as I have pointed out, we in the west don’t have a universal ethical/moral theory
upon which to base our actions on… and we haven’t had a universal ethical/moral
theory since at least 1900… and most likely earlier then that…Nietzsche pointed
out this lack of an universal ethical theory in the 1880’s and his writing was an attempt
to create a “secular” moral and ethical theory…BTW, he failed…
we can see this failure of having a moral/ethical theory in the role of our actions…
bear with me a moment as I lay out the ground work…
I hold that the government actions and laws are moral/ethical actions…
laws aren’t about the law, they are the creation of a morality…
recall that the laws, the law governing such things as slavery and the Holocaust…
both slavery and the Holocaust was legal… as is the two world wars and the nuclear
bombing of Hiroshima… I hold that these actions are not legal or political actions,
but they are moral/ethical actions…and that is the difference between the left and
the right… the left sees governmental actions as being moral/ethical whereas the right
doesn’t…
to put this into concrete terms…bring it to earth as someone around here is always saying…
if you cut the W.I.C. program… (mothers infants children program which gives
families the money to pay for food for their children) that is not a political act,
that is a moral act…to save the taxpayers money on their taxes by cutting the
social/welfare programs that keep people out of poverty, that is not a political
action, but a moral/ethical action…if we kick people off of welfare to save taxpayers
money…we are committing moral and ethical actions that are no different then
slavery and the Holocaust… we are negating and dehumanizing people and that
action, however done, is immoral and unethical… white nationalist are always saying,
white folks first… but really why not say, all human beings should be first…
to say, someone is beneath me or he is 'barely human" is to make a moral judgement…
and then instituting laws based on that moral judgement is ethically/morally wrong…
and the grounds upon I make this statement is simple…
ALL HUMANS BEINGS HAVE VALUE…THEY ARE CREATED EQUAL…
if you deny human beings, any human beings value or deny they are created equal,
then you are making a moral judgement and if you act upon this moral judgement,
then you are immoral/unjust/ethically wrong…
and if you declare that some human beings have more value then other human beings,
I demand to know the grounds you make this declaration…
for there is no factual evidence that proves that some human beings are “superior” to
other human beings…
you might say that Einstein had more value then other human beings, but what
factual evidence do you bring to the table that proves this? we know from other post
that we cannot, cannot prove ethical/moral statements with facts or evidence…
what fact would you bring to the table to “proves” that Hitler was a more moral
person then Gandhi? every fact, Hitler killed millions and Gandhi didn’t, still
involves a moral judgement…to say the death of millions is wrong is still
a moral judgement… a value judgement…so at some point, we must make a stand
and decide what is "Moral/ethical…
I make my stand on the statement, “all human beings have value and are created equal”
and why this stand and in this phrase?
because to say, some people don’t have value and aren’t created equal,
means you have to wonder at the standard use to make such a statement…
how are we to judge that some people have no value and aren’t created equal?
to restate the argument… any budget passed by any governmental agency,
be it local, state or federal, is a moral document… it doesn’t lay out
our economic priorities, it lays out our moral and ethical priorities…
and that is the failure of the right… its failure to see budgets as moral
documents…a budget lays out the moral and ethical vision of a society…
the way we reach a vision of people being of equal value and created equal,
is to reduce morality/ethics to the lowest common denominator of existence…
as I cannot, cannot decide who has value or who is “worthy”, I must conclude
that all people are of value and all people are “worthy” of respect…
because I cannot decide on rational choices, who is not created equal,
I must conclude everyone is of value and created equal…
there is no way to sort out who is superior and above the crowd…
there is no way to “sort the wheat from the chaff” in human beings…
to decide that one is “above” the crowd is to make a moral judgement and we
have no grounds to make such a judgement… therein lies the failure
of Nietzsche… how do we go about finding the “superior” man?
how is that person “superior” to other human beings? to claim that
one is the “Ubermensh” is to make a moral judgement that has no basis
in facts…to say I am superior to others because I am… is to make
a judgement that the value picked has greater value then other values,
is to randomly pick a value that has a supposed greater value then other values…
if we think about it, every action we take is not a political or economic action,
but is moral, ethical action… our actions and words are moral and ethical…
we need to rethink what it means to be human and by making
our words and actions ethical and moral… we rethink what it means
to be human…and as the only basis for our ethical and moral beliefs
lie in the lowest common denominator, we must hold that ethical/moral
actions and words like in acting as if,
“ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE VALUE AND ARE CREATED EQUAL”
anything less is to make a value judgement that has no basis or
standards in which to make such a judgement…
we now have a universal ethical/moral standard by which we can judge
all human beings,… everyone, all human beings have value and are created equal…
and all our actions and words are ethical and moral in nature…every single action
and every single word is an ethical/moral statement about who we are…
any type of ethics or morality must include everyone… it cannot create exceptions
or exemptions…if it doesn’t include everyone, it has no value…everyone or no one…
Kropotkin