[Grovenet] A heckuva job! ! ! ! ! !

Tue Apr 17 06:38:28 PDT 2007

David wrote, "If someone asks you for the telephone number of a good doctor,

telling the truth would involve giving them the telephone number of a  
good doctor.  Done."

And what defines a "good" doctor?

I don't believe it's possible to break this down into a 1+1=2 sort of
equation. We are talking highly complex subjective evaluations here, and
such things are not "black and white". Indeed, it's that very fact that many
dishonest people try to hide behind to justify their choices. 

I think there's a very good reason why the study of ethics, honesty, and
"truth" is one of the most challenging in the field of human endeavor. We
revere great thinkers who have had something cogent to say on the subject
and many academics spend their lives trying to make sense of it. 

David wrote:

"Babies are tremendously self centered.  Because it is the means to  
survival, it is a positive condition.  Babies may learn to grow out  
of that selfish condition, if that is what they are taught.  Or they  
may grow up in a culture that rewards adults who are self centered  
and selfish.  Based upon the rewards that they have received Bush,  
Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, and all were right to be  
self centered.  They didn't learn "good" or "evil", rather they  
learned how to be successful in the American political/economic  
culture.  And there is a real problem.  We have a feed back loop  
running in this system. "

Not only babies, but healthy adults are tremendously self-centered, even
what we'd call "selfish". The trick is to be appropriately self-centered or
"selfish". Babies are appropriately self-centered. Being completely unable
to care for themselves, they do whatever they can - cry, fuss, wiggle, etc.
- to attract the attention that hopefully will allow them to survive. 

I believe that one of the major failings of adults is when they are trained
out of that. They stop trying to do what they can to get the help they need.
They believe that being "selfish" is bad, or they simply never learn how it
works. As a result they don't take care of themselves - live a satisfying
life, get the right exercise, pursue things that promote a sense of
well-being and health. They fail to be appropriately selfish and so become
unable to help others. Indeed, they tend to become dependent upon others
rather than take care of themselves and contribute fully to the community. 

As I said before, we have a feedback system in a healthy society that
identifies things that are unwanted to each other. Its like the sensors that
feed back error signals to the guidance system in the torpedo analogy. The
judgments of such a feedback system are not consistent or absolute from one
culture to another. Each society has its own standards and enforces them. 

For politicians in high office, part of that feedback is the impeachment
system whereby we have public hearings about the conduct of the official.
That's why I supported it in the case of President Clinton and I feel it's
important in the case of President Bush and VP Cheney. 

That's also what started this whole discussion. I believe that if we had
impeached President Nixon we'd likely have telegraphed the message that the
standards that G.W. Bush and his staff have used are not acceptable to the
American people. Instead we did just the opposite. We encouraged them to go
ahead. It's no different that parents ignoring a child playing with matches.
They are actually encouraging the child to continue, even if they say
nothing. So, then, who is responsible when the house burns down? 

I put primary responsibility on the parents - those responsible for
providing the feedback. 

In the case of President G.W. Bush, I put primary responsibility on the
American people. We are the ones responsible for providing the feedback.  

Ron D'Eau Claire

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:34 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] A heckuva job! ! ! ! ! !

On Apr 16, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> It sounds to me like a long stretch to associate honesty with
> telling the truth with being "good".

I understand the word "honest" in the terms like:
telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;  
"honest testimony"
not disposed to cheat or defraud; not deceptive or fraudulent;  
"honest lawyers" or "honest reporting".
open; without hidden meaning; frank; "my honest opinion" without pretensions
or affectation; without false a false front;  
"honest folk"
characterized by truth; not false; "honest weight"
marked by truth; "honest answers"
delivery in full for the claimed product; "honest days work"

That all seems like a subset of the requirements for being "good".   
Good would include giving alms to the poor, defending the weak,  
dispensing equitable justice, returning good for evil, giving mercy.   
An "honest" measure would be to deliver a level full sack of grain  
when paid for a sack of grain.  A good measure would be to deliver  
the sack tamped down, heaped up, and overflowing of grain when only  
paid for a level full sack.

>
> How does my statement that being honest means doing the right thing
> even if no one is looking differ from, as you say, "telling the  
> truth"?

If someone asks you for the telephone number of a good doctor,  
telling the truth would involve giving them the telephone number of a  
good doctor.  Done.  Doing the right thing, might include asking them  
if they need someone to take them to the doctor.
>
> Truth is a sharp sword that can do terrible damage. For some the
> idea of "telling the truth" means volunteering every hurtful thing  
> we might know about someone simply because we believe it is correct.

You have provided an example where the honest answer is not the good  
answer.
>
> It is not necessary to lie when choosing not to share such a "truth".
>
> In my reading most of the "law-givers" you cited spoke more about
> bad than good, leaving the impression that if one wasn't bad one  
> was, by default, good. Or, in other words, we are born good but  
> learn "bad" and spend the rest of our lives learning how to  
> approach being "good" again.

I don't define "good" as "the absence of evil", any more than I  
define "peace" as "the absence of war".

Are we born good or evil?  Neither.

We are born as babies.  Babies are not evil, because they cannot act  
with evil intent.  They cannot act with good intent either.  Babies  
are born knowing how to cry, eat, poop, and recognize comfort.   
Babies also have a tremendous capacity to learn, and they will learn  
in response to the conditions of love and support that they do, or do  
not receive.    They will learn the culture, which will tell them the  
expected "good" and "bad" actions.  At some point they will start to  
act with intent, and they will act as good or bad people within their  
culture.

Babies are tremendously self centered.  Because it is the means to  
survival, it is a positive condition.  Babies may learn to grow out  
of that selfish condition, if that is what they are taught.  Or they  
may grow up in a culture that rewards adults who are self centered  
and selfish.  Based upon the rewards that they have received Bush,  
Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, and all were right to be  
self centered.  They didn't learn "good" or "evil", rather they  
learned how to be successful in the American political/economic  
culture.  And there is a real problem.  We have a feed back loop  
running in this system.  The measure of success will change to  
reflect what happens ( or doesn't happen ) to Bush and all.  Various  
people set conflicting standards, and then various people shift the  
standards to reflect how the standards impact them.  The people who  
are most impacted may exert the most influence, or the people who  
have the most power may exert the most influence in changing the  
standards.  In situations like Iraq, Haliburton is more impacted by  
the decisions, and has more power to affect the outcome than any of  
us, so they will be more likely to influence the outcome than we will.
>
> That always sounded right to me and squared with my experience.
>
> And I am reminded that one of my favorite teachers, the Dali Lama,
> observed that most of us take the idea of life and religion far too  
> seriously.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet