02-07-2017, 01:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2017, 01:05 PM by Eric the Green.)
First of all, let's get back to values. Is it really true that people hold irreconcilable values?
I don't think so. I think values are universal, and that we all hold the same values.
It's not either/or; it's a question of which values are more important to some people rather than others. It's a question of the right balance of values.
It was said by a wise historian than American politics revolves around three contests: rich vs. poor, war vs. peace, and white vs. black (or people of color). These are the prime contests between values. Of course, there's some overlap among these too.
And so on war vs. peace, first of all this concerns both domestic and international war, and the tools of war individual and collective. If we hold war as a value, then we hold self-defense as a positive value. We want to be safe from invaders. We recognize that there are people or animals in the world who might be aggressive and dangerous. On an individual level, that means we have to have guns. On a collective level, it means sometimes we need armies and police and need to go to war.
On the other side is the value of peace. We hold that it is possible for people to live together in peace, and that at bottom we can curtail and transcend our aggressive impulses. The value of peace says we are all one people, and we don't need to harm each other. So, we don't need guns. On an ideal level, we can go beyond war and dissolve the armies, and our police can go without guns too. This is also an issue of freedom vs. slavery. Do some people have a right to exert control over us, or not; legally or illegally? The value of individual vs. collective could be seen as a prime conflict.
Some people are actually aggressive and want control over others. They want to kill animals for fun, or say we need to kill them for food. Others want to rob and even kill people for power, money, revenge or love. They may value their nation and not others. I would say these people have gone overboard on the values of war, and need to remember that they also at bottom value peace; that they know we are one people and part of one larger being. They may also be religious, and thus at least know that this larger being exists. On the other hand, if they are religious, they may also think that their religion is the only valid one and want to impose it on others. This is overvaluing war again.
Some people may say that peace is the only value, and forget the value of war. They may think human beings are perfect, so we don't need war or its tools. They may say we need to tear down all government, because the state enforces laws with violence. They may say we should never go to war even if we are attacked, or even if some violent people are attacking our allies, or trying to wipe out or enslave an entire people who need and ask for our help. I might say they have gone overboard on the value of peace. Especially when those who say we need to tear down the state, then say we still have to over-value war by being armed individually to defend our lives and properties from the war of all against all.
So it's not that we don't all understand the values of war and peace. It's a question of the right balance. I say we need to redress the balance more in favor of peace, and that someday soon we may not need guns individually or collectively. But there's some value in war too, in certain circumstances, individually and collectively. These are values that we all share, so it's not an issue of values, but of which values are uppermost in particular situations. We do understand the values of others. We just need to remember that. Perhaps the conflict and political contest may be a little easier to resolve, then.
What about truth and deception, then? More thoughts on that later may occur to me. And more about the other two prime American issues.
I don't think so. I think values are universal, and that we all hold the same values.
It's not either/or; it's a question of which values are more important to some people rather than others. It's a question of the right balance of values.
It was said by a wise historian than American politics revolves around three contests: rich vs. poor, war vs. peace, and white vs. black (or people of color). These are the prime contests between values. Of course, there's some overlap among these too.
And so on war vs. peace, first of all this concerns both domestic and international war, and the tools of war individual and collective. If we hold war as a value, then we hold self-defense as a positive value. We want to be safe from invaders. We recognize that there are people or animals in the world who might be aggressive and dangerous. On an individual level, that means we have to have guns. On a collective level, it means sometimes we need armies and police and need to go to war.
On the other side is the value of peace. We hold that it is possible for people to live together in peace, and that at bottom we can curtail and transcend our aggressive impulses. The value of peace says we are all one people, and we don't need to harm each other. So, we don't need guns. On an ideal level, we can go beyond war and dissolve the armies, and our police can go without guns too. This is also an issue of freedom vs. slavery. Do some people have a right to exert control over us, or not; legally or illegally? The value of individual vs. collective could be seen as a prime conflict.
Some people are actually aggressive and want control over others. They want to kill animals for fun, or say we need to kill them for food. Others want to rob and even kill people for power, money, revenge or love. They may value their nation and not others. I would say these people have gone overboard on the values of war, and need to remember that they also at bottom value peace; that they know we are one people and part of one larger being. They may also be religious, and thus at least know that this larger being exists. On the other hand, if they are religious, they may also think that their religion is the only valid one and want to impose it on others. This is overvaluing war again.
Some people may say that peace is the only value, and forget the value of war. They may think human beings are perfect, so we don't need war or its tools. They may say we need to tear down all government, because the state enforces laws with violence. They may say we should never go to war even if we are attacked, or even if some violent people are attacking our allies, or trying to wipe out or enslave an entire people who need and ask for our help. I might say they have gone overboard on the value of peace. Especially when those who say we need to tear down the state, then say we still have to over-value war by being armed individually to defend our lives and properties from the war of all against all.
So it's not that we don't all understand the values of war and peace. It's a question of the right balance. I say we need to redress the balance more in favor of peace, and that someday soon we may not need guns individually or collectively. But there's some value in war too, in certain circumstances, individually and collectively. These are values that we all share, so it's not an issue of values, but of which values are uppermost in particular situations. We do understand the values of others. We just need to remember that. Perhaps the conflict and political contest may be a little easier to resolve, then.
What about truth and deception, then? More thoughts on that later may occur to me. And more about the other two prime American issues.