FROM INDIVIDUAL BELIEF TO UNIVERSAL MORALITY

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

FROM INDIVIDUAL BELIEF TO UNIVERSAL MORALITY

People believe what they want to believe so they can feel how they want to feel. Emotional reactivity is quick, and judging is easy. Rational deliberation is slow, and thinking is hard. So, the former is the instinctive and popular choice for seeking a favorable outcome in response to a present difficulty. The use of rational analysis by logical thinking based on objective data to understand reality is not the popular choice. Using the rational method to seek universally equitable moral outcomes, in terms of individually experienced benefits and individually assumed responsibilities, is the least popular use of the rational method of engagement with reality. The elimination of existential threats of global scope, or the most effective responses to attenuate them, can only be realized by the universal acceptance of the rational method guided by an equalizing morality. The quality of an individual’s moral character, and of a collective’s politics, can be determined by which of these factors dominate its composition. — And, from all of this we generate our futures.

<><><><><><><>

1 thought on “FROM INDIVIDUAL BELIEF TO UNIVERSAL MORALITY

  1. WHY IS MODERN “LEFTISM” DIVORCED FROM WORKING CLASS UNION MILITANCY?

    Because of military Keynesianism and post WWII prosperity in the USA, and post WWII democratic socialism and “rebuilding” expanded economic activity in Europe (primarily Western), the proletariat became part of the bourgeoisie (petite) and their revolutionary fervor was dissipated into liberal reformism. And their now economically more-liberated children were college educated and sought advancement in the professional classes — and not as apprentices to their parents as day laborers and in craft and labor unions. So post WWII “leftism” — in the privileged parts of the world — increasingly became a recreational affectation of “intellectuals” (both real ones, like Jean-Paul Sartre, and poseurs, like today’s Internet-broadcasting “anti-imperialist” dimwits). This evolution — or dissolution — of the proletarian political consciousness from Anarcho-syndicalism and Marxism, to liberal parliamentarianism, was recognized in 1955 by Raymond Aron and expounded upon in his book ‘The Opium of the Intellectuals.’ That “opium” for these “intellectuals” was/is a supra-proletarian Marxism that functions as a secular religion for their otherwise empty consumerist selves. And as we have all always known, having a “religion” is the surest way of being able to ignore and bypass any considerations of morality (the real kind, not the fictitious moralisms concocted by exclusionary religiosity).

Comments are closed.