California, etc.), settled conflict with British over Oregon Territory
The farther down the list I went, the harder it got because many were advocates of things I oppose.
Implicitly, then, you are not opposed to war crimes, slavery, and genocide.
Here's my list:
1. Governments Kill People
There's no #2. If I seriously had to make a list, it would be ordered from least awful to most awful. And even then, I don't see how I could stomach any of them. They are literally all murderers and thieves.
Regan was # 15 Clinton was # 21
Even Lincoln Stewart?
Yes, even Lincoln. Don't get me wrong: I don't hold it against them. Any of them. It's just that they're fairly ordinary (albeit generally quite intelligent) people who are put into positions where they have no choice but to be thugs. The problem isn't the presidents themselves, but rather the fact that we continually empower them.
Lincoln is loved primarily because of the role he played in ending slavery, and secondarily because of the role he played in keeping the United States united.
It's only the bias of retrospect that allows people to praise him so greatly for the latter. If the U.S. had dissolved, it would be no more remarkable than any other federation that's done so in the past. How many people still lament the dissolution of Prussia? How many British citizens are still mad about American independence? If you really believe in the power of democracy, and freedom of political expression and association, then forcing states to remain part of a union against their collective will is nothing more than a crime.
As for the former reason — abolishing slavery — I would be happier with Lincoln if he had managed to do so 1) without having to kill nearly a million people, 2) without laying wreckage to an entire country, and 3) as an actual goal of declaring war itself. That is to say, American abolition, much like Iraqi suffrage, is a post hoc motivation.
So yeah… Not a big fan of Lincoln. Sorry. He looks better than most, until you start to count the bodies. Obviously I'm opposed to slavery of all kinds, but America has the distinction of ending it more brutally than anywhere else in history. I think it's purely a rationalization, and an unimaginative one at that, to think that it could otherwise not have been accomplished.
Of course I do not condone "war crimes, slavery, and genocide."
I am curious though, what political leader you do support or what national leader is worthy of some time of recognition or honor?
You are correct in that they are put in difficult situations with many choices being between bad and worse, but what is your solution? You want to dissolve the union and then what?
When you are dealing with imperfect people in an imperfect world this is what you get. We can only go for the best available when their is no perfect choice.
Aaron, I'm opposed to asserting values — even ones I think are good — through physical force or coercion.
I agree with Aaron on this Stewart.
He looks better than most, until you start to count the bodies.
I don't think you are being fair to lay the deaths of all those who died in the civil war solely at Lincoln's feet. I think there is a collective responsibility both the North and the South shared for all the bloodshed. Pointing to Lincoln and saying, "This man is responsible for millions of deaths" is an oversimplification. I guess it comes down to the question, "Are any wars justified?" I would say yes, some are. In Lincoln's case using hindsight, the only perspective we have at our disposal, the question becomes, "Was fighting the Civil War worth the price for ending slavery?" I would answer "Yes" to this question. That Lincoln had the moral fiber, despite each death weighing on him like a stone (unlike G.W. Bush), to hold true to the principles of the enlightenment, makes him great. The Civil War needed to be fought. The outcome made better human beings out of us. Without Lincoln, maybe slavery would still be part of our culture today.
You say "Governments Kill People." Well, are governments a necessary evil? I think they are. I doubt civilization could exist without governments. We are too flawed as human beings (Aaron's point) to expect world peace by default. You have high moral standards Stewart. I don't know if you are a pacifist or not but not everyone is capable of being a pacifist. It's a nice ideal.
That is to say, American abolition, much like Iraqi suffrage, is a post hoc motivation.
This connection is quite a stretch. Had you said Iraq is like Vietnam, I would have agreed. One can justify almost anything as "post hoc motivation" but some actions have more justification than others i.e. fighting the American Civil War to end slavery over invading Iraq with imperial motives. There is no comparison. The suffrage of the Iraqis is clearly a red herring. Freeing the slaves, preserving the union, were genuine motives. I read Lincoln's speeches and I am convinced of this. Read G.W. Bush's speeches and your I.Q. level drops 10 points.
