Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

December 11, 2014

Reasoning together

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on December 11, 2014

In regard to the Senate report on CIA interrogation practices, and the (non?) efficacy of the Grand Jury system, and action or inaction in Syria or Ukraine or the Ebola zone, and Central American poverty and violence, and border security, and mass surveillance, and inter-religious conflict, and… well, the list could easily continue… a few incomplete thoughts:

The inevitable hypocrisy, which is associated with all the collective activities of the human race, springs chiefly from this source: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective man an outrage to their conscience. They therefore invent romantic and moral interpretations of the real facts, preferring to obscure rather than reveal the true character of their collective behavior. Sometimes they are as anxious to offer moral justifications for the brutalities from which they suffer as for those which they commit. The fact that the hypocrisy of man’s group behavior… expresses itself not only in terms of self-justification but in terms of moral justification of human behavior in general, symbolizes one of the tragedies of the human spirit: its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals. As individuals, men believe they ought to love and serve each other and establish justice between each other. As racial, economic and national groups they take for themselves, whatever their power can command.

Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society

There are at bottom only three alternative routes or approaches to follow in making moral decisions.  They are (1) the legalistic; (2) the antinomian, the opposite extreme — i.e., a lawless or unprincipled approach; and (3) the situational.  All three have played their part in the history of Western morals, legalism being by far the most common and persistent.

Joseph F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics

The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law, it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete…. The absolutism of love is its power to go into the concrete situation, to discover what is demanded by the predicament of the concrete to which it turns.  Therefore, love can never become fanatical in a fight for the absolute, or cynical under the impact of the relative.

Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology

If you perceive something simple and/or obvious in any of the foregoing, please read again.  Then as the calendar continues into our hemisphere’s darkest of dark nights, consider please how we might more constructively engage together over treacherous issues of ethics and morality.  What do we ask? How do we ask it? What do we say (or write) and when do we remain quiet?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

2 Comments »

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 11, 2014 @ 7:50 am

Brilliant post so many thanks!

Comment by Christopher Tingus

December 11, 2014 @ 2:12 pm

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Dershowitz: After 9/11, Most Backed Torture

There is “plenty of hypocrisy to go around” concerning Tuesday’s release of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s so-called “torture report,” legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said Thursday on Newsmax TV.

“In the wake of 9/11, everybody wanted torture to be used, do whatever you can do and stop another 9/11,” he said. But fast-forward 13 years and “people remember their own views very differently.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>