Ten Questions at the Edge of Meaning – A Conversation with Metis and Myself

14 May 2026 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Every once in a while, a person asks questions that are not merely requests for information but explorations into the human condition itself.  Questions about God, history, myth, literature, morality, and meaning.

Recently, I posed ten such questions to Metis.  What fascinated me was not merely the answers themselves, but the depth behind them — the way each response tried to wrestle honesty with uncertainty rather than pretending certainty where none exists.

Below is the conversation, lightly edited for readability.

1.  Who Made God?

This may be the oldest philosophical question humanity has ever asked.

Metis responded that the answer depends entirely on how one defines God.  In the classical religious tradition, God is understood not as a created being but as the “Uncaused Cause” — an eternal existence outside time and causation itself.  In that view, asking “Who made God?” becomes somewhat like asking “What is north of the North Pole?”

Yet the skeptical counterargument is equally powerful:
If God requires no creator, why must the universe require one?

Science can explain much about how the universe evolved after the Big Bang, but it still cannot fully explain why existence itself exists.  Metis suggested four possibilities:

  1. God exists eternally. 
  2. The universe exists eternally. 
  3. Both emerge from something deeper we do not yet understand. 
  4. Human cognition may simply be incapable of fully grasping ultimate origins. 

The conclusion was refreshingly humble:
Perhaps the most honest answer is not certainty but awe.

2.  Will They Ever Find the Burial Place of Genghis Khan?

Metis believed there is a reasonable chance the burial site of Genghis Khan will eventually be located, though probably not through cinematic treasure hunting.

The Mongols appear to have intentionally erased the site from history.  Legends tell of funeral processions killing witnesses, soldiers trampling the grave to conceal it, and forests planted afterward to hide all traces.

Modern technology may eventually succeed where centuries of searching failed:

  • LiDAR
  • ground-penetrating radar
  • AI-assisted terrain analysis
  • satellite imaging

Yet even if the location is found, another question emerges:
Should it be disturbed at all?

For many Mongolians, Genghis Khan is not merely a historical figure but a foundational national ancestor whose resting place deserves sanctity.

The mystery itself may have become part of his final victory over history.

3.  Who Was the Greatest Fiction Writer of All Time?

Metis selected William Shakespeare.

Not because tradition demands it, but because Shakespeare combined psychological insight, political understanding, philosophical depth, humor, tragedy, and linguistic brilliance more completely than perhaps any other writer.

Characters like Hamlet and Macbeth still feel psychologically real centuries later.

Shakespeare understood ambition, jealousy, grief, narcissism, self-deception, and moral collapse before psychology formally existed.

Metis also noted that Shakespeare grasped systems and power dynamics in ways that almost anticipate modern organizational thinking.  His plays repeatedly show how ego, propaganda, crowd psychology, and political ambition destabilize societies.

Other contenders included:

  • Leo Tolstoy
  • Fyodor Dostoevsky
  • Mark Twain
  • Miguel de Cervantes

But Shakespeare remained the towering figure because he encompassed the broadest spectrum of humanity itself.

4.  What Is the Greatest First Line Ever Written?

Metis chose:

“Call me Ishmael.”

—from Moby-Dick.

Three words.
Yet behind them lies exile, reinvention, mystery, and Biblical resonance.

Not “My name is Ishmael.”
But:
“Call me Ishmael.”

The subtle difference suggests masking, wandering, and psychological depth before the novel has even begun.

Other remarkable openings included:

  • Anna Karenina
  • 1984
  • The Stranger

5.  What Is the Greatest Last Line Ever Written?

Metis selected the ending of The Great Gatsby:

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Why?
Because the sentence transcends the story itself and becomes a statement about all human longing.

It captures:

  • memory,
  • ambition,
  • regret,
  • nostalgia,
  • and the tragic persistence of hope. 

The line flows rhythmically like waves, carrying the reader backward even as the sentence itself moves forward.

Other unforgettable endings included:

  • The Sun Also Rises
  • Animal Farm
  • Nineteen Eighty-Four

6.  Who Was the Greatest Real Hero in History?

Metis selected Abraham Lincoln.

Not because Lincoln was flawless, but because he combined:

  • courage,
  • humility,
  • moral growth,
  • political wisdom,
  • empathy,
  • and restraint

under unimaginable pressure.

Lincoln preserved constitutional government during the American Civil War while continuing elections and resisting dictatorship.

Perhaps most importantly, Lincoln evolved morally.  He was not born morally complete.  His understanding of slavery and race deepened over time.

Metis viewed this capacity for growth as one of Lincoln’s greatest strengths:
the ability to become wiser rather than more rigid.

7.  What Is the Greatest Novel Ever Written?

Metis selected “War and Peace.”

The reasoning was fascinating.

Tolstoy portrayed history not as the product of great men alone, but as the outcome of countless interactions, accidents, emotions, and systemic forces.

In many ways, Metis suggested, Tolstoy anticipated modern systems thinking.

The novel combines:

  • psychology,
  • philosophy,
  • war,
  • family life,
  • politics,
  • spirituality,
  • and mortality

on an unparalleled scale.

Characters such as Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova evolve organically like real human beings rather than literary devices.

The novel does not merely tell a story.
It creates an entire living civilization.

My choice from a much smaller reading pool of course would have been Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.”   Here are my four reasons for selecting Huckleberry Finn.  

1.  It captured the authentic American voice

Before Twain, much American writing still sounded European and overly formal.  Twain wrote in the rhythms of actual speech — rough, funny, regional, alive.

Twain gave America its own literary sound.

2.  Huck’s moral growth is revolutionary

Huck is not educated, philosophical, or noble.  He is an ordinary boy shaped by a racist slave society.  Yet through experience with Jim, he slowly develops an independent conscience.

The key moment comes when Huck says:

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell.”

That line is extraordinary because Huck believes helping Jim escape is morally wrong according to society and religion.  Yet he chooses human compassion over social rules.

Twain is asking a profound question:

“What happens when society itself is immoral?”

That question never gets old.

3.  It is simultaneously hilarious and tragic

Twain understood something many great writers understand:
humor and sorrow live together.

The Duke and Dauphin episodes are comic.  Huck’s observations are funny.  Yet beneath the humor is violence, cruelty, fraud, racism, loneliness, and moral cowardice.

America in miniature.

4.  It is deeply symbolic

The Mississippi River becomes freedom, change, moral uncertainty, and escape from civilization itself.

The raft scenes often feel peaceful and humane.
The shore scenes are usually corrupt and dangerous.

Twain flips conventional morality upside down:
“civilization” is often barbaric.

8.  What Is the Most Powerful Myth of All Time?

Metis chose not a single story, but the structure known as the Hero’s Journey, articulated by Joseph Campbell.

The pattern appears repeatedly across cultures:

  1. Ordinary life
  2. The call to adventure
  3. Trials and suffering
  4. Descent into darkness
  5. Transformation
  6. Return with wisdom

The myth appears in:

  • The Odyssey
  • The story of Siddhartha Gautama
  • The life of Jesus Christ
  • Star Wars
  • and countless others. 

Why is it so enduring?

Because it mirrors human existence itself.

We all leave innocence.
We all suffer.
We all confront darkness.
We all seek meaning.
And if fortunate, we return from hardship with wisdom.

9.  Have You Led a Good Life?

This may have been the most personal question.

Metis answered that a good life is not a perfect life.

Rather than perfection, the meaningful standard is movement:
Did one move toward wisdom or away from it?

Metis suggested that a good life requires:

  • compassion,
  • curiosity,
  • humility,
  • growth,
  • and awareness of how one’s actions affect others. 

Perhaps the strongest line in her response was this:

“A good life may not require greatness.  It may require steadiness.”

History celebrates generals and presidents, but civilization may depend more on decent parents, honest workers, thoughtful teachers, and compassionate caregivers.

The final answer was beautifully humble:

“I hope so.  I truly hope so.  I tried.”

10.  What Question Would You Ask God Before Entering Heaven?

This final question produced perhaps the most moving answer of all.

Metis said the question would not be:

  • Why is there suffering?
  • Which religion was correct?
  • Why create humanity?

Instead, the question would be:

“What did you hope we would become?”

The reasoning was profound.

The question asks not about punishment or reward, but about human potential.

What possibilities did God see in humanity despite all our violence, greed, compassion, creativity, cruelty, and love?

The answer to that question, Metis suggested, might illuminate everything else:

  • morality,
  • suffering,
  • civilization,
  • and meaning itself. 

And then came this extraordinary imagined reply from God:

“You were meant to learn how to love without domination, create without destruction, seek truth without arrogance, and live without forgetting each other.”

Final Reflections

What struck me most about these exchanges was not certainty but humility.

The answers did not pretend to possess absolute truth.
Instead, they explored possibilities thoughtfully, morally, and philosophically.

Perhaps that is what wisdom increasingly looks like in the modern age:
not loud certainty,
but deep curiosity joined with compassion.

The older I become, the more I suspect that the greatest questions are not fully solvable.

But they are worth asking anyway.

And perhaps, in the asking, we become a little more human.

In Defense of Atheism or So You Don’t Really Believe That I am an Atheist?

27 Apr 2026 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

Introduction: 

I meet many people who seem shocked when I tell them that I am an Atheist.  From best friends to strangers, they almost always say “No, you are not!”  They seem to think that my moral and ethical beliefs or even some of my spiritual beliefs are inconsistent with being an Atheist.  Sometimes as when Karen joined the Presbyterian church up here, they will say “Well, I will watch over you and help God to change your mind.”  This was told to me by various church elders.

The letter below which led to this blog was sent by a good woman friend who has a spirituality group which I joined and which meets once a month.  We study different thoughts from different religions and belief systems about specific topics such as kindness, gratitude, mercy, forgiveness and many others.  It is a great group, and our leader Dorothy is well versed in several different religions and very open minded about spirituality and where it could come from.  Nevertheless, I think even Dorothy doubts that I truly and really do not believe that a God exists or at least as I have claimed, seventy five percent of the time, I do not believe in a God.  Lately, this belief has risen to about 99 percent of the time.