Aaron, Cineaste:
I won't belabor the connection between the Iraq war and the American Civil War. The wars themselves aren't very similar (obviously).
It's important, though, to understand that the American conception of the Civil War is enormously biased, and that bias rarely reflects the overwhelmingly economic causes behind the conflict. Our schools and books typically talk about the war in terms of morality, but morality played a relatively small role before the war began. The Northern states, although not slave-states, were still deeply racist. Northerners would not have supported a war intended to free slaves, even if that motivation had been offered them. Lincoln never spoke of fighting to abolish slavery until after armed struggle broke out, and in fact he sometimes spoke quite plainly of the inferiority of negroes, saying, "I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."
I'm aware of all the political excuses for why he might of said that, and I don't really deny them. I don't believe that Lincoln was a kind of particularly bad president, and neither do I believe that he was a kind of particularly bad person. Nonetheless, I still disagree in the strongest possible terms with the proposition that the American Civil War was necessary.
Cineaste, I would ask you to reconsider your statement that human beings are 'flawed'. Unlike our religious companions here, you understand that our species, like any other, is merely a product of an undirected evolutionary process. We are neither flawed, nor perfect, we simply are. Maybe you didn't mean to suggest that we were literally flawed, as if there were some ideal state to be compared to, however I wanted to make it clear that I deny such a suggestion. Aaron and Seeker, I think, really do believe that human beings are flawed, and I suspect this unfortunately colors their view of humanity's potential for actual philosophical progress.
What I don't understand, however, is what you mean by "I doubt civilization could exist without governments." Do you mean that, without governments, humankind would cease to be a civilization? Or that civilization will invariably produce governments, regardless? I disagree with both statements, but the direction of our conversation will likely be different depending on what you think. I consider it an equal possibility, with no insult inteded, that you didn't actually think about what you meant by that statement. I find that people tend to say things about the requirements of civilization or morality without necessarily even having a clear definition of what those terms mean.
Nonetheless, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be unrealistic to expect "peace by default". Peace is difficult. Peace is not "normal" in the evolutionary sense. It requires tremendous courage, patience, and understanding. But it's not at all impossible. Almost every one of us, every day, shows by example that peace is within our reach. Every time we resolve a conflict non-violently, every time we show compassion for another person, every time we interact without coercion, we are proving that we're capable of maintaining civilization without the need for paternalistic, armed chaperones. The division between allies and enemies, good and bad, is a false one, brought about by an innocent and altogether too-common misunderstanding.
When we use violence and force in an attempt to ensure peace and security, we only ensure the opposite. Peace is never achieved through violence. At best, violence can temporarily silence disagreement. At worst, and more commonly, it incites anger, resentment, and hostility. Although our historical, "winner's" bias persuades us otherwise, the Civil War was an enormous loss to America. Measured by human life, it was one of the most bloody wars in history. Measured in human culture, it demolished the South, and fermented hostility towards the Northern states that still exists today. And measured by race relations (the reason most commonly cited as justifying the previous two tragedies) the Civil War may have lead directly to the 13th Amendment, which finally ended slavery in the United States, but it did little to lessen bigotry, and racism remain plagues in our country even in the 21st century. Lynchings and other hate crimes were major problems in the South at the beginning of the 20th century, and it was not until the Civil Rights movement of the 60s — a largely non-violent resistance — that black citizens received full citizenship in this country.
Aaron and Seeker, I think, really do believe that human beings are flawed, and I suspect this unfortunately colors their view of humanity's potential for actual philosophical progress.
I think I clearly outlined what I think to be the biblical (and correct) view of the nature of man – both "flawed" (or spiritually fallen, or sinful, or broken, if you want to use more biblical terms) and beautiful (made in the image of God).
