the focal point of my philosophy lies in this question of “doing the right thing”
what is the “right thing to do?” how do we know? to give examples,
is supporting IQ45 the right thing to do or is supporting Biden the right
thing to do?
I suspect the clues lie in several different places…we have seen
morality being connected to the law… but as been suggested that
the law and being moral are two, different and distinct things…
for example the morally right thing to do and the legally right
thing to do has been vastly different…
slavery pre-civil war was legal but it certainly wasn’t the right thing to do…
and the holocaust was legal but it wasn’t the right thing to do, it wasn’t moral…
and laws that make women the property of men is legal but it isn’t the moral
thing, the right thing to do…
both Gandhi and MLK spent time in prison because they fought for the moral
obligations to be fulfilled and that violated their legal obligations…
Gandhi time and time again, violated the law to do the right thing
as did MLK… what is part of their understanding of the “right” thing
to do and what is the “legal” thing to do…
they both referred back to “higher” moral obligations…
it wasn’t the law that they referenced, but the values…
the “higher” moral obligations were the values that they espoused…
for both of them, part of the “higher” values was freedom… for Gandhi, the freedom
to the people having sovereignty over their own country in India…
an India:
“for the Indian people, by the Indian people, of the Indian people”
for MLK, to have the African-American people be free of the odious laws
of Jim Crow… to be able to enjoy the exact same rights as the White people…
the higher principles of both men involved values… not ism’s or ideologies…
for Gandhi, the higher principle was called “Satyagraha” (Sanskrit and Hindi word)
“holding onto the truth” a concept introduced in India to designate a determined but
nonviolent resistance to evil…think about it… HOLDING ONTO THE TRUTH…
what truth is that? the higher values of freedom, of peace, hope, of love …
the values that rise us to being better human beings, not lower us into
being animals… those values of hate, anger, lust, violence, injustice…
Ecmandu brings up a point that has always bothered me…
the attempt to negate great soul people by bringing up their human failings…
sure, MLK cheated on his wife… but does that negate his attempt to bring
people into freedom? I say no… but why? every single human being can
be negated in this fashion… oh, him… Jesus hung out with hookers…
negated… it is a very, very, very easy game to negate every single person on planet earth…
with their human failings…why must we tear down those who attempt to
achieve greatness… because we are petty and narrow-minded and shallow…
if we can bring down the great ones, we are absolved from making any
type of attempt “to do the right thing” if the great ones have failed, what
makes me think I can succeed in achieving greatness… it allows us to
avoid trying to reach greatness… it is an escape hatch that prevent us from
trying to reach greatness…
if I see a great person, do I say, oh, he cheated on his wife or he beat his kids…
or do, do I attempt to reach that person greatness while avoiding his very
human flaws…Goethe had flaws and Hume had flaws and Kant had flaws,
does that mean I make no attempt to become greater then them because
of those flaws? I simple cannot become a great philosopher because Socrates
hated going home to his wife? Is that what I am suppose to do?
Avoid reaching for greatness because someone else failed in being human?
I can’t follow the footsteps of Gandhi preaching love and peace and
nonviolence because he wasn’t nice to his wife?
is that the message you are telling me? he failed, so don’t preach
love or peace or nonviolence?
Kropotkin