One statement for discussion

[Tigermike 3,055]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

[Tiger Al 0]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

False.

Morality is not dependent on one's external conditions.

[Tigermike 3,055]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

False.

Morality is not dependent on one's external conditions.

So you are born with your morality?

[DKW 86 7,441]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

False.

Morality is not dependent on one's external conditions.

The statement has nothing to do with individuals at all. It is about community. You cannot have a socialist society of one. That is illiogical. There is no reference to the individual at all here.

Socialism and Communism have nothing to do with Morality. They are just two of many concepts. Govt cannot be moral. Govt should not be mingled with concepts of sexual morality, financial morality, etc. Fundamentalism CAN be moral, but is usually not due to personal leadership issues.

"The govt is best, that governs the least." Jefferson.

[Tiger Al 0]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

False.

Morality is not dependent on one's external conditions.

So you are born with your morality?

Good point. One's concept of what is moral IS learned. My statement assumed a cognizance of morality was already in place.

If your thesis refers to the morality of the governmental entity, then I would probably agree with David. Government, in any form, only affects behavior. Morality affects motivations of behavior.

[aumd03 2]

It's my belief that morality is not learned but a constant fixed standard. It is not relative nor is it tolerant. A tolerant morality has to be tolerant to all morality and is therefore no morality at all. It is tolerant to everything except intolerance which is not tolerance at all.

[otterinbham 0]

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

Well, the statement fails to take into account that there is an enormous gulf between theory and practice. After all, Socialism and Communism are intended to achieve good in the world, but quickly get derailed in practice because neither is based in human nature. Religious fundamentalism falls into the same boat when it enters the political sphere because it typically takes on a "ends justifies the means" mentality.

However, you can make the same the statement about just about any "ism" at all. Because all typically sacrifice ideals of one form or another in order to meet their political objectives.

[otterinbham 0]

It's my belief that morality is not learned but a constant fixed standard. It is not relative nor is it tolerant. A tolerant morality has to be tolerant to all morality and is therefore no morality at all. It is tolerant to everything except intolerance which is not tolerance at all.

The problem comes with what is deemed immoral. If we're looking at a simple set of precepts such as "do not kill," "do not steal," and "do not lie," then I would agree with you 100%. For fundamental morality deals with your ability to not cause harm to others.

However, beyond that, people confuse their religious teachings with what is moral. For example, my wife is a unimpeachably moral person. However, to most Muslims she is immoral because she does not wear a chador. To some fundamentalist Christians she would be immoral because we happily celebrate Easter and Christmas, deemed pagan celebrations in their eyes. To Conservative Jews she would be immoral because we do not follow the 614 laws laid out in Leviticus.

[Tigermike 3,055]

4 results for: morality

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

[Tiger Al 0]

4 results for: morality

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

Morality, however, is a matter of choice, not mandate. One cannot hold a person responsible for actions that are coerced or forced from him. Morality can only exist when freedom of action exists. Moral actions in any field of human endeavor require freedom.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgement.

Which brings us to a capitalist system. Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state; or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

[Tiger Al 0]

It's my belief that morality is not learned but a constant fixed standard. It is not relative nor is it tolerant. A tolerant morality has to be tolerant to all morality and is therefore no morality at all. It is tolerant to everything except intolerance which is not tolerance at all.

The problem comes with what is deemed immoral. If we're looking at a simple set of precepts such as "do not kill," "do not steal," and "do not lie," then I would agree with you 100%. For fundamental morality deals with your ability to not cause harm to others.

However, beyond that, people confuse their religious teachings with what is moral. For example, my wife is a unimpeachably moral person. However, to most Muslims she is immoral because she does not wear a chador. To some fundamentalist Christians she would be immoral because we happily celebrate Easter and Christmas, deemed pagan celebrations in their eyes. To Conservative Jews she would be immoral because we do not follow the 614 laws laid out in Leviticus.

Even within Christianity what is believed to be 'moral' or 'immoral' differs. Many people from a large, primarily Southern denomination have told me that they believe that it is immoral and a sin to drink alcohol in any form or amount. Asked for clarification, they still insisted that drinking any amount of alcohol, even a drop, was a sin. Based on that, I know of many Christian churches who engage in 'immoral' behavior every Sunday, so some would have you believe.

[aumd03 2]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

[otterinbham 0]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

Well, let's run down the list and see what we all agree on. If you think it's immoral, say "yes"

1. Murder

2. Abortion

3. Theft

4. Adultery

5. Women wearing makeup and earrings

6. Not attending chuch or temple on the Sabbath

7. Lying

8. Charging interest on a loan

9. Drinking alcohol

10. Smoking marijuana

11. Watching PG-rated movies

12. Wearing shorts

13. Celebrating Easter and Christmas

14. Driving a car

15. Living in a polygamous marriage

16. Eating fried shrimp

17. Performing work on the Sabbath

18. Sunday newspapers

19. Smoking cigarettes

20. Masturbation

Now, I don't think anybody would argue about 1-4. But if you're Muslim, 5, 8, 12 would also be taboo. Meanwhile, if you're Mormon, 9 and 19 would be immoral, while some would think that 15 would be perfectly okay. Meanwhile, if you're Conservative Jew, 17, 12, and 16 would be considered wrong. Meanwhile, I've encountered fundamentalist would proscribe almost all the items on this list.

So, really, what's universally moral is a very small list.

[Tiger Al 0]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

See, this is where we apparently differ. In my opinion, 'morality' is a set of guidelines/standards/beliefs, etc. that I choose to guide ME and MY actions. They are not what I impose on YOU or OTHERS.

So, while the member of the beforementioned Christian denomination believes that drinking a glass of wine is a sin, per se, I do not. The difference between us is that he also thinks it is a sin for me to do it and it's well within his right to tell me. HE will always believe HIS 'morals' are the 'right way' whenever they differ from mine.

Morality is very subjective.

[DKW 86 7,441]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

Take nudity for a second. You could be completely naked and be absolutely moral. When you are born, in your bath, even in the outdoors bathing yourself, in the back yard pool, making love to a spouse, etc. But one second later, after you changed places to a public place, making love with a unmarried person, change the time,era, age and then you cant bathe outside. Even in Victorian England it was fine to publicly bathe nude, often even in mixed groups. In Europe it is fine to bathe nude in mixed groups even today in Greece and other nations including Japan. But step into America nude and public, then you would become completely immoral, no matter what else you were doing or believed.

So, morality can then be conditional to:

Society

SubSets of Society

Geography

Subregions of geography.

Religion

Subsets of Religious Denominations

Time, age, era.

Place (as I just showed.)

Condition poor, versus wealthy, healthy versus infirm..

What government you live under.

Conditional if it forced or not forced.

Etc.

Morality, in essence, becomes completely conditional and less and less universal. Being Moral is a completely relative state then. We have shown that the freedom to choose to be moral is the one constant that lies above universal, death, stealing, etc.

Funny, this is a very mind opening concept and discussion.

[otterinbham 0]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

A good point. But is it really morality if you don't have the means to perform sin? If we use that argument, then prisons should be the most moral places on earth.

So capitalism, by allowing true freewill to be exercised, gives people the greatest ability to be immoral or moral.

[aumd03 2]

My definition was stated just because I knew I would get such a response. One way has to be the "right way." If morality is relative to the group, well, I could very well advocate a canabalistic society that relies on infantacide as a food source. As repugnant as that is and needless to say, a society that will extinguish itself, it still would be "moral" based on that groups belief. I believe that morality is established on concrete set of rules. Where those rules end, say murder and cheating, vs EtOH consumption and choice of clothing or monogomy is up for debate.

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

A good point. But is it really morality if you don't have the means to perform sin? If we use that argument, then prisons should be the most moral places on earth.

So capitalism, by allowing true freewill to be exercised, gives people the greatest ability to be immoral or moral.

I'm in no way saying my morality is the right morality. There are things I choose to do or not do because of personal preference, eg EtOH, but I don't extend that to morality.

I don't want to sound like a nihilist, but to say that morality is subjective undermines any foundation it had at all. When it all boils down, if it is truly subjective and based upon our whim, then we are free to change it as we please. That doesn't sound like a very sound morality to me. I don't know the answer to the question of where common morality ends, I don't know. Thats why I'm not a philosopher.

Again, don't make this personal and say, whats moral to you. Morality has to be common to everyone or it is just a word that is nothing more than a collection of 5 letters. It has no teeth.

[Tiger Al 0]

Morality has to be common to everyone or it is just a word that is nothing more than a collection of 5 letters. It has no teeth.

What do you mean by 'common?'

Do you mean 'common' as in the same set of morals or 'common' as in everyone has SOME set of morals, but, not necessarily the same ones?

[Tigermike 3,055]

As govt goes, capitalism is probably the least "moral" as it allows the individual to police himself to a degree.

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. The very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

It would seem to me that freedom to police ones self would encourage moral behavior. That does not mean that all people will handle their money wisely or that all will act in a moral way. But the freedom is there to make correct choices.

[Tiger Al 0]

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. The very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

That doesn't make capitalism, per se, moral or immoral. 'Isms' are inanimate and their morality would come from their practitioners, wouldn't they?

It would seem to me that freedom to police ones self would encourage moral behavior. That does not mean that all people will handle their money wisely or that all will act in a moral way. But the freedom is there to make correct choices.

A legitimate counter-point would be that greed is immensely involved with capitalism. Whether it's what drives it or is simply a byproduct of it is debatable. I suspect it's a little of both. Greed is especially condemned Biblically. It would seem to me that unregulated capitalism would actually discourage moral behavior and it would be the exception, not the rule, who would conduct business in a moral or ethical way.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. The very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

That doesn't make capitalism, per se, moral or immoral. 'Isms' are inanimate and their morality would come from their practitioners, wouldn't they?

It would seem to me that freedom to police ones self would encourage moral behavior. That does not mean that all people will handle their money wisely or that all will act in a moral way. But the freedom is there to make correct choices.

A legitimate counter-point would be that greed is immensely involved with capitalism. Whether it's what drives it or is simply a byproduct of it is debatable. I suspect it's a little of both. Greed is especially condemned Biblically. It would seem to me that unregulated capitalism would actually discourage moral behavior and it would be the exception, not the rule, who would conduct business in a moral or ethical way.

First of all I never said capitalism was moral or immoral.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgment. Just being in a capitalist society does not ensure that all will act and live their lives in a moral way.

Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

Look at the definitions.

4 results for: morality

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

[Tiger Al 0]

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. The very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

That doesn't make capitalism, per se, moral or immoral. 'Isms' are inanimate and their morality would come from their practitioners, wouldn't they?

It would seem to me that freedom to police ones self would encourage moral behavior. That does not mean that all people will handle their money wisely or that all will act in a moral way. But the freedom is there to make correct choices.

