WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

A Different Kind Of Coup

Usually a coup refers to a government overthrow resulting in a new government. But we are not facing usual times right now. We see less and less self-restraint in how people are treated by both our highest government official and fellow citizens. This coup started at the top but has drifted downward to many of us common folk. We could call this a coup of the nation's morals.

It isn't that the U.S. has been the world's bastion of freedom and equality that it claims to be. But there was a time when wealth was more distributed than it is today. There was a time when, out of self-restraint, politicians who wanted to strike back at critics did so in more refined ways if at all. And there was a time when people didn't strike out at each other through practices like mass shootings, road rage, and other assaults as they do today. And oddly enough, this lack of self-restraint may be related to what causes the current wealth disparity we see in our nation.

What is this coup that has affected people from many political positions  as well as everyday citizens? The coup that has taken place has replaced the recognition that we need to contribute to help each other  with the belief that self-interest is our only moral obligation.

We should note that just because one believes that self-interest is our only moral obligation doesn't mean that one doesn't help others. What it does mean is that those who believe that self-interest is one's only moral obligation think that being concerned with the welfare of others is optional rather than mandatory. And though we could easily scapegoat many of those who are wealthy with embracing this view of self-interest, reality tells us that this view of self-interest has infected all classes of people from those with the most power to those who are trying to escape marginalization.

As said earlier, it is easy to see this view of self-interest being practiced by many who are wealthy. After all, they often use their wealth to buy political influence. And the result of buying political influence includes getting the government to employ their businesses' services as well as having the government relieve them  of their social responsibilities. Part of relieving them of their social responsibilities includes not requiring them to pay their fair share of taxes as well as allowing businesses to exploit others and the environment. All of that is done by the wealthy with the hopes of maximizing their own personal profits even though they already have money to burn. Their chief motive is that of competing with their class peers to see who can accumulate the most wealth.


And though we could easily scapegoat the bourgeoisie  for following that ethic, don't many of our sports heroes do the same when they negotiate their contracts. And don't some sports commentators sometimes scorn those professional athletes for not trying maximize their own personal profits?

And what about some of those conservative Americans who believe that when the government taxes people in order to help those in need, it is stealing from the taxpayers? Does not that belief imply that one's pursuit of self-interest is one's only moral obligation?

The negotiations between unions and owners sometimes see both sides following the maxim that pursuit of self-interest is one's only moral obligation. For don't negotiations all too often reveal how both workers and owners are trying to get the most out of each other while giving the other party as little as possible?




We can now go to the President. Never in my lifetime have I ever seen a President who lacks self-restraint as  Donald Trump does. He scolds and belittles all critics in an effort to retaliate against all criticisms, fair and unfair, without regard for the feelings of his targets or the example he is setting as the President of our nation. In acting out the way he does, he only shows interested in what he wants. The interests of others are tossed aside.

And isn't that what we see in the violence we practice on our fellow citizens. Whether these incidents include road rage or mass shootings or terrorist attacks, the only interests that are to be satisfied are those of the ones attacking others. There is no self-restraint based on concern for the welfare and rights of others.

This belief that one's only moral obligation is to pursue self-interest comes from the ever growing influence of the Free Market on society. For what does the Free Market teach its participants? Doesn't it teach that one can morally afford to pursue self-interest only because the market and the law of supply and demand will prevent one from exploiting others?


Perhaps the reason why not enough of us object to government policies that reward the wealthy and exploit the rest is because we too cling to the same ethic that those who have bought our government's officials passionately embrace. The only difference between the wealthy and the rest of us is that they have pursued self-interest more effectively than we have.

We need to reverse this trending ethic that says pursuit of self-interest is our only moral obligation. Those who hold to such an ethic, no matter how much they voluntarily help others, are destroying our nation.  For when we believe that pursuing self-interest is our only moral obligation, we objectify others and we teach others to do the same. When we believe that pursuing self-interest is our only moral obligation,we see others as disposable objects whose only value is determined by how they benefit us.

In saying all of the above, I am not saying that pursuing self-interest per se is wrong. What is being targeted here is the belief that pursuing self-interest is our only moral obligation. Thus, we should pursue self-interest along with pursuing the welfare of others. We have a moral obligation to promote well-being of others. So that when we see those who live in deprivation, we owe it to them, according to our ability, to help and protect them. And in doing so, we could partially reverse the coup that has taken place.






No comments: