Morality, ethics and government

When man refuses to put
out cigarette, brother sprays
him with fire extinguisher.

I was thinking of writing something on morality, ethics, and government, but then I made the mistake of looking in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster Online). For the definition of morality I found, “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” Puzzled, I then looked up “right,” and found several definitions: (1) righteous, upright, (2) just, good, proper, (3) correct, (4) suitable, appropriate, (5) straight, and (6) genuine, real. Perhaps I am missing some brain cells, but I find none of these definitions helpful for spelling out “ideals of right human conduct.” I mean, like, who is going to say what is “right,” “good,” “proper,” “suitable,” or “genuine,” etc.? Stymied, I decided to try “ethical.” The closest thing to useful was “moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of behavior.” This means, I take it, that if something is in conformity with “ideals of right human conduct” (that is, accepted standards of behavior) it can be considered ethical. But here again, what are the standards by which we are to judge whether something is ethical or not? The basic problem with this, is simply that we need to know what is “right human conduct,” and that is precisely what is missing, and obviously not going to be revealed by looking in the dictionary. I know, I should have known better.

Now it seems to me there are at least some things that would appear not to be ideals of right human conduct or accepted standards of behavior. Torture, I believe, must be one of these things (apparently some people would not agree with this). I should think that attacking another country that is not a threat to you would also not be acceptable human behavior, killing innocent civilians, likewise. Similarly, I would think that dropping cluster bombs that you know are going to kill and maim innocent children would not be considered right human conduct or an accepted standard of behavior. I could go on, of course, but you get the point. If you agree with my ideas of acceptable standards of behavior, then we can easily conclude that Bush/Cheney acted both immorally and unethically. But ho-hum, it just seems so academic, so “last year,” as to not be worthy of further consideration (oh, how I hope I am wrong about this).

Anyway, having not really satisfied myself very well about morality and ethics, I decided to try the concept of “government.” Specifically, I set myself the task of trying to understand what the late Saint Ronnie meant when he said “government is the problem.” The idea of government is somewhat easier to comprehend than either morality or ethics. But there are, of course, different definitions: “the act or process of governing,” “the office, authority, or function of governing,” “the continuous exercise of authority over and he performance of functions of a political unit,” “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it,” “the complex of political institutions, laws, customs through which the function of governing is carried out,” or “the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization.” Like all attempts at dictionary definitions these may leave something to be desired, but generally speaking, you get the idea. Now, when Saint Ronnie said government is the problem, he did not really mean government per se. He was not stupid enough (although I think he almost was) to disband government entirely because it was a problem. He seems to have had in mind only certain functions of government, in particular, those functions that had to do with public good (welfare, social security, decent wages, public health, etc.), the regulation of industry to prevent them from theft, including those industries that were involved in the exploitation of natural resources, and taxation. Said by his admirers to be “the Great Communicator,” he wasn’t too great when it came to explaining this. But what he was doing became clear when he began union busting, said famously “when you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen ‘em all,” railed constantly about “welfare queens in their cadillacs,” and worst of all, appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior (arguably the worst political appointment ever). He also thought government was a great institution for borrowing money. Of course we have to give him credit for single-handedly bringing down the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. Indeed, his policies, often called “Reagonomics” have also nearly brought down the United States itself (we are a long way from recovering). But, if you believe the major functions of government are to protect corporations and the obscenely wealthy, and to do away with amenities for the less fortunate, including the mentally ill and the destitute, then you no doubt believe Ronnie really was a Saint, and his face should adorn our coins, Mt. Rushmore, and most of our streets. If, on the other hand, like me, you think he was a mindless, evil moron who had little understanding of either government, morality, or ethics, you might conclude he was little more than the Patron Saint of Greed and Ignorance.

LKBIQ:
Rather, she [Death] simply is the Ultimate Hostess who tells you when your table's ready. It's up to other powers what section you're seated in (smoking or non-smoking).
John C. Straffin

TILT:
A “blue moon” occurs once every 2.72 years.