Yes, I am a sore loser

I had to write.  I had been foregoing it as many of my thoughts may have seemed defeatist.  But, I'm still here and while I am, I will stand with my brothers and sisters. I will fight.

I have seen comments from people allied with the new presidential administration which seem to indicate their belief this about a lost election.  I have seen the phrases "sore loser" and "sour grapes".  Let be me clear, the only person disputing the election results that I have heard of is the current president.

But, I am a sore loser.  You see I lost something very dear and I cannot abide it.  I lost hope.  I lost faith in this country.  At one point, my faith in humanity was shaken.  Over the last few weeks,I have seen a fire start.  A fire that I feel is long overdue, but it did, unfortunately, need a spark.

And so, I have three messages for the people of my country.

For those who did willingly choose this outcome, I ask for any justification whatsoever.  I ask you to look back at the previous years and decades, and explain to me what good the policies of the current administration, and the party that supports it, can possibly do.  I then ask more specifically to look at the last month, and let me know of any benefit we have gained.  This country has never been isolationist.  In this century, isolationism is nearly impossible.  The borders will come down.  Division has never been tenable.  Taking health care away from those in need helps no one.  Building a wall to separate people became ridiculous with the advent of aircraft.  The Berlin Wall did not stop mass defection, the 47,000 members of the Grenztruppen der DDR guarding less than 100 miles of wall is what kept people in,  You can choose to deny these things, but in the end you know them to be true.

To those who were eligible and did not vote, you are as responsible for this result as you would be if you had voted for the winner.  I hope that you see what your silence has allowed and I hope that you join those trying to save this country.

To those of you who used your voice, I ask you to continue to do so.  I ask you to leave the confines of your own choir.  I ask that you contact your news outlets.  I ask you to write to your congressman whether or not you voted for them.  I ask you to stand with your brothers and sisters.  I ask you to remember that caring for your fellow humans is not a political issue.  I remind you that helping to protect those who cannot protect themselves is the purpose of a government.

I will skip the quotes from greater individuals than I.  I will not reference history's many similar situations.  I will say simply that the world is watching.

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.