A legitimate counter-point would be that greed is immensely involved with capitalism. Whether it's what drives it or is simply a byproduct of it is debatable. I suspect it's a little of both. Greed is especially condemned Biblically. It would seem to me that unregulated capitalism would actually discourage moral behavior and it would be the exception, not the rule, who would conduct business in a moral or ethical way.

First of all I never said capitalism was moral or immoral.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgment. Just being in a capitalist society does not ensure that all will act and live their lives in a moral way.

Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

Look at the definitions.

4 results for: morality

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

Instead of posting the article piecemeal, why didn't you just provide a link?

Dr. Sanity-Capitalism Is Good For The Soul

Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts on the subject?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate. The very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

That doesn't make capitalism, per se, moral or immoral. 'Isms' are inanimate and their morality would come from their practitioners, wouldn't they?

It would seem to me that freedom to police ones self would encourage moral behavior. That does not mean that all people will handle their money wisely or that all will act in a moral way. But the freedom is there to make correct choices.

A legitimate counter-point would be that greed is immensely involved with capitalism. Whether it's what drives it or is simply a byproduct of it is debatable. I suspect it's a little of both. Greed is especially condemned Biblically. It would seem to me that unregulated capitalism would actually discourage moral behavior and it would be the exception, not the rule, who would conduct business in a moral or ethical way.

First of all I never said capitalism was moral or immoral.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgment. Just being in a capitalist society does not ensure that all will act and live their lives in a moral way.

Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

Look at the definitions.

4 results for: morality

–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

Instead of posting the article piecemeal, why didn't you just provide a link?

Dr. Sanity-Capitalism Is Good For The Soul

Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts on the subject?

Actually it is coming from 6 different places. Do you want them all posted? OK here they are.

The piece you referred to is long which is a good reason to not post entirely. Bit since you insist.

And when I want your permission to post anything, or your instructions on how to post I will ask, but don't hold your breath.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...n/?id=110001918

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ome_wealth.html

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com

http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2002/06/

PEGGY NOONAN

Capitalism Betrayed

The rise of the White Collar Big Money Psychopath.

Friday, June 28, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Three scenes.

It is a spring day in the early 1990s and I am talking with the head of a mighty American corporation. We're in his window-lined office, high in midtown Manhattan, the view--silver skyscrapers stacked one against another, dense, fine-lined, sparkling in the sun--so perfect, so theatrical it's like a scrim, like a fake backdrop for a 1930s movie about people in tuxes and tails. Edward Everett Horton could shake his cocktail shaker here; Fred and Ginger could banter on the phone.

The CEO tells me it is "annual report" time, and he is looking forward to reading the reports of his competitors.

Why? I asked him. I wondered what specifically he looks for when he reads the reports of the competition.

He said he always flipped to the back to see what the other CEOs got as part of their deal--corporate jets, private helicopters, whatever. "We all do that," he said. "We all want to see who has what."

Second scene: It is the mid-'90s, a soft summer day, and I am crossing a broad Manhattan avenue, I think it was Third or Lexington. I am doing errands. I cross the avenue with the light but halfway across I see the switch to yellow. I pick up my pace. From the corner of my eye I see, then hear, the car. Bright black Mercedes, high gloss, brand new. The man at the wheel, dark haired, in his 30s, is gunning the motor. Vroom vroom! He drums his fingers on the steering wheel impatiently. The light turns. He vrooms forward. I sprint the last few steps toward the sidewalk. He speeds by so close the wind makes my cotton skirt move. I realize: If I hadn't sprinted that guy would have hit me. I think: Young Wall Street Titan. Bonus bum.

Third scene, just the other night. I am talking to a shrewd and celebrated veteran of Wall Street and Big Business. The WorldCom story has just broken; he tells me of it. He has a look I see more and more, a kind of facelift look only it doesn't involve a facelift. It's like this: The face goes blanched and blank and the eyes go up slightly as if the hairline had been yanked back. He looked scalped by history.

For years, he said, he had given speeches in Europe on why they should invest in America. We have the great unrigged game, he'd tell them, we have oversight and regulation, we're the stable democracy with reliable responsible capitalism. "I can't give that speech anymore," he said.

Something is wrong with--what shall we call it? Wall Street, Big Business. We'll call it Big Money. Something has been wrong with it for a long time, at least a decade, maybe more. Probably more. I don't fully understand it. I can't imagine that it's this simple: A new generation of moral and ethical zeroes rose to run Big Money over the past decade, and nobody quite noticed but they were genuinely bad people who were running the system into the ground. I am not sure it's this simple, either: A friend tells me it all stems from the easy money of the '90s, piles and piles of funny money that Wall Street learned to play with. That would be a description of the scandal, perhaps, but not the reason for it.

At any rate it no longer seems like a scandal. "Scandal" seems quaint. It is starting to feel like a tragedy. Not for Wall Street and for corporations--it's a setback for them--but for our country. For a way of living and being.

Those who invested in and placed faith in Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco or WorldCom have been cheated and fooled by individuals whose selfishness seems so outsized, so huge, that it seems less human and flawed than weird and puzzling. Did they think they would get away with accounting scams forever? Did they think they'd never get caught? Do they think they're operating in the end times and they better grab what they can now and go hide? What were they thinking?

We should study who these men are--they are still all men, and still being turned in by women--and try to learn how they rationalized their actions, how they excused their decisions or ignored the consequences, how they thought about the people they were cheating. I mention this because I've been wondering if we are witnessing the emergence of a new pathology: White Collar Big Money Psychopath.

I have been reading Michael Novak, the philosopher and social thinker and, to my mind, great man. Twenty years ago this summer he published what may be his masterpiece, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism." It was a stunning book marked by great clarity of expression and originality of thought. He spoke movingly of the meaning and morality of capitalism. He asked why capitalism is good, and answered that there is one great reason: Of all the systems devised by man it is the one most likely to lift the poor out of poverty.

But, he asserted unassailably, capitalism cannot exist in a void. Capitalism requires an underlying moral edifice. Without it nothing works; with it all is possible. That edifice includes people who have an appreciation for and understanding of the human person; it requires a knowledge that business can contribute to community and family; it requires "a sense of sin," a sense of right and wrong, and an appreciation that the unexpected happens, that things take surprising turns in life.

Mr. Novak was speaking, he knew, to an international intellectual community that felt toward capitalism a generalized contempt. Capitalism was selfish, exploitative, unequal, imperialistic, warlike. He himself had been a socialist and knew the critiques. But he had come to see capitalism in a new way.

Capitalism, like nature, wants to increase itself, wants to grow and create, and as it does it produces more: more goods, more services, more "liberation," more creativity, more opportunity, more possibilities, more unanticipated ferment, movement, action.

So capitalism was to Mr. Novak a public good, and he addressed its subtler critics. What of "the corruption of affluence," the idea that while it is moral discipline that builds and creates success, success itself tends to corrupt and corrode moral discipline? Dad made money with his guts, you spend it at your leisure. The result, an ethos of self indulgence, greed and narcissism. The system works, goes this argument, but too well, and in the end it corrodes.

Mr. Novak answered by quoting the philosopher Jacques Maritain, who once observed that affluence in fact inspires us to look beyond the material for meaning in our lives. "It's exactly because people have bread that they realize you can't live by bread alone." In a paradoxical way, said Mr. Novak, the more materially comfortable a society becomes, the more spiritual it is likely to become, "its hungers more markedly transcendent."

Right now Mr. Novak certainly seems right about American society. We have not become worse people with the affluence of the past 20 years, and have arguably in some interesting ways become better. (Forty years ago men in the New York City borough of Queens ignored the screams of a waitress named Kitty Genovese as she was stabbed to death in an apartment building parking lot. Today men of Queens are famous for strapping 60 pounds of gear on their back and charging into the towers.)

But it appears that the leaders of business, of Wall Street, of big accounting have, many of them, become worse with affluence. Or maybe it's just worse with time. I think of a man of celebrated rectitude who, if he returned to the Wall Street of his youth, would no doubt be welcomed back with cheers and derided behind his back as a sissy. He wouldn't dream of cooking the books. He wouldn't dream of calling costs profits. He would never fit in.

Mr. Novak famously sees business as a vocation, and a deeply serious one. Business to him is a stage, a platform on which men and women can each day take actions that are either moral or immoral, helpful or not. When their actions are marked by high moral principle, they heighten their calling--they are suddenly not just "in business" but part of a noble endeavor that adds to the sum total of human joy and progress. The work they do builds things--makes connections between people, forges community, spreads wealth, sets example, creates a template, offers inspiration. The work they do changes the world. And in doing this work they strengthen the ground on which democracy and economic freedom stand.

They are, that is, patriots.

"The calling of business is to support the reality and reputation of capitalism," says Mr. Novak, "and not undermine [it]."

But undermining it is precisely what the men of WorldCom et al. have done. It is their single most destructive act.

Edward Younkins of the Acton Institute distills Mr. Novak's philosophy into "Seven Great Responsibilities for Corporations": satisfy customers with good services of real value; make a reasonable return to investors; create new wealth; create new jobs; defeat cynicism and envy by demonstrating internally that talent and hard work will and can be rewarded; promote inventiveness, ingenuity and creativity; diversify the interests of the republic.

As for business leaders, their responsibility is to shape a corporate culture that fosters virtue; to exemplify respect for the rule of law; to act in practical ways to improve society; to communicate often and openly with investors, pensioners, customers and employees; to contribute toward improved civil society; and to protect--lovely phrase coming--"the moral ecology of freedom."

To look at the current Big Money crisis armed with Mr. Novak's views on and love of capitalism is to understand the crisis more deeply.

Businessmen are not just businessmen. They are not just moneymakers. Businessmen and -women are representatives of, leaders of, exemplars of an ethos and a way of life. They are the face and daily reality of free-market capitalism.

And when they undermine it with their actions they damage more than their reputations, more than the portfolios of investors. They damage and deal a great blow to our country. They make a great and decent edifice look dishonest and low because they are dishonest and low.

When we call them "thieves" or "con men" we are not, with these tough words, quite capturing the essence of the damage they do and have done.

It would be good if some great man or woman of business in America would rise and speak of that damage, and its meaning, and how to heal it. It would be good if the Securities and Exchange Commission held open hearings in New York on what has been done and why and by whom, and how they got away with it until they didn't anymore. It would be good if the business leaders of our country shunned those businessmen who did such damage to the very freedoms they used to make themselves wealthy. And it just might be good if some companies, on the next casual Friday, gave everyone in their employ the day off, with just one assignment: Go read a book in the park. They could start with "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism," and go from there.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her most recent book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/p...n/?id=110001918

December 30, 2006

"Disparities" in Income & Wealth

By Thomas Sowell

People in the media, in academia and among the intelligentsia in general who are obsessed with "disparities" in income and wealth usually show not the slightest interest in how that income and wealth were produced in the first place.

They are hot to redistribute the existing income and wealth but seem wholly unaware that how you do that today can affect how much income and wealth will be produced tomorrow. Any number of schemes for redistributing wealth have ended up redistributing poverty in a number of countries.

"Progressives" in the media and among academics and intellectuals claim to be interested in ending poverty but the production of more output is the only way to end poverty for millions of people.

It not only can be done, it has already been done in many countries, for all countries were once very poor by today's standards. But most self-styled "progressives" show virtually zero interest in economic history or in economics in general.

Even in the United States, most people did not have a telephone or a refrigerator as late as 1930. Today, most Americans living below the official poverty level have not only these things but also color television, air-conditioning, a microwave oven and a motor vehicle.

How did this happen? The progressive intelligentsia show no interest in that question.

Even such historically poverty-stricken countries as India and China, repeatedly struck by massive famines, have within the past two decades adopted changed economic policies that have raised vast numbers of people out of desperate poverty.

An estimated 20 million people in India rose out of destitution in just one decade and more than a million Chinese per month have risen out of poverty. But have you heard any progressive intellectuals explaining how such a dramatic change for the better came about?

Progressives are in the business of complaining and denouncing -- as a prelude to seeking sweeping powers to control other people's lives, in the name of curing the ills of society.

The last thing they want is to discover and discuss how millions of people rose out of poverty by entirely different methods, often by freeing economies from the control of people with sweeping power over other people's lives.

Poverty and economic disparities are the raw materials from which the political left manufactures a sense of moral superiority, self-importance and political power.

Against that background, it is understandable how they strive to keep poverty alive as an issue, even as they claim to want to end poverty, by playing lady bountiful to the poor.

Even as they define deviancy downward, many of the progressive intelligentsia define poverty upward, so that people with amenities that even the middle class could only strive for, two generations ago, are still called "the poor" or the "have-nots."

Except for people who can't work or won't work, there is very little real poverty in the United States today, except among people who come from poverty-stricken countries and bring their poverty with them.

Talk about "the working poor" still resonates in politics, but most of the people in the bottom 20 percent of American households are not working full-time and year-round. There are more heads of household who work year-round and full-time among the top 5 percent of American heads of households than among the bottom 20 percent.

The left has striven mightily to make working no longer necessary for having a claim to a share of what others have produced -- whether a share of "the nation's" wealth or "the world's" wealth.

They have also striven mightily to inflate the number of people who look poor by counting young people with entry-level jobs, who are passing through lower income brackets at the beginning of their careers, among "the poor," even though most of these young people have incomes above the national average when they are older.

The real obsession of the left is in gaining power or, at the very least, engaging in moral exhibitionism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ome_wealth.html

THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE DO-GOODERS AND SOUL MURDER***UPDATED***

UPDATE: Kate at Small Dead Animals has a perfect example of how these totalitarian idealogues casually use and brainwash children. This is just so incredibly appalling I hardly know what to say. It parallels how the Palestinian gunman hide behind children and use them to throw rocks at the Israelis, knowing full well that decent people are repulsed at the idea of retaliating against innocents. And then consider the harm it does to the souls of the children themselves who are being used in such a manner.

*******************************

Betsy Newmark links to an article that demonstrates clearly how socialism's "social justice" advocates have taken over our k-12 education system and are determinedly undermining capitalism:

Working in an elementary school classroom they trace their efforts to tell students that private property ownership is bad by creating a town out of Lego where everyone has to have the same-size house and how valuable it is if the public can have rights to private property. As Martin summarizes their article,

According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."

So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes."

How Orwellian is that lesson? It sounds like something out of Animal Farm but now it's being taught to children as what is optimal rather than to be condemned.

These teachers are so ignorant that they don't realize that the rights to private property are not only the essence of our democratic system as well as the best guarantee for a thriving economy. Who would want to invest and improve anything in an economy if they didn't have guarantees that they would be able to reap the profits from their invested time and money? And these teachers are so proud of their Lego lesson on socialism that they wrote it up and submitted it to an education journal. Amazing.

This is yet another example of a pervasive intellectual trend in the West to continually bash capitalism, private property, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of all of them.

Our academics--even the kindergarden ones-- rail against business and private property. Our government constantly seeks to control them. Our youth are propagandized to death about its evils from pre-school through college.

Make no mistake about it, what those teachers are doing is indoctrinating their students minds into an unquestioning obedience to the collective.

While our popular culture refrains sensitively from prtraying Islamofascists as villians in movies out of political correctness (yet another aspect of socialism's quest for "social justice"); it does not hesitate to make businessmen evil and malignant oppressors of the innocent. Individualism, the pursuit of profit, and private property is always bad and everyone must bow to the will of the collective. Islam (the name even means "submit"),even in all its terrorist varieties, does very well by this perverted moral standard.

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. Certainly our children, taught by ideological purists like the ones above who are leftover from the 20th century debacle of socialist/communist tyranny--never even have a chance to rationally consider any ideas not approved by their aggressively collectivist teachers, so intent at quashing those aspects of human nature they don't like.

This is child abuse, pure and simple. It is indoctrination. It is the willful manipulation of young minds which cannot never be allowed to develop even the capability of thinking for themselves. And these perverts call it "social justice."

In fact there is nothing that is "just" about it. It represents the worse kind of oppression with the goal of enslaving the human mind. And enslavement is exactly what is required to establish their socialist utopia, since it refuses to acknowledge the reality of human nature.

Socialist ideologues like those teachers know that in a free market of ideas, their pathetic system-- which has only brought human misery, slavery and death to those who have embraced--cannot function in a real world. Thus they must "stack the deck" and take absolute control over the thinking of the utopia's future citizens.

On some level they even understand that the very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition. And that frightens them to death.

Capitalism's incredible production of wealth is the economic side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both economic and political freedom are absolute prerequisites for moral behavior.

Children propagandized by dogmatic tyrants like the ones above have had not only their capacity to think for themselves abrogated; they have had their capacity to make moral choices taken from them.

The moral case for capitalism is not taught in our schools, nor is it argued much in our culture. In fact it has been more or less universally accepted by the intellectual elites that systems such as communism and socialism are "morally superior" to capitalism (hence more "socially just")--even though in practice such systems have led to the death and enslavement of millions, and to those unlucky enough not to die from them, they have led to the most horrible shrinking and wasting of the human soul.

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

One cannot hold a person responsible for actions that are coerced or forced from him. Morality can only exist when freedom of action exists; and thus moral actions in any field of human endeavor require freedom.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgement.

Which brings us to a capitalist economic system. Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

Taking the mind of a child and feeding it exclusively on your ideological pablum is not only the most cruel and abusive of behaviors; it also ensures that such a mind becomes cognitively stunted and morally impaired (much like the minds of the teachers who so proudly perform such oppressive acts).

In a previous series of posts on Narcissism and Society, I stated:

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as "human nature" into its calculations, all so-called "perfect" societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale--that the grandiose CEO's of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.

When we talk about the individual versus society; or the individual versus the state; or indeed any discussion of individual rights versus the rights of a group, we are also referring to the psychological tension between the two poles of the Self. Any political or economic system that expects to succeed in the real world will have to accommodate that tension, and find a way to optimally negotiate the needs of BOTH sides of the Self--that is, they will have to take into account human nature.

A perusal of any list of economic systems will demonstrate that ALMOST ALL OF THEM are relatively extreme expressions of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Object. Almost all emphasize the group, the community, the collective, the nation, the state, or god at the expense of the individual. Examples are numerous. Socialism and Communism; fascism and religious fundamentalism.

The major exception is Capitalism, where the individual and the individual's needs are emphasized over the the group.

Just yesterday I wrote a post about the "self-esteem gurus" of education who have twisted the minds of our young and perverted the development of a healthy narcissism into a much more malignant variety. We see evidence of this malignant variety in the behavior of teachers who would force their own world view onto the minds of defenseless 5-year old children. One of the questions asked college students in the study from yesterday's post was "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place." Sociopathic narcissism (what I call "sociopathic selflessness") is the defining characteristic of the "dictatorship of the do-gooders". They claim to strive for "social justice" and to "end poverty" and bring about "peace" and "brotherhood"---so, how is it that they never seem to notice that their ideology always brings about the exact opposite of those things? (see the paragraph above about cognitive stunting and moral impairment).

The WSJ put it thusly (from a previous post of mine):

Policy makers who pay lip service to fighting poverty would do well to grasp the link between economic freedom and prosperity. This year the Index finds that the freest economies have a per-capita income of $29,219, more than twice that of the "mostly free" at $12,839, and more than four times that of the "mostly unfree." Put simply, misery has a cure and its name is economic freedom.

The reason that systems such as socialism and communism don't work in the real world and are ultimately destructive of the individual self; and of the human soul, is that they remove moral action and judgement from the individual and place it in the collective. The individual is not permitted to make his/her own moral judgements, and must obey the mandates of the collective. This can only work when the individual is stripped of all freedom to act independently and fears reprisals for doing so.

Thus political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism cannot exist for long inside an oppressive regime. Since it is more compatible with human nature than any other economic system, it will cause any totalitarian regime that permits it to some degree to last longer (China is a good example), but that can only be a temporary state. Without true political freedom, economic freedom cannot last and will either wither away slowly; or, alternatively cause individuals living under the oppression to demand more political freedom.

You can't be a "little bit" free because human nature will always demand more and more freedom once it has had a taste of it; until the despot who rules is finally deposed, or he totally crushes those who oppose him. In situations where the latter happens, you will always find the worse scenarios of poverty, oppression,misery, death, genocide and/or human degredation.

Likewise, true political freedom cannot last, and in the end is meaningless, where there is no economic freedom. Think for a minute about what money really is. Anti-capitalist intellectuals are rather fond of the phrase "money is the root of all evil" (see here for a further discussion of this point), but, in truth, money is the most efficient method of allowing individuals to make moral judgements. The phrase "put your money where your mouth is" is actually a more meaningful insight for understanding the importance of money and its relationship to freedom.

This is, of course not to say that everyone will make good and/or moral decisions. Nor do all people necessarily spend or even earn their money wisely. They clearly don't. But that is neither here nor there. That is why political freedom demands a rule of law, and the protection of individual and property rights from other individuals and from the state.

In essence, capitalism is actually good for the soul. It is the only system where the soul and the self can flourish, where individuals have a right to their own life and liberty, and can make the specific choices in the pursuit their own particular happiness. Malignant do-gooder teachers, more committed to imposing their ideology on young minds ("If I ruled the world, it would be a better place") rather than teaching student to think for themselves, are not in the business of education; they are in the business of soul murder.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

Moral Capitalism

by Jay Reding · June 29th, 2002

Peggy Noonan has a fascinating column on the relationship between public morality and capitalism, a column which deals directly with the WorldCom/Enron/Xerox/etc financial scams.

