A Virtuous Life Is Found In Kindness, Tolerance, and Reason

One thing that is striking about the modern life is how unfashionable it has become to strive towards what used to be called gentlemanly behaviour.   Perhaps civility might be a more appropriate label, since gentlemanly tends to invoke an image of the well-to-do, well-dressed, and aloof.  Although civility itself is too often cold, a dissembling of rudeness through an overuse of politeness, and politeness often a custom or outward mannerism.

Then let us just say a definition of the virtuous life is one that embraces knowledge, kindness, and tolerance, a humanity fueled not merely by sentiment or a disposition of character, but by reason coupled with a moral sentiment and an abiding regard for others. 

It is at heart a question of 'what does it mean to be human?'   Not so much what can I do, but what ought I to do?   And how do I define or describe ought?  And how ought I treat others?  Or is it better to define myself by the limits of my own will?  Is that what it means to be truly human?

This is fairly basic coming of age stuff, but not so much in a time of the permanently and obsessively adolescent.    In a society that worships the self, power is the coin of the realm, where power is to be found in asserting one's own will over others.  

And beyond all doubt, kindness and tolerance are to be despised as undermining, weakening the will to power.   In power is to be found the definition of all truth, for it dictates all, and does not bend a knee to any other reality but its own interpretation.  Might makes right is written large on the tableau of empire.

Even in such a matter as a most terrible and unjust assault committed on those who may have offended uneducated minds, those who rightly rise to the defense of freedom and tolerance, which as a society we should, can do so in the most intolerant, hateful, and unreasonable of manners.

And in doing so they may think themselves virtuous and wise.  They attack others with the heavy-handed zealousness of the worst true believers whom they despise, when what they believe is only in their own imagined superiority of belief or unbelief, or color or manner or lifestyle, which is demonstrably the vainest of idols.
 

So they can say that since these perpetrators were religious in the most extreme sense of their motivation, 'all religion is deserving of insults and disrespect' because it is wrong, and demean and dehumanize all those who think differently than themselves.   

They see themselves as not in the least selective or extreme, but are free to insult and disrespect others by abusing their freedom, which in itself may be no real fault.  Comedy at its most basic level can often be some abuse of convention or reason, that which shocks our expectations without undue harm.

But then they seem to imagine themselves superior to the worst of those whom they despise, who may act overtly on their similar intolerance and hatred of others.   And so they become unfunny, hypocrites and bullies. 

It is the very hallmark of a smugly self-absorbed mind to commit the same offense as another, while seeking to call out the faults of the other with the fists of their words, and think themselves virtuous and justified because in the kingdom of their own mind 'they deserve it.'

How then are they different from the undereducated and oppressed who in their own ignorance and relative powerlessness resort to violence?  It is like the white collar criminal who thinks themselves morally justified and blameless because they use the pen and the bribe and perversion of justice to steal, rather than the knife or the club.

If there is anything to be learned from all this, it is that we are all capable of enormous hypocrisies and evil, if we think ourselves to be perfect and without fault because we are more than the ordinary human by our superior nature, rising in our own esteem by knocking others flat.  

When it is not just a pathological sickness, this is the most deadly of errors, the first fault of pride, and from it flows a cornucopia of all other injustice and abuses.  In rationalizing ourselves by dehumanizing others, we can therein comfortably become monsters.  And some do.

"It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate...

...his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome.

He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out...

 

If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive.

Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity.

He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honours the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration..."

John Henry Newman

The Ongoing Debate Between Power and Conscience, Secrecy and Its Abuses

"At its very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one's fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies. After all, Hitler states in an early edition of 'his' book:  'It is unbelievable, to what extent one must betray a people in order to rule it.'

If at the start this cancerous growth in the nation was not particularly noticeable, it was only because there were still enough forces at work that operated for the good, so that it was kept under control.

As it grew larger, however, and finally in an ultimate spurt of growth attained ruling power, the tumor broke open, as it were, and infected the whole body.

The greater part of its former opponents went into hiding. The German intellectuals fled to their cellars, there, like plants struggling in the dark, away from light and sun, to gradually choke to death."

The White Rose
Second Leaflet
Munich, 1942


"We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was 'legal,' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary [in 1956] was 'illegal.'

Martin Luther King


"All frauds, like the wall daubed with untempered mortar, with which men think to buttress up an edifice, always tend to the decay of what they are devised to support."

Richard Whately

I do not claim to have any particular authority in this difficult area of policy and ethics, except to note that we learn from history that this is a debate that must happen, always. Power that becomes too concentrated, that is accustomed to operating in secret, is deadly to a free society.

Individual judgment can be a dangerous thing. The great variety of people can rationalize almost any action in their private mind, whether it be a principled stand for justice, or a destructive and unjust act of violence.

As always, there is danger in the extremes.

We have seen, over and over as groups or self-defining classes of people come to power, that they can tend to rationalize actions that in retrospect were clearly not in the public interest, but largely in their own, from making their tasks more effective to lining their pockets with funds and abusing power.

Transparency, debate, and freedom of speech are the necessary safeguards that our Constitution has ensured.  This has been one of the greatest and most effective innovations in political theory.

One of my greatest ongoing concerns is the secrecy and incestuous dealing between the government and the financial sector, bonded by enormous amounts of money and mutual power. I am convinced that this corruption is impairing the real economy for the indulgence of a privileged few, who have set themselves above the people, and above the law.

So I present this debate to provoke some additional thought on the subject.

One thing I will say is that the vilification of the messenger, in this case Snowden, by the mainstream media in the States has been disappointing, and at times, almost surreal.

But why does that surprise us?  We have seen the same thing occurring in numerous whistle blower cases, including the slurs and marginalization against those who have stood up to expose corruption and fraud in the markets, even by otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people.   That is a culture of conformity, the status quo, and the enabling of a power that will, in the end, serve only itself.

I promised you that this would be a time of 'revelations.'  And that process is not done, but continues.  My greatest concern is that given enough time and official messaging that people will come to accept almost anything, and come to thrive on the spectacles of misery.  That is the Hunger Games.

A Plea for Civility

"When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency."

Samuel Johnson


"As citizens we have to be more thoughtful and more educated and more informed. I turn on the TV and I see these grown people screaming at each other, and I think, well, if we don't get our civility back we're in trouble."

Emmylou Harris


“Civility means a great deal more than just being nice to one another. It is complex and encompasses learning how to connect successfully and live well with others, developing thoughtfulness, and fostering effective self-expression and communication. Civility includes courtesy, politeness, mutual respect, fairness, good manners...”

Pier Massimo Forni

I recall having cautioned you all that we have entered a period of hysteria several times. I saw this phase coming years ago. And here we are.

1.Exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement.

2.A psychological disorder whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms, selective amnesia, susceptibility to autosuggestion.

At other times I have referred to what follows from hysteria as 'the madness.' That is when hysteria is driven into action, sometimes by those who would seek to use that madness for their own ends. And as you recall I often say, 'the madness serves none but itself.'

I have read some things today on the web from fellow bloggers that were utterly 'over the top.' I am not talking about those sites that seek to whip up hysteria in order to provide them a following and 'clicks' for pay because that is to foolishly expect the unexpected, that is, civility from sites that serve their own ends, often political but always commercial.

There are professional people who make a living doing this on television.  Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh come to mind.  Most of the others are legitimate shock comedians and their humour is dark, but sometimes rather funny.  But these others are just vile people pandering to what is most ugly in the human condition.

The bloggers I follow are people from whom I would expect better, because I can tell from their writing that they are informed, most often sincere and intelligent.   And I am disappointed.

I think that saying to one of the mothers of a child that was killed at Newtown that they are an "incompetent and defective sack of meat -- your son is dead because you are unfit to be parents" because they have spoken out in favor of gun control laws to be completely over the top and inexcusable,  even by today's remarkably low standards.

And although it ought not to matter, I happen to be a long time gun owner, and have participated in regional matches, albeit in my younger years.  And my son carries on in this. I don't speak of this much because it is not relevant to what I do intend to talk about.  And I am in favor of background checks and licenses for things that can pose a danger to other people in their use, like airplanes, automobiles, and firearms.

And although I know that markets are made up of differences of opinion, remarking on the fairly heavy handed bear raid on the precious metals sector by saying "Where the fuck is your Gold Messiah now?" is a bit much.   I mean, really. This is analysis?

I can look at the record and see how and where the selling came from as well as these others. And the rest of what follows is about as insubstantial and based on mere opinion rather than anything approaching analysis. I found the sneering takedown of those who are following a long term strategy to be particularly obtuse. Are we all not supposed to be day traders now? 

I think the system as we knew it is changing. And the lack of reform in the financial markets is going to break the confidence of the public.  And those who make their living off the markets may give some mind to speaking out for reform, or learn a useful trade doing something else. Not everyone remembers what the 1970s were like for trading, but some do.

I won't even respond further, because I only do so with public figures speaking out in favor of policy. And sometimes I do use humour and satire. That is what I do. That is what it is called when the weaker party like myself takes on the more powerful. When the more powerful figure takes on the weak the same way, it is just bad manners and bullying. This is why I get so incensed sometimes at the way in which powerful figures beat up the little guys, even while they are taking advantage of them.

I am even breaking a long standing tradition by commenting directly on what other bloggers say. Things are tough enough without those who are operating outside the mainstream fighting amonst themselves, and I probably won't do it again.  That is how formidable I think things are going to be.

I know that people who speak out for and against some thing get abused sometimes by those who hold the other side of the opinion. I get it. And since I happen to be a center progressive I get it a lot, and sometimes from both sides at the same time! For me that is why spam filters exist, and why I do not take the time to monitor comments on my site, preferring to take them privately instead and use what is factual and ignore what is not. Lashing out at those who attack you with ridicule and viciousness merely takes you down to their level where they will beat you with the energy of excessiveness.

I think there is a lot of fear and uncertainty out there. And it is going to get worse. And in such a time it is even more important to stick to the facts, maintain your composure, keep a cap on the rhetorical flourishes and excesses, and remember that if you do not know what will happen, that the other guy might be right as well. Age has taught me that those who see things in pure black and white are often just color blind and nearsighted.

It is those who can proceed calmly and with serenity who will pass through this period relatively well, and even if they do suffer some unavoidable misfortune, they can do so without regret.

"So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof."

John F. Kennedy

And if you wish you can aspire to something even higher,  probably not fully achievable as a goal based on my own experience, but worthy of an attempt as a way of life.

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.”

Mother Teresa