Since the trial in Dover, PA over Intelligent Design, it must be obvious hat nothing was really settled other than a specific legal question. I think it would be a good idea for every one interested in this issue to find and read the decision handed down by the judge. …
Erich’s post about George Washington and not prejudging the opposition reminded me of a superb essay written by Benjamin Franklin about Native Americans, titled: “Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America” (1784). The essay is reproduced below and I think it illustrates why Mr. Franklin is considered one of America’s most important individuals.
======================================
Savages we call them, because their manners differ from ours, which we think the perfection of civility; they think the same of theirs.
Perhaps, if we could examine the manners of different nations with impartiality, we should find no people so rude, as to be without any rules of politeness; nor any so polite, as not to have some remains of rudeness.
The Indian men, when young, are hunters and warriors, when old, counselors; for all their government is by counsel of the sages; there is no force, there are no prisons, no officers to compel obedience, or inflict punishment. Hence they generally study oratory, the best speaker having the most influence. The Indian women till the ground, dress the food, nurse and bring up the children, and preserve and hand down to posterity the memory of public transactions. These employments of men and women are accounted natural and honorable. Having few artificial wants, they have abundance of leisure for improvement by conversation. Our laborious manner of life, compared with theirs, they esteem slavish and base; and the learning, on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous and useless. An instance of this occurred at …
Many people think that they are motivated to act morally by reference to a set of external rules. Not me. Although rules direct our attention to various problem-solving strategies, there are so many rules (and so many interpretations of rules) that people can easily "justify" almost any behavior by reference to…
Interesting missive, that moral rules, dirty secret, thing. Got me thinking. I am one of those people with too much stuff. I’m also one of those people who would just as soon give money or time to kids on the other side of the world as pay my own bills, but that’s a different problem altogether. Let’s call it a problem with authority, and we’ll just visit that one some other time.
I’m on mission right now to rid my life of stuff. If you entered my house at this point, you’d laugh at how, thus far, I haven’t fared particularly well in this area. Stuff has sort of taken over. None of it is particularly expensive or luxurious stuff, just stuff. I have kids. They like stuff. ‘Nuff said.
In figuring out how to rid our lives of the extraneous junk and the stress it inevitably causes – particularly when it trips me up in the middle of the night causing swear words to wake my children – I’m faced with a choice. Sell it, trash it or donate it.
Trashing some of it is a favor to all involved – junk is a kind word to describe much of the effluvia of childhood. Small plastic things, 40 drawings of essentially the very same flower, more small plastic things, pieces of other things we’re sure we’ll find the rest of eventually, single socks (even a shoe or two) in a house full of bi-peds but surely-the-mates-are-here-somewhere-and-if-I-toss-this-one-I’ll-immediately-find-the-other; hey look, more …
Many people feel that to be moral is to follow a set of rules. But there’s an implicit unwritten preamble to every set of rules or commandments: they don’t apply equally to everyone.
Consider “Do not injure or kill other people,” for example. Assume that two people have fallen off a ship and you’ve only got one lifesaver. One of the people is a stranger and the other is your mother. Should you consider throwing the lifesaver to the stranger instead of your mother? Most people would say no.
A second example: you might voluntarily put your life in danger to save members of your immediate family, but most of us wouldn’t offer our extra kidneys to people we’ve never met. We walk around simply assuming that having an extra kidney (when someone else desperately needs one) is not a moral act.
Here’s a third example: You have $100. You want to spend it on a fancy dinner for yourself and your significant other. You are aware that if you sent that same $100 to your favorite African relief association you could save the lives of two starving people. Are you allowed to spend the money on the fancy dinner knowing that doing so will condemn two people to certain deaths? Most people would say yes. The same dollars that could be used to save human lives can also buy jewelry, souped-up car stereos and expensive tickets to sports events. If you ever bring up this undeniable fact to a …