I think that taking an either/or position on this (man is perfect, or man is hopelessly flawed) is the real problem. What we need is an accurate view in order to plot a hopeful AND realistic course for humankind.
If you think man is merely beautiful and good, you will fall into the trap of giving him too much power, which as we know, corrupts – well actually, it reveals our fallen nature. That's why practical thinkers always design in a balance of power.
If you think man is only sinful, you never develop or honor his natural gifts and talent, and don't look to develop potential. This is the fundamentalist's error, which you rightly identified. But this is not the biblical or evangelical, nor my perspective.
Seeker, I translate "fallen nature" into "flawed" or "imperfect", a concept which I reject entirely. If you believe that there is something inherently wrong (or sinful, or whatever you want to call it) with people from their birth to their death, then my original, tangential assessment of your belief is correct. If not, then explain why not. I don't think your post above anything to the conversation.
Or that civilization will invariably produce governments, regardless? I disagree
You do not think so? In any society there are leaders and followers. There are strong and weak.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be unrealistic to expect "peace by default". Peace is difficult. Peace is not "normal"
So men are not normally peaceful, yet they are not flawed? Either peace is a good thing or it is not. Violence is either a flaw or it is not. You think violence is bad, obviously.
I think that is what seeker means when he says men are flawed. They are by default not peaceful. Which is basically exactly what you said.
I agree with Cineaste's list. That is most likely how I would put them, anyhow, and for those reasons.
I can see why Stewart would not want to make such a list though. I don't like politician's either.
It’s important, though, to understand that the American conception of the Civil War is enormously biased, and that bias rarely reflects the overwhelmingly economic causes behind the conflict. Our schools and books typically talk about the war in terms of morality…
Regarding economic causes of the Civil War I found this… (Granted, Wikipedia is questionable as a source but this particular piece is well cited)
I would venture that the Civil War really was fought for morality. I think Lincoln feed the moral force behind the abolitionist movement into a political argument against slavery. The engine driving his argument was “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Please forgive me for another Wiki reference…
Though “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” created many false stereotypes of black people, it’s hard to deny the shift in the the tectonic plates of our moral zeitgeist this book initiated. Now, I had better qualify my argument before Christians try to take credit for the morality against slavery. Stowe was a Christian but the Bible was used just as much as an argument for slavery as it was against slavery. I can prove this if you want.
Lincoln never spoke of fighting to abolish slavery until after armed struggle broke out, and in fact he sometimes spoke quite plainly of the inferiority of negroes, saying, “I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”
But Lincoln has also said… (notice the dates)
Cineaste, I would ask you to reconsider your statement that human beings are ‘flawed’. Unlike our religious companions here, you understand that our species, like any other, is merely a product of an undirected evolutionary process.
You’re right Stewart. How about “fallible?”
What I don’t understand, however, is what you mean by “I doubt civilization could exist without governments.” Do you mean that, without governments, humankind would cease to be a civilization? Or that civilization will invariably produce governments, regardless?
Well, I think that humans are a social animal. In large numbers we tend to form societies ranging from family up to nation. The societies we create need to be ordered lest there be anarchy. Hence, we create governments. Perhaps the institution of having a social hierarchy stems from our tribal past. So…
Or that civilization will invariably produce governments, regardless?
Yes.
Do you mean that, without governments, humankind would cease to be a civilization?
I’m not sure. Looking at all the past civilizations, all the successful ones that I have heard of have had some form of government. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Chinese, Aztec, Viking, etc. Without government, wouldn’t it be true that these civilizations would have crumbled? It makes me think that without government humankind would need something else to make their societies function. What would that be? I don’t think it’s realistic to depend upon civility. So, we would need laws and to enforce laws we would need government. I’m trying Stewart, but I don’t see alternatives to government for human civilization.
Every time we resolve a conflict non-violently, every time we show compassion for another person, every time we interact without coercion, we are proving that we’re capable of maintaining civilization without the need for paternalistic, armed chaperones.
Until you meet someone who is trying to kill you. I’ve had this happen and sometimes it is kill or be killed. Conflict cannot always be avoided. Not all conflicts are misunderstandings. We are only human. Maybe I am showing that I am a conservative republican about this but what you are pointing to Stewart seems real only in “Star Trek the Next Generation.” And even they have government :) If all people could be pacifists and vegetarians it would be a much better world but I fear you are ahead of your time. Maybe we need another Lincoln or King to bring it about? Lincoln tried the nonviolent route but the South Seceded. Ending slavery meant war and Lincoln ended it in 5 bloody years. The alternative might have been peaceful but it’s sure that suffering in slavery would have continued for many years in the South. It’s hard to weigh suffering in a war with the suffering of slavery. One thing is clear, former slaves were very willing to die in the Union Army to free other slaves. I believe they had moral justification. Ipso facto, Lincoln had moral justification.
…but it (The Civil War) did little to lessen bigotry, and racism remain plagues in our country even in the 21st century.
Ignorance is difficult to root out because parents pass their ignorance on to their children. I do believe that we are making progress. The Civil War was a necessary step; a huge step in the right direction. Put it this way, if I was given my choice of wars I could die in I would choose wars which I believed had some kind of moral justification. I think the Civil War is one of those. You will no doubt make the very good point that no war is morally justified. I understand because I hate war too. I’ve seen and read “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Then again, my family is a military family, and it’s better to think you are dying for something that’s worth fighting for even though dying is really just part of your job. All war is pointless, but some wars are more pointless than others.
I do agree with Stewart on one aspect, Lincoln (and the North by extent) are viewed through a historical rose colored lense in which they did all they did for noble causes. Some reasons where noble, others were not.
[Peace] requires tremendous courage, patience, and understanding. But it's not at all impossible. Almost every one of us, every day, shows by example that peace is within our reach.
On this I actually somewhat agree, but the transitioning between individuals and nation-state's is where the difficultly arises. Perhaps this is why it would seem your are opposed to nations. Does this mean you subcribe somewhat to Rousseau's line of thinking – society and government being the corrupting forces on man.
But I'm not sure how you can defend pacifism in the face of evil men who desire to kill us and innocent civilians. Ignoring the moral equivalence argument you are sure to make for one moment, let's boil this down to a simple question of the use of force – do you use violence to protect your family and loved ones from a violent person? Is that acceptable? To bring it into reality, if those who were in hijacked planes on 9/11 could have stopped the terrorists using force, should they have?
Another question, by what moral standard do you determine that peace is better than war? Why should we humans not use force whenever we determine it is useful? You argue that violence "incites anger, resentment, and hostility." What makes those the wrong choice? Why should we not embrace anger, resentment and hostility? We are not "fallen" or "imperfect." There is no universal moral code that binds us, we simply "are." No choice can be called "better" or "worse." They are simply choices. You may think it is wrong, but who are you to tell me that my choice of war all the time is bad?
Jeez Aaron, if you were not addressing that last paragraph to Stewart, I'd be all over that like white on rice :) I'll bit my tongue till Stewart can respond to us.
Lawanda: In any society there are leaders and followers. There are strong and weak.
Though I'm sure you don't mean it that way, your words are a common justification for the most horrible atrocities humankind perpetrates. If you think that hierarchies are acceptable, it is only a matter of degree to which you will find slavery, war, genocide, rape, etc. acceptable. If you believe that some people are "weak" then I don't really think we have much to discuss.
Cineaste, thanks for the response. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'll point out the thing which I most strongly agree with instead:
"I do believe that we are making progress."
I also believe that we're making progress. I think it's undeniable, in fact, that we live in a world with significantly less physical conflict than even a matter of decades earlier. I attribute this improvement almost exclusively to intellectual acheivements, however, and not to ones of force. I think you'd probably agree. The European Enlightement, various civil rights movements, and other philosophical revolutions, have contributed more to world peace than any "just war" has ever done.
Cineaste, I am interested in Stewart's response, but you are more than welcome to share your thoughts.
I should clarify that I was arguing from a devil's advocate POV, obviously, I do not support "war all the time." (Although, I am sure many would disagree with my support of some wars, but that should be saved for another time or place, which is why I haven't jumped on your comments about Bush's insensitivity to war casualties or the Vietnam references – too much going on in here already, no need for me to stoke that fire).
So, you reject everything without anything to take its place. Do you propose to go to a non-nation world, with no government at all? I'm just trying to get a handle on what you are suggesting.
Because it doesn't do a very good job of giving us what we want. … Kindness, compassion, and understanding are — even from a purely pragmatic standpoint — much more effective at producing happiness.
But that is a non-answer. Want if I want war. What if I am only concerned about my personal happiness. The way to achieve that is not to go out and be peaceful, which requires work for me and compromise. If my evolutionary response is to simply be happy, why would I care if you were happy or not.
So you have no standing to say the President's were wrong in any of their decisions, simpy that you perfer a different choice. How can they be "least awful to most awful," when you have nothing on which to base that? It has no weight to it at all. In essence the difference between murder and tolerance is simply chocolate to vanilla.
There are strong and weak.
I don't think Lawanda realized the consequences of what she was implying with this. Please forgive her. I think she meant, "there are leaders and there are followers."
Stewart,
I attribute this improvement almost exclusively to intellectual achievements, however, and not to ones of force. I think you'd probably agree. The European Enlightenment, various civil rights movements, and other philosophical revolutions, have contributed more to world peace than any "just war" has ever done.
I do agree. It was though the very principles of the Enlightenment itself that Lincoln went to war for.
Stewart, consider that there is always a price to pay for change. The more radical the change, the greater the price. Consider the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was the result of a power vacuum. Ironically, the Terror was the price for the Enlightenment. Consider the American Civil War as the price for emancipation. A war true to the principles of the Enlightenment.
Cineaste, I am interested in Stewart's response, but you are more than welcome to share your thoughts.
Aaron, perhaps we should try to keep this thread on topic and start a new one with the morality subject matter? I got into this a little with Silver Hallide to, in the "Christians and Elections" thread. I am still waiting to hear from him. He took the moral relativism side in that one.
Cineaste, I also agree that there is usually a price to pay for change. I simply prefer that the price be paid voluntarily. And for that purpose, I'm perfectly happy to pay it myself, however I will never recommend that another — even someone I disagree with — be made to pay it against their will.
For what it's worth, I don't consider my position to be one of moral relativism. If it appears that way, it's merely because I reject the notion that there is a specific definition of "morality" or that it can be empirically quantified. I have very strong views about what is desirable and what is undesirable, but there is no epistemological way to move beyond that point, and my views beyond that are purely pragmatic.
Aaron: If you’re only concerned about your own personal happiness, then what can I say? That’s what you’re concerned with. Do you suppose that some kind of moral verdict from me would contradict your personal desires on the matter? Maybe you like to have toast with jam for breakfast. And one day, I say, “No, Aaron, eating jam on Wednesdays is bad.” Would that actually have an effect? Would I even be saying anything of substance to you? Of course not. Neither are you saying anything if you suggest that “X is bad”, even if a lot of seemingly-rational people also maintain that it’s true.
I have as much ‘standing’ as anyone to say that what Nixon or Jackson or Jefferson did was undesirable, excellent, or awful. Anyone can say those things. I see no reason why I shouldn’t assert my own feelings on these issues, simply because I acknowledge that they are nothing more than that. What I won’t do is pretend that my beliefs about the desirability of their actions are backed somehow with empirical substance.
