I asked at the beginning of this article: What is a Human Being? And why must we both ask and answer this question? The differences of Descartes' and Coffin's means of proving their own existence, together with the contrasts in views on poverty, economics and the direction that our nation needs to take, has provided my answer.
Humans are the animals that choose. And choice always has moral implications.
We make hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of choices every day of our lives. Some of these choices seem trivial: should I have that doughnut with my cup of coffee? Others can potentially be life changing: shall I try to walk across the street against the traffic lights? Others are still potentially world changing choices for a small group of people: business is down; shall I lay-off Mike and Joel, or shall I lay-off Tony and Annette? A small number of us get to make world changing choices for large groups of people: As President of the United States, shall I make a political decision that favors a small group of wealthy, politically powerful individuals; or should I decide in favor of the majority of the American People, even if there is a percentage of that majority who believe that decision is corrupt, and playing demagogue to the rest of the American people.
The U.S. Navy SEALS have a saying: "The last easy day was yesterday." Unfortunately, most human beings will go out of their way to avoid making difficult decisions, one with a high degree of moral implications, because of the guilt that is often associated with such decisions if they end up being wrong.
But we cannot in all fairness avoid such decisions; to not make a decision is in itself making a decision. Nor can we legitimately pass such decisions to others, either on a temporary or permanent basis, unless we are somehow incapacitated or unavailable to make those decisions for ourselves.
But the worst thing that can happen to a human being is when choice is taken from them without just cause.
It may be necessary to take choice from someone who has committed a crime, as a punishment for that crime, after due process. It may be necessary to punish someone who makes the choice of throwing a candy wrapper on the ground with a fine, in order to maintain sanitary conditions in a city. It may be necessary to deny someone the choice of having Borfors 40 mm antiaircraft cannon in their backyard because of the fear of misuse, or theft by those who would misuse it. These are all situations where society, operating through its government, has decided that those choices should not be available to the individual in that particular case.
The tragedy arises when all choice is denied to individuals as a matter of policy or practice. This is the very definition of tyranny.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
