Hobbes and Locke were both wrong

I have run into the discussions which could be labeled "Hobbes vs. Locke" a number of times.  Recently, however, I came to a new interpretation of morality in general.

Whether we claim a divine source or a priori knowledge or programming or simple logic, every adult I have ever met has a moral compass.  In short, we know what we ought to do.    Where we differ most is in what we are going to do.

If you'll allow me to interpret for a moment:
Hobbes presented mankind as naturally "self-interested".  Hobbes never claimed that such as state "ought to be", simply that it was.  There were two conclusions made based on this determination: that constant war would ensue and that the only way to prevent this was to have a "State" which enforced its will upon the populace.

Locke saw our "better angels".  But, he saw exactly that.  We are not our "better angels".  We are "self-interested".  I would love to live in the world Locke conceived, but I do not.

I think that Hobbes did a slightly better job of evaluating his fellow humans.  But, what we are and what we ought to be are dramatically different things.  Morality is not a compiled list of decisions made by all persons.  Morality is not game theory.  Morality, regardless of its perceived source, is based on principle.

I have also come to the conclusion that Hobbes "solution" is in no way tenable or desirable.  Fear of punishment is not a basis for morality.  Coercion is not a basis for morality.  As a basis for morality, it would fail quickly.  A State would either have to continue to find new ways to inspire fear or dedicate more and more resources to surveillance over time.

Fear of punishment and coercion are often part of the decision process, but the decision process is not morality.  Morality is part of the decision process and in many cases, it ought to be the argument which carries the most weight.

Although it can be argued otherwise (as nearly anything can), I put forward that morality is not nearly as subjective as we pretend.  I believe that most of the individuals in a given culture will agree on what they ought to do.  They often choose to do otherwise.  We are not our "better angels".  However, pretending that such a decision in moral is simply rationalization.  In a word, "You know better."

Read the book

I was recently reminded of the difference between the interpretation or "CliffsNotes version" of work and the actual work. The most common examples are religious texts, but philosophical texts are a close second. As a result, quotes are often taken out of context. For instance, the Nietzche "quote" "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Admitting to translation issues, the person and tense variation can be ignored, but the line in my copy reads "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

I recently read the Communist Manifesto and again find that the interpreters have taken what they found useful and ignored what they found arguable.  The abolition of the family went by the wayside a long time ago.  The guideline: "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." now seems antiquated while "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production..." is indeed an obvious necessity for modern society.

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy starts out as a foundational work of epistemology but ends in drivel.  The last paragraph of The Gift of the Magi changes a great short story to a bludgeon.  The Iliad contains no reference to the Trojan horse.

I will skip interpretations of religious texts and the catastrophic effect they have had on human history.

The sheer volume of material that is published yearly makes it impossible to read everything.  However, it seems that the interpreters have, by and large, been those with an obvious agenda.

But don't take my word for it.  Don't take anyone's word for it.  Only by experiencing do we grow.  Anything else is a shortcut.  Go to the source  You will learn much about the author and the interpreters.

Why It Hurts

The dust is settling.  A collection of rationalizations are being developed.  Many believe that the lives they have known will continue largely unaltered.  Some even hope things will improve.

There are some of us, however, that have already been changed.  You see, we saw a light.  It was dim, but it was there.  The future we dreamed of was so close.  In 2008, I joined the Democratic party long enough to vote in the primary.  I was glad I did.  In 2016, I did so again.  The candidate I chose was not chosen by the party.  However, I gave my support to the Democratic party regardless.  The future would come slower, but it would come.

And then November 8th came...

I watched as it became more obvious that the election had been decided.  I watched as news organizations held off from "calling it".  I watched as 61,000,000 Americans voted for the past.  I watched as 61,000,000 Americans voted for failure.  I watched as 61,000,000 Americans voted for hate.  Meanwhile, 90,000,000 Americans didn't care enough to even express an opinion.

And now, I no longer care.  I had held on to hope.  I had believed in my fellow humans.  That belief had been tested again and again, but it had remained.  It has shattered.

I may be wrong about what the next few years will bring.  I do not believe I am.  I believe history has given us quite enough examples to make a projection.  I will not throw around cliches or comparisons.  If the parallels aren't clear to someone, it is because they are deluding themselves.  It can happen here.  It can happen now. 

I will not "hope for the best" or "see what happens".  Instead, I will give people exactly what they have asked for.