[PREV - TOUGH_CASES] [TOP]
UN_PRINCIPLES
July 30, 2007
December 10, 2007
I'm still trying to
work out how to
live in the absence
of principle.
Or at least, in
the absence of any
really fundamental I think we're
principles. stuck with this And not many people
problem, myself. really seem to
believe otherwise,
though there are some
who seem to think
it's important to
Once upon a time, I was claim that they
one of the hold-outs, believe otherwise...
hoping to find a Grand
System of ethical/moral The people who trumpet
reasoning. adherence to principle
invariably allow some
The best I can do these days: exceptions, and the
exceptions are where
Typically (though not the real principles lie.
always) "principles" are
about long-term concerns.
Making a "compromise" is
about sacrificing the
long-term for the short.
But this makes defining a
consistent set of
principles no easier than
developing a workable set
of long-term goals.
As part of some local political battles
at Stanford, I was helping to circulate
a petition to increase penalties for
student organizations in violation of
finacial rules...
There was a black friend of mine who was
originally willing to sign the petition,
but regretted it later when she found out
that the "Black Student Union" would be
one of the organizations effected.
My argument was that the principle
was important, even if it had some
undesireable immediate effects. At the time,
that struck me
Her argument: principle tends to be as an incredibly
applied selectively, used as a weapon bleak worldview.
against minorities...
Without a belief
in general
principles, then
what's left?
Nothing but
power stuggles...
and how could
a minority hope
Relying on local control to win these?
seems like a good guiding
principle for various The entire
reasons -- but few liberals notion of
would like the idea of minority rights
letting Southern States rests on
handle their own civil convincing a
rights legislation. majority that
there's reason
Republicans trumpet "States to support those
Rights", but only when it's rights.
convienient. When they've got
federal muscle they're not shy
about using it, but when the We risk degenerating
Democrats have it, then the into dogfighting
Republicans worry about factions, with no
overstepping those bounds. possibility of any
alliance that isn't
Which are hard to see these days provisional.
because of all the Republican
footprints on top of them.
[ref]
A Paul Krugman piece
from October, 2006,
on the fragility
of the right:
"The coalition has, however, always
been more vulnerable than it seemed,
because it was an alliance based not
on shared goals, but on each group's
belief that it could use the other
to get what it wants. Bring that
belief into question, and the whole
thing falls apart."
You can make a case that It would seem that there's
political expediency often a need for over-arching
argues against acting morally. shared goals of some sort.
The long term necessity of If these are not to be
needing to win over the called principles, what
immoral bad guys, makes it would you call them?
impossible to take into
account any other long What else *like* principles
term interests. might actually exist?
A moral compulsion
to be amoral?
Similar to the notion that
corporations are compelled
to act solely in their
short term interests by
competitive pressures; so The public corporation
you can't expect them to is a legal entity not
behave morally, unless a moral one: morality
compelled to do so legally. belongs to the realm
of the political.
Publicly traded companies
can be hauled into court But elected officials
on the grounds that they are political entities,
were not acting in the not moral ones.
stock holders interests.
So then, morality
belongs to the realm
of... ?
The un-principled are
happy to use your
principles against you But they have no
whenever possible. difficulty with
making excuses
So maybe, you need to for their own
fight the hypocritical deviations from And the Republican
bastards with their the rules. ability to blame
own weapons, even if the Democrats for
it means behaving like the repercussions
a hypocrite? of every Republican
action... that's
A theme beloved just amazing.
in modern fiction:
"When you fight the devil,
be a devil yourself."
-- Ninja Scroll (1993)
Except that cheating is not
*always* to your advantage. Or "compromising"
if you prefer less
The motivation of the loaded terms.
cheater is supposedly
to gain an immediate
benefit, but that's There's a lot of cheating for the
often not born out. sake of cheating; cheating out of
habit; cheating on the general
The usual principle that being un-principled
claim is that must be advantageous.
the dark side
has at least
an immediate
advantage, if
not a long
term one.
Is it useful
But it may not to separate
have even that morality from
much going for it: political
action?
Many a principle
is genuinely a That's just
formulation of short and long
practical advice. again, isn't it?
Whatever it was the Republicans
were after with the Iraq war, it
seems likely they regret getting (And the Democrats
involved with it now. that went "sure boss,
whatever you say!",
Maybe they should've are looking a bit
listened to the UN, uncomfortable as well.)
instead of just paying
lipservice to the (And I didn't know the half
importance of listening of it... as of Dec of
to the UN... 2007, it appears that
Pelosi and friends were
briefed about the Bush
leagues proclivity for
torture back in 2002.)
--------
[NEXT - CRAWLING_CROSS_THE_PLANETS_FACE]