If you want war, you can have it. If you want to kill someone, you can do that. If you want to steal something, you can have it. I don’t think you should do these things 1) because they rarely seem to contribute to meaningful, lasting personal happiness and 2) because I’m quite certain it won’t make anyone else happier either. But the fact that these things are done every day is proof that any moral assertions against them have little intrinsic effect. You may say, “You shouldn’t steal” but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
People who want to steal will steal. People who don’t want to steal will not steal. It’s simple cause and effect. If immaterial moral rules are what cause those desires, that’s fine, but there are other, more grounded influences to be found, and I spend my time trying to promote them.
Now, your first question to me is a fair one: What do I suggest?
To understand my suggestion, first imagine a militant Muslim fundamentalist. He’s wrong, but he doesn’t know he’s wrong, and his mistaken beliefs are likely causing suffering to himself and to those around him. How do you remedy this fact? It’s not enough to simply tell him, “Buddy, you’re wrong.” It may not even be enough to actually show him why he’s wrong. The most popular approach is to physically force someone from acting on their mistaken beliefs, and this is true not just in foreign policy, but especially so in domestic policy. This is overwhelmingly the purpose of police. It’s overwhelmingly ineffective, too, in both arenas.
The problem with the approach is that it is deeply paternalistic. It assumes that “we” are correct, and that “they” are mistaken. And this is an absurd proposition, because everyone, everywhere believes that they’re correct, and that those who disagree with them are mistaken. That’s the very nature of belief. It’s just special pleading to say that, No, this time we really are right!
When our military strikes against a tactical target, those on the other side of the missiles don’t say, “Yeah, we had that coming. I guess we should stop this nonsense.” They just get angry, because while the bombers think that they’re enacting a well-balanced response, the bombees think that they’ve just been unfairly attacked by a vicious villain. And it doesn’t even matter if they’re totally crazy and wrong. The effect is still the same. These “responses” are a recipe for blowback. Similarly, people who are incarcerated rarely leave prison thinking they got what was coming to them, or that they should resolve to be ‘better’ people because of what they learned. Prison is a breeding ground for hostility. It is not an effective means for change, and neither is military action. Or rather, it is a means for change, but rarely is it the change we were looking for.
So my suggestion is to, on a purely personal basis, resolve not to use force and coercion. And that’s what I’ve done. I also suggest advocating this position to others. And that’s what I do. The attractiveness of my philosophy is that even if you think it’s patently ridiculous, you have no cause to be afraid of me. Even if I believe the most absurd, outlandish things, my beliefs will not cause you to worry about me. I’m simply not a plausible threat to anyone. Even to those who wish to harm me, or to harm people I love. This is the way I wish everyone would act, so therefore it makes logical sense to 1) act that way myself and 2) do my best to spread the idea to others.
Most people think that’s pretty dumb, and I fully recognize that. They believe that I am just asking to be taken advantage of. In some ways, I am. I mean, I’m not a martyr, or a masochist, but if being hurt, or being taken advantage of can act in a way to raise someone’s consciousness about their own actions, or the actions of those around them, then so much the better.
I could go on and on about this, but I will simply stop by recommending a book, The Search for a Non-Violent Future, by Michael Nagler. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but it’s a great primer to the topic.
Stewart, one thing that I can never say of you is that you are inconsistent. You understand your principles and where they lead. I may completely disagree with them and where they lead, but you at least acknowledge the results of your decisions – philosophically. I'm not sure you acknowledge the reality of what would happen if say America decided to go non-violent and renounce all war. Do you believe the terrorists would simply stop and let us live peacefully?
But on to the morality question (I have long since ceased trying to force things to remain completely on topic on this site, they rarely do anywhere because surface topics lead to deeper issues).
but if being hurt, or being taken advantage of can act in a way to raise someone's consciousness about their own actions, or the actions of those around them, then so much the better.
That's actually similar to the Christian standard, which most would limit to individuals, but other Christians do extend that to nations and governments. But here is the difference, as a Christian I hope to appeal to the offending person by showing them what they are doing is wrong. I am appealling to what I believe is the moral code that they understand. What do you appeall to? Self-fulfillment, but again as you said to open up your comment, what can you really say, but that is simply your feeling.
You hope that someone may agree with your feeling, but you also acknowledge that your feelings cannot be any "better" than the other person's feelings. Why wish they change? Why not simply wish they are happy doing what they do? Or why even wish or make the effort at all, if none of it really matters?
People who want to steal will steal. People who don't want to steal will not steal.
I believe that is true to a certain extent, but many are discouraged by the possible consequences that will happen if they steal or commit a "moral crime" punishable by the state.
But if you go and ask those people who stole something, why they did it, none of them respond because stealing is equally as valid as not stealing. They begin to make excuses for why stealing is valid in their case. They were hungry. The owner didn't need it. They needed the money. Whatever the case may be, they understand that what they did was wrong and needs to be justified. They aren't sitting down thinking of the philosophical reasons behind anything, it is simply inherently obvious to them that their action is morally wrong and therefore they must come up with a reason that excuses the behavior.
You can argue that the fact that actions deemed morally wrong are committed everyday indicates that their is in fact no such thing as morally wrong, but it also fits with the Christian explanation that humans are "fallen" and do wrong acts, even though they know those acts to be wrong.
People who want to steal will steal. People who don’t want to steal will not steal. It’s simple cause and effect.
Compare that with my statement : There are strong and weak.
The difference between our statements? I don’t know. There are consequences of my pointing out something so obvious? What exactly are the consequences? There are strong and there are weak.
Look at our economy: Walmart.
Look at our own history: Slavery.
Look at IQ: Ronald K. Hoeflin
I do not advocate the strong being violent to the weak or the strong being dominant merely by saying there are strong and weak.
If you think that hierarchies are acceptable, it is only a matter of degree to which you will find slavery, war, genocide, rape, etc. acceptable. If you believe that some people are “weak” then I don’t really think we have much to discuss.
I don’t believe violence is acceptable. I believe some people are natural followers. I believe some people are natural leaders. Leaders will lead. Some will lead violently some will not.
Hierarchies just are.
We are neither flawed, nor perfect, we simply are. Maybe you didn’t mean to suggest that we were literally flawed, as if there were some ideal state to be compared to, however I wanted to make it clear that I deny such a suggestion.
You compared two movements to rid our society of racial discrimination. Of one movement you said the Civil War was an enormous loss to America and of the other – the civil rights movement in the 1960’s you said a largely non-violent resistance — that black citizens received full citizenship in this country.
You have non-violent ideals. You ignored my comment about that…
So my suggestion is to, on a purely personal basis, resolve not to use force and coercion. And that’s what I’ve done. I also suggest advocating this position to others. And that’s what I do. The attractiveness of my philosophy is that even if you think it’s patently ridiculous, you have no cause to be afraid of me. Even if I believe the most absurd, outlandish things, my beliefs will not cause you to worry about me. I’m simply not a plausible threat to anyone. Even to those who wish to harm me, or to harm people I love. This is the way I wish everyone would act, so therefore it makes logical sense to 1) act that way myself and 2) do my best to spread the idea to others.
Wow, have you been reading the Bible? You have just described exactly how people who want to be christians ought to be.
but I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again
Be ye angry, sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
There are many more verses in the scriptures that say the same thing you are saying Stewart.
It is very admirable in anyone Stewart. At least, that is my opinion. I try to be that way too, even though I don’t always succeed.
"Wow, have you been reading the Bible? You have just described exactly how people who want to be christians ought to be."
Lawanda, you don't really suppose that I haven't read the Christian Bible before, do you? I'm quite familiar with it, and I would be lying if I said that my philosophy wasn't influenced by parts. Just not the metaphysical ones, I'm sorry.
I'm perplexed, though, how you could indicate that my non-violent beliefs were exactly what Christians should aim for, and yet still be in favor of executive authority? A position such as president, or prime minister, or even chief of police, is entirely counter to the concept of non-violence. They are positions that owe their very existence to violence.
Also, I didn't mean to ignore any part of your comment about non-violent ideas. It's just that I've done an awful lot of writing for this particular thread, haven't I? I guess it fell through the cracks :)
You said, "Violence is either a flaw or it is not. You think violence is bad, obviously."
I think violence is an almost constant cause of suffering. If it weren't, then I would not consider it 'bad', insofar as I define the word 'bad' to mean 'undesirable', and the word undesirability is a prerequisite of suffering. So to say that I don't like violence is to say, largely, that I dislike suffering. And since suffering entails dislike, we are speaking in circles. It's a tautology, thus no meaning can be extracted from it.
It's extraordinarily important to be clear about what these sorts of words mean, otherwise we are literally talking nonsense to one another. It is not the case that there are more or less correct definitions for these words. They're just symbols. It's the meaning behind them that is important. Refer to the A.J. Ayer quote above for an more pithy explanation of what I mean.
You have been doing a lot of writing for this thread! :)
Here is what I do not understand: A position such as president, or prime minister, or even chief of police, is entirely counter to the concept of non-violence. They are positions that owe their very existence to violence.
Much of the life on the planet owes its very existence to violence of some kind. Violence, especially if you include suffering, is a fact of life. There is not a non-violent (non-suffering) way for human birth to happen naturally. And it is ironic, because even though you can now get drugs to help with your suffering during child birth, they often have side affects that cause you to suffer afterwards.
You will have violence (suffering) in life, you can have violence two ways: controlled or uncontrolled.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Police Chiefs are positions in which, yes, violence is a big part. But violence that stops uncontrolled violence is something that keeps a society alive.
I do not see how those positions are any different than a doctor, especially if you are considering suffering.
Often a doctor has to treat a disease violently (surgery) in order to alleviate worse pain. Same with police officers….
Do you see what I am saying?
ah man. I stink. Sorry.
That's a good post, Lawanda. It's focused, direct and makes a good point. I have comments about the statement, "you can have violence two ways: controlled or uncontrolled" because there are more than just 2 kinds of violence and also the line between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" is very gray. I agree with you premise that "Violence, especially if you include suffering, is a fact of life." Stewart can respond with, but as human beings, we can choose non violence whenever we have the opportunity. What do you say Stewart?
"Often a doctor has to treat a disease violently (surgery) in order to alleviate worse pain. Same with police officers…."
That's a terrible analogy. A surgeon uses his scalpel at your request. Surgery is only "violence" is the loosest possible sense. Police wielding guns or batons is violence is the strongest possible sense.
Nonetheless, I understand the point you are trying to make. I just don't agree with it. In principle, we are seeing eye to eye here. Suffering is an inherent condition of life, and believing that we can somehow escape it is, paradoxically, a major cause of it.
My adherence to non-violence is not a principle, it's a practice. I don't think non-violence is inherently worthwhile, but merely pragmatic. My personal exploration of the topic lead me to the inescapable conclusion that violence, force, and coercion are not ineffective, but counter-productive.
To believe that violent action is a useful means to reduce suffering is to only take one side into account. Most people dismiss the interests of an aggressor, but I fundamentally reject that position as arbitrary. Additionally, the effect that violence has on it's actor — even when the violence is considered "just" — is rarely taken into account.
"violence that stops uncontrolled violence is something that keeps a society alive."
What does that even mean? Society isn't a real, living thing. It's just a label we apply to the interaction of people, and it doesn't require paternalism or violence. Every time you go to the store, every time you talk to a neighbor, every time you resolve conflict with your friends, you are engaging in society, and doing so without the need for authoritarianism. It's purely a lack of imagination to think that we're not able to live peacefully without a Big Brother.