The RISE OF THE MORALLY INDIGNANT
Liberals give the impression of believing that the greatness of America can be attributed to the ethic of personal liberty, respect for the individual's constitutional rights and the democratic process. They value systematic procedure over ethical substance.
But emphasizing form over substance misses the mark. Many "democratic" nations have not been successful, no better than some autocratic ones, and some autocratic nations do better than some democratic ones. It is evidently not simply going through the motions of democracy that makes a difference. So what makes the difference?
The greatness of a nation and a people, I believe, depends on the deeply held moral and ethical values of its citizens. This is what shapes its laws, its customs, its policies, and generally, the way things are done.We are familiar with this when we hear the phrase "The American Way".
The American Way has been enormously successful by practically every measure. But it is not the way this nation has done things that has made it great, but rather, the why that is its cause.
This "Why" I attribute to the ethical values and world-vision of its people. These ethical values and this world-vision were primarily Christian. But what is interesting is not that the nation was a Christian one. After all, many other nations have also been Christian nations, but these had not attained the same level of success, so it cannot be attributed solely to this particular religious ethic.
A comparison of these different Christian nations reveals these salient points: the more highly successful ones have a system of Christian ethical values that originate from the bottom-up, the so-called "grass roots." These moral and ethical values are deeply held in the individuals themselves, which later finds their expression through the democratic process in the laws and policies of the nation.
The less successful ones bear this trait: the ethical system has been imposed from the top-down by an elite, whether religious or secular.
Elite, top-down systems of government have proven to be disadvantaged in every case with respect to democratic ones where the moral and ethical values are Christian or similar to Christian ones. It is the combination of bottom-up, democratic systems coupled with individual citizens' Christian ethical values that have made the difference.
The US, however, is in the process of following the lead of Europe in abandoning the Christian ethic, and is replacing this with what could be called the ethic of the "morally indignant." The moral authority of these "morally indignant" ones stems from the claimed or invented historical victimization of an oppressed or persecuted class to which they claim inclusion. The trend, now, seems to be including anyone of these classes who is offended for any reason at all. They are effectively creating a right to not be offended.
The standard of morality that is coming into existence ad hoc is evidently proportional to the strength of the indignation felt and expressed; that is, the more indignation one feels, the more immoral the offense. So moral authority is drawn from one's feeling of indignation over a perceived offense. This is now the source of moral authority for the modern age: feelings...... mere feelings. But not just anyones feelings, but only those of the class of victims of "historical injustices."
This has been a very shrewd use of the guilt many people have been made to feel. It is ironic that the evocation of guilt for manipulative purposes depended on the Christian ethical paradigm that had permeated Western culture. If people in the west were made to feel guilty for any historical injustices, it is only because of the cultural assumptions that had as their source the Christian ethical principles that underlay Western culture. It is not likely that one could make communists or nazis feel this same sort of collective guilt.
But emphasizing form over substance misses the mark. Many "democratic" nations have not been successful, no better than some autocratic ones, and some autocratic nations do better than some democratic ones. It is evidently not simply going through the motions of democracy that makes a difference. So what makes the difference?
The greatness of a nation and a people, I believe, depends on the deeply held moral and ethical values of its citizens. This is what shapes its laws, its customs, its policies, and generally, the way things are done.We are familiar with this when we hear the phrase "The American Way".
The American Way has been enormously successful by practically every measure. But it is not the way this nation has done things that has made it great, but rather, the why that is its cause.
This "Why" I attribute to the ethical values and world-vision of its people. These ethical values and this world-vision were primarily Christian. But what is interesting is not that the nation was a Christian one. After all, many other nations have also been Christian nations, but these had not attained the same level of success, so it cannot be attributed solely to this particular religious ethic.
A comparison of these different Christian nations reveals these salient points: the more highly successful ones have a system of Christian ethical values that originate from the bottom-up, the so-called "grass roots." These moral and ethical values are deeply held in the individuals themselves, which later finds their expression through the democratic process in the laws and policies of the nation.
The less successful ones bear this trait: the ethical system has been imposed from the top-down by an elite, whether religious or secular.
Elite, top-down systems of government have proven to be disadvantaged in every case with respect to democratic ones where the moral and ethical values are Christian or similar to Christian ones. It is the combination of bottom-up, democratic systems coupled with individual citizens' Christian ethical values that have made the difference.
The US, however, is in the process of following the lead of Europe in abandoning the Christian ethic, and is replacing this with what could be called the ethic of the "morally indignant." The moral authority of these "morally indignant" ones stems from the claimed or invented historical victimization of an oppressed or persecuted class to which they claim inclusion. The trend, now, seems to be including anyone of these classes who is offended for any reason at all. They are effectively creating a right to not be offended.
The standard of morality that is coming into existence ad hoc is evidently proportional to the strength of the indignation felt and expressed; that is, the more indignation one feels, the more immoral the offense. So moral authority is drawn from one's feeling of indignation over a perceived offense. This is now the source of moral authority for the modern age: feelings...... mere feelings. But not just anyones feelings, but only those of the class of victims of "historical injustices."
This has been a very shrewd use of the guilt many people have been made to feel. It is ironic that the evocation of guilt for manipulative purposes depended on the Christian ethical paradigm that had permeated Western culture. If people in the west were made to feel guilty for any historical injustices, it is only because of the cultural assumptions that had as their source the Christian ethical principles that underlay Western culture. It is not likely that one could make communists or nazis feel this same sort of collective guilt.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 10:09 AM
1 Comments:
Well written article.
Post a Comment
<< Home