I have been reading Michael Novak, the philosopher and social thinker and, to my mind, great man. Twenty years ago this summer he published what may be his masterpiece, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. " It was a stunning book marked by great clarity of expression and originality of thought. He spoke movingly of the meaning and morality of capitalism. He asked why capitalism is good, and answered that there is one great reason: Of all the systems devised by man it is the one most likely to lift the poor out of poverty.

But, he asserted unassailably, capitalism cannot exist in a void. Capitalism requires an underlying moral edifice. Without it nothing works; with it all is possible. That edifice includes people who have an appreciation for and understanding of the human person; it requires a knowledge that business can contribute to community and family; it requires "a sense of sin," a sense of right and wrong, and an appreciation that the unexpected happens, that things take surprising turns in life.

Since capitalism relies so much on the trust and transparency between seller and buyer, the incidents with WorldCom and Enron are especially egregious. What they are not, despite the cries of some, are basic flaws with capitalism itself. Novak was correct that capitalism requires a framework of essential morality to operate correctly. That is why conservatives are so interested in preserving America’s moral fiber… because without it, the systems that make American great would begin to collapse. It’s not a lack of regulation or a flaw in capitalism that created this mess: it was a failure of these companies to respect the basic morality of truth and accountability.

http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2002/06/

NARCISSISM AND THE SELF-ESTEEM GURUS

Is this study really come as a surprise to anyone?

Today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

"We need to stop endlessly repeating 'You're special' and having children repeat that back," said the study's lead author, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University. "Kids are self-centered enough already."

[...]

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students' NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol.'"

"Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said. The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

Twenge, the author of "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable Than Ever Before," said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

If you want to understand the pros and cons of narcissism, I refer you to this series of posts.

Amazing, isn't it? Thinking you're hot stuff isn't the cure-all promised by the self-esteem gurus. Most psychiatrists could tell you this. Here are some findings from an earlier analysis of multiple studies on self-esteem:

A generation — and many millions of dollars — later, it turns out we may have been mistaken. Five years ago, the American Psychological Society commissioned me and several other experts to wade with an open mind through the enormous amount of published research on the subject and to assess the benefits of high self-esteem.

Here are some of our disappointing findings. High self- esteem in schoolchildren does not produce better grades. (Actually, kids with high self-esteem do have slightly better grades in most studies, but that's because getting good grades leads to higher self-esteem, not the other way around.) In fact, according to a study by Donald Forsyth at Virginia Commonwealth University, college students with mediocre grades who got regular self-esteem strokes from their professors ended up doing worse on final exams than students who were told to suck it up and try harder.Self-esteem doesn't make adults perform better at their jobs either. Sure, people with high self-esteem rate their own performance better — even declaring themselves smarter and more attractive than their low self-esteem peers — but neither objective tests nor impartial raters can detect any difference in the quality of work.

Likewise, people with high self-esteem think they make better impressions, have stronger friendships and have better romantic lives than other people, but the data don't support their self-flattering views. If anything, people who love themselves too much sometimes annoy other people by their defensive or know-it-all attitudes. Self-esteem doesn't predict who will make a good leader, and some work (including that of psychologist Robert Hogan writing in the Harvard Business Review) has found humility rather than self-esteem to be a key trait of successful leaders.

It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. They turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve. Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise.

High self-esteem doesn't prevent youngsters from cheating or stealing or experimenting with drugs and sex. (If anything, kids with high self-esteem may be more willing to try these things at a young age.)There were a few areas where higher self-esteem seemed to bring some benefits. For instance, people with high self- esteem are generally happier and less depressed than others, though we can't quite prove that high self-esteem prevents depression or causes happiness. Young women with high self- esteem seem less susceptible to eating disorders. In some studies (though not all), people with high self-esteem bounce back from misfortune and trauma faster than others.

High self-esteem also promotes initiative. People who have it are more likely to speak up in a group, persist in the face of failure, resist other people's advice or pressure and strike up conversations with strangers. Of course, initiative can cut both ways: One study on bullying found that self-esteem was high among the bullies and among the people who intervened to resist them. Low self-esteem marked the victims of bullying.

In short, despite the enthusiastic embrace of self-esteem, we found that it conferred only two benefits. It feels good and it supports initiative.

Most people confuse "self-esteem" with what I will refer to as a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy "Self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem--which is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect that leads to so many problems is a defective or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was once widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence--and you see that idea reflected today in the platitudes and rationalizations of terrorism-- but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves.

Do you really suppose that people like Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Bin Laden or Kim suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath.

The pop-psychology that promulgated the widespread belief that if you nurture kid's self-esteem neglected to mention that if the sense of self was already damaged, all you managed to do was to create a narcissist; and it is simply a waste of time and money--as this article reports.

If the 19th century was the age of hysteria (and basically, Freud was responding to the excessive sexual repression present in that century); then the 20th was the age of narcissism. In this new century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.

Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling".

For years now, pop psychology and its gurus have mesmerized the culture at large. All their self-help tenets have percolated through K-12 educational curricula; and been accepted wholeheartedly by the cultural elite of Hollywood and the intellectual elite of academia.

The triumvarate of contradictions that claims to be based on "scientific" psychology includes the hyping of (1) self-esteem (increasing your self-worth without having to achieve anything; (2) hope (achieving your goals without any real effort) and (3) victimhood (it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort). See here for more discussion.

