Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Trust and Principle

Any number of people have told me that they do not trust me. I suppose they do not have a reason to trust me. I am a loose cannon, and I have reversed the course of my life any number of times.

There are two reasons however for them to trust me. One is that I am a dedicated father. And the other is that I care deeply about other people, and I've put in vast amount of effort into addressing all sorts of people's concerns.

I used to have a very strong ethical structure that was based in Communism. When I came to America that got deconstructed, and I was left without moral guidance. I did not accept Christian ethics for a long time because I thought that Christianity was nonsense. It took the efforts of a number of Christians who knew what they were doing to convince me to the contrary. And, I believe, it also took the efforts of Christ.

I have come up with an ethical concept that can be workable in many situations. It is called principled loyalty. One serves the best benefits of the people to whom one is loyal, but one refuses to do wrong things in their name. Simple loyalty creates things such as the mafia, where people are loyal to one another but treat everyone else like dirt. Principle by itself is cold, out-of-touch, and lacking in realism. But principled loyalty corrects errors on both sides and makes room both for human reality and for ethics.

In battles of interests, I seek what I call the positive middle path. I do not mean just any middle path, as middle path can be found in all sorts of undesirable places. I mean the path that sees what each side is right about and combines them while doing away with what's wrong in each. In battles of interests – such as business and labor, men and women, or public sector and private sector – neither is good and neither is bad. Both are capable of both. The correct solution in those situations is to see what each side is right about and combine it, while correcting each side's potentials for wrong.

One possible mechanism toward that effect is what I call synthesis within the framework of check and balance. Both the concept of synthesis and the concept of checks and balances created global superpowers. Both however can go wrong. Checks and balances by itself leads to gridlock, and synthesis by itself leads to totalitarianism. When you combine both, the two correct each other's wrongful potentials while working together to accomplish what neither side can by itself.

Checks and balances stop each side from harming the other by affirming each side's rightful prerogatives. The potential for wrongdoing in each side is checked by the other side preventing itself from getting harmed. And at the top, the two sides work together to achieve what neither can achieve by itself.

With business and labor, this means business and labor both affirming their rightful interests – the first not to get slaughtered or wrongfully demanded, and the second to be treated rightfully. With men and women, this means both men and women protecting themselves from malicious or brutal behavior by the other side. With private sector and public sector, this means protecting the private sector from over-regulation and over-taxation while making sure that the public sector has the adequate funding to do such work as the military, the police, the Interstate system, education and science.

Another direction for the synthesis within the framework of checks and balance system is nature and civilization. People need both nature and civilization, and both worlds need to be in the best shape that they can be. People's material needs and wants stand to be solved in a way that does not destroy the planet through transitioning to better technologies. Both people who see nature as only resources and the people who have no use for science or technology are wrong. Both nature and civilization are necessary; and both stand to remain there for a long time through transitioning to better technologies than what we presently have.

The concept of principled loyalty can work in both personal life and politics. One should very well be loyal to people to whom one is personally loyal; but he should not be hurting others in the process of advancing their best interests. And in politics, one should very well be loyal to his country; but he should not be hurting other countries in the process. If someone to whom I am personally loyal wants me to commit murder, I will not do it. If my country wants me to throw sulfuric acid into the face of a child, I will not do it. Instead I will look for workable ways to advance their interests without hurting others in the process.

Now there have been any number of people who wrongfully described me as a sociopath. I am no such thing. I am someone who came from the position of very strong ethics, which ethics got deconstructed. I had to wander in the wilderness for a long time before creating a better system of ethics. This is what I came up with as a result.


Post a Comment

<< Home