Man of sciences vs. science of man

I have a constantly changing attitude toward morality. My views are changing because I am constantly studying subject matter that is related to the problem of morality. In fact as I study these matters I find that the most important concerns of sapiens is morality based.

I have a cartoon figure that my son has crated for me that speaks to my general attitude toward morality. The figure has an Arnold-like upper torso set on two spindle weak veracious veined legs. The upper torso is our ‘man of science’ and the lower body represents our ‘science of man’, i.e. morality. We are rapidly running out the clock on human survival unless we quickly develop a moral code that will allow us to live together.

I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.� This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice� by John Rawls.

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.� The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.�

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.� The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality� according to the analysis in �The Morality of Politics� by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.�

I was raised as a Catholic; I was taught by the nuns the Catholic doctrine regarding sin, punishment, and consciousness. Venial sins were like misdemeanors and mortal sins were like felonies. However, this is not a completely accurate analogy because if a person dies with venial sin on the soul s/he would be punished by having to spend time in purgatory before going to heaven but if a person died with mortal sin on the soul s/he went directly to hell for eternity.

Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession.

The rules of the constitution were written for the Republic of the United States, a body governed by certain rights and truths, like the Ten commandments that were written as spiritual laws governing the natural law of the universe regarding cause and effect. Not unlike the Ten commandments which have been twisted over time, the constitution of the United States is being twisted for the "good" of the people by democratic process. Democratic process is a majority influence that often deviates from original relative truths if someone can determine the original law was written without the understanding of the needs of the people, and the interpretations of needs and the law seem irrelevant to the original as interpreted.

At the time of original authorship both the Ten commandments and the Constitution of the United States outlined how government should work within the natural laws of cause and effect to protect both the people and the country from immoral consequence that results from selfishness, corruption that takes place in separatism, and inhumanity that is the result of ignoring Unity of Spirit....Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Sin is action, interpretation, and feeling outside of the unity of spirit that exists in the common good of humanity and its natural process of evolving towards working together to expand all things towards perfection in natural law.
The Ten commandments list simple ideas such as stealing, murder, lust. lying, ignorance of reality and jealousy, all willful and ignorant intent to act without morals and truth toward ones self and others.
The constitution tried to invoke the reality of circumstance that exists in the natural laws of humanity as it exists in the known universe to protect the rights of people and to create a government that was always instigated and powered by the unity of natural evolution that exists within everything, so that no man was placed above another as being better than another, and so no principals would be created that would create circumstances that would harm any individual or groups of individuals by making beliefs obsolete or totalitarian.
The founders of the constitution instigated a Republic with the thought in mind that humanity was an evolving and growing child that deserved room to grow and discipline to keep anyone from taking the rights of growth and opportunity.
The Democratic process has invaded the Republic with control and subversion by creating institutions to govern what is taught in schools and morality that is good for special interests, and it exists as a power that is not always represented by the people and for the people.

Ignorance of reality is what allows subversion and immorality in both government and church. Government is the unity of natural law, and the church is for the knowledge of natural law and unity of spirit.
Without knowledge either becomes institutionalized as a democratic body that moves under influence of special interest rather than natural law.
Special interest uses media to control information and subdue human spirit with limited truths to steer the herd.

On one hand there has always been the duality of opposites, light and dark, hot and cold, truth as seen and experienced by belief and Truth that stands regardless of beliefs and the experiences that follow belief.

We learn by mistakes and we also learn from those who have already learned by their mistakes.
We as a species do not always culture the intuitive senses that can divide limitation from possibility or fear from innocence to reveal positive realities. We accept programs of fear to protect ourselves in theory from threats rather than to positively move toward greater freedom in activity and growth. We often believe we must build bigger and stronger fences in order to reflect freedom and stronger and better defenses to prove we want and will fight for freedom.
Freedom exists regardless of fear, but we listen to the voice of fear more than we do to the voices of reality, we listen to those who easily convince us that we are going to get sick during the flu season, that we need to have certain things to be successful and to drink the right beer to be satisfied and popular. These basic ideas of democratic influence spread into all areas of belief regardless of their illusion.
Once we make a habit of accepting illusions we let the truth become weak and atrophy. This in itself is a sin against our own better sense, a moral ignorance and the devolution of human spirit.