Steve Salerno, writing in the LA Times tackles the third leg of this holy psychological quest --the hyping of hope in the "self-help" movement. It seems the intellectual impoverishment of all these pseudoscientific psychological deceptions are now becoming apparent:

Over a 20-year span beginning in the early 1970s, the average SAT score fell by 35 points. But in that same period, the contingent of college-bound seniors who boasted an A or B average jumped from 28% to an astonishing 83%, as teachers felt increasing pressure to adopt more "supportive" grading policies. Tellingly, in a 1989 study of comparative math skills among students in eight nations, Americans ranked lowest in overall competence, Koreans highest — but when researchers asked the students how good they thought they were at math, the results were exactly opposite: Americans highest, Koreans lowest. Meanwhile, data from 1999's omnibus Third International Mathematics and Science Study, ranking 12th-graders from 23 nations, put U.S. students in 20th place, besting only South Africa, Lithuania and Cyprus.

Still, the U.S. keeps dressing its young in their emperors' new egos, passing them on to the next set of empowering curricula. If you teach at the college level, as I do, at some point you will be confronted with a student seeking redress over the grade you gave him because "I'm pre-med!" Not until such students reach med school do they encounter truly inelastic standards: a comeuppance for them but a reprieve for those who otherwise might find ourselves anesthetized beneath their second-rate scalpel.

The larger point is that society has embraced such concepts as self-esteem and confidence despite scant evidence that they facilitate positive outcomes. The work of psychologists Roy Baumeister and Martin Seligman suggests that often, high self-worth is actually a marker for negative behavior, as found in sociopaths and drug kingpins.

We see the people who have inhaled this "psychology-lite" everywhere around us, and in all levels of society. Particularly we can notice it in the elites of Hollywood and Academia; who alternate between acting out their narcissistically empowered superiority -- demanding to be noticed, admired and loved (by you); and playing the narcissistically empowered victim -- demanding their inalienable rights and priveleges (at your expense).

But the real victims of all this hype are our children, because these foolish notions, without a scintilla of scientific evidence and only becaue it makes some people feel good about themselves, have become the pop psychology dogma of public policy in education.

In Narcissism and Society I wrote:

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible results of Narcissistic behavior. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their Narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purpose of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion. It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the Narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past as a seeming epidemic of malignant Narcissism caused by a crushing of human nature and the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

For many on the left side of the political spectrum, it is axiomatic that narcissism is inextricably linked to business, capitalism, individualism, and the pursuit of profit. The political left has idealized certain social and political systems because they suppressed the individual and elevated the state, insisting that individuals had no right to exist for their own selves, but only to serve others.

Executives, such as The Rigases of Adelphia Corp; Samuel D. Waksal, the socialite founder of ImClone Systems; Dennis Kozlowski, of Tyco International; Scott D. Sullivan of WorldCom; and Ken Lay of Enron, typify the ugly narcissist of the business world with his or her extreme grandiosity; selfishness of unbelievable proportions; and complete lack of empathy towards the people they cheated. While the majority of businessmen are ethical and honest individuals, only a few “bad apples” are needed to demonstrate the havoc that malignant narcissism in the business sector can wreak.

But what is not generally or readily seen (either on the left or right) is the flip side of "selfish" or "grandiose" narcissism-- and that is what I will call narcissism rooted in idealism, rather than selfishness, or "idealistic" narcissism (discussed at some length here if you are interested). This second kind of narcissism (the flip side of the coin, if you will) is less obvious to an observer, since it is disguised with a veneer of concern for others. But it is equally—if not more—destructive and causative of human suffering, death and misery. Both kinds of narcissism are a plague on the world; and both are well-traveled avenues for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" narcissism is the stimulus for individual tyrants, while the "idealistic" Narcissism leads to groups imposing their will on others.

One such group happens to be the "Self-Esteem Gurus" in education, whose nonsense continues to reinforce the inappropriate grandiosity of young children; just as the radical environmentalists and kumbayah types (among other groups) continue to reinforce the malignant selflessness.

Between the two influences unleashed on the vulnerable minds of our children, is it any surprise that by the time they get to college, kids are either dysfunctional self-absorbed narcissists, naively malignant do-gooders, or completely and irrevocably cynical about the pervasive indoctrination and anti-intellectualism they have been subjected to in their educational careers?

As a writer in the LA Times say somewhat understatedly, "Gen Y's ego trip is likely to take a nasty turn". Yes, it is --along with the society they will inherit.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/02/narci...teem-gurus.html

Now Al you read them all and respond.

[Tiger Al 0]

Now Al you read them all and respond.

My response is don't get pissy and don't cut and paste someone elses words and present them as your own.

[aumd03 2]

I had a similar discussion on this with a friend with more liberal beliefs back when the ten commandments was an issue. We both agreed that Roy Moore had no business doing what he did, but we started debating the foundation for our laws and morality.

I guess a lot of this depends on your definition of morality. If morality is a personal "goodness" issue or is it a set of rules that dictate appropriate and just behavior in society or some medium along that spectrum. Morality varies to all.

My whole argument was that there has to be some accepted basic laws or morality. Something has to be accepted for rules to be built if any kind of morality applies to all of society. Much like a science experiment or math proof. You can only build based on accepted laws. For example, we say, its immoral to kill. But we also say, its moral to kill in war or to defend yourself. So what we are really saying is that is its immoral to kill unless someone is innocent. I finally decided we were debating semantics and there was no good answer.

I'm a science guy, I like rules and physical and biological laws. I'm sure you legal types may be more used to these type discussions. Unfortunately if a health care issue gets to the point we are debating morality, a legal expert steps in and decides for us.