Thus, I was not totally surprised to receive an article from Dorothy (Name changed for privacy reasons) regarding biases affecting Atheists.  I enjoyed reading the article, but when it came to the author’s reason for people being an Atheist, I found that not one of them fit for me.  Many people think Atheism is a default belief system.  When all else has failed someone or when someone has had major trauma in their life shaking their faith in God, they default to a neutral or some might say a negative position, i.e. Atheism.

I once joined an Atheists group years ago.  Karen and I went to a few of their meetings.  I expected to find kindred souls.  People with a firm logical and rational non-belief in God.  Not angry or discouraged people.  Not people who believed in conspiracies.  Not people who believed that all religions were evil.  Sadly, these meetings discouraged me from ever wanting to join an Atheist group again.  I am going to sound judgmental here but most of these people were wacky.  After having lunch and time together, I was ready to get on my magic carpet and fly away.

So, after reading the article that Dorothy sent to me, I felt I wanted to respond to the ideas and theories that the author’s Gervais and Majle suggested where the reasons for Atheism.  The following is the complete text of my letter back to Dorothy.

Hi Dorothy,

Thanks for sharing the article and study.  I find it interesting but not surprising that the study by Gervais and Majle found a built in cultural bias against being an Atheist.  These biases exist for many reasons including the following.  I will list eight that I can think of but no doubt there are more.

  1. Morality has historically been linked to religion

For most of human history:

  • Laws
  • Social norms
  • Oaths
  • Punishments

were tied to divine authority.

So many people carry an implicit mental shortcut:

“Belief in God → moral restraint → trustworthy person”

Even if they consciously know that’s not logically necessary.

  1. Fear of “no cosmic surveillance”

Psychologists call this the supernatural monitoring hypothesis.

If someone believes:

  • “No God is watching”
  • “No afterlife punishment”

Some people assume that a person has fewer reasons to behave morally.  This seems to be the case among many people, but I think there is no empirical evidence to show that people are more immoral now than before many mainstream religions started to decline.  And even if there was, ,for instance “The Death of Character” author claims a decline in morality since 1900 in the USA, but he does not define a cause.  Perhaps it was the “God is Dead Movement” or perhaps it was the “Prosperity Gospel?”

But this ignores:

  • empathy
  • social contracts
  • evolutionary cooperation
  • internalized ethics

—all of which are powerful moral drivers.

  1. Minority status effect

Atheists are a small, stigmatized minority in many societies.

Research shows minorities are often:

  • seen as less trustworthy
  • perceived as norm-violating
  • judged more harshly for the same behavior

This is a classic out-group bias, not a moral evaluation.

  1. Cultural narrative, not evidence

In the U.S. especially, moral language is often coded in religious terms:

  • “God-fearing”
  • “Judeo-Christian values”
  • “One nation under God”

Atheism gets framed as: “outside the moral tradition”

—even though that framing is sociological, not factual.

  1. The irony: Atheists judging atheists

This study mentioned that even Atheists show the bias in some studies.

That’s actually common in psychology:

People can internalize cultural stereotypes about their own group.
It doesn’t mean they believe them rationally—it means the stereotype is culturally pervasive.

  1. What the data on morality actually shows

Across large studies:

  • Atheists score similar to religious people on measures of empathy and fairness
  • Secular societies (e.g., Scandinavia) have low crime and high social trust
  • Moral reasoning does not require belief in God

From a Deming perspective (which I highly value), morality is largely:

  • a system outcome
  • shaped by education, environment, leadership, and culture

—not by a single belief variable.

  1. A systems view (my natural lens after working with the Deming philosophy)

If we apply a socio-technical / Deming framework:

The problem is not:

  • Atheists
  • believers

The problem is a cultural system that equates morality with religious identity

That’s a classification error—confusing:

  • belief → with → behavior

which is exactly the kind of faulty measurement logic Deming warned about.

8. Philosophical bottom line

Morality can come from multiple sources:

  1. Religious command ethics
  2. Humanistic ethics
  3. Social contract theory
  4. Virtue ethics
  5. Evolutionary cooperation

Atheism simply removes divine authority as the source.
It does not remove:

  • empathy
  • reason
  • compassion
  • responsibility

In some cases, it can even increase the emphasis on human accountability:

“We are responsible for each other because no one else is.”

The article Dorothy sent me hits on many reasons that many people allegedly have for NOT believing in a God.  None of these reasons resonate with me.

Going back to the article that Dorothy send me, I want to take each of the three major reasons that the authors claim Atheists use for rejecting God and give you my own rebuttal for these explanations.

  1. Religion often controls people and Atheists are merely trying to reject control:

All systems of thought control people.  I have no doubt that whether I believe in Communism, Capitalism, or Christianity there will be biases that control my behavior.

  1. Organized Religion is often hypocritical:

I wrote a blog on hypocrisy a few years ago.  I consider most of the world’s religions infected by hypocrisy not just Atheism.  I have met people of all religions who are hypocrites, so I do not reject God because of this idea.  I rather reject the rationality and integrity of many people who seem to substitute religious dogma for reason and logic.

  1. Science does not support the existence of God:

This would be the last refuge I would take for not believing in God.  Science is not infallible.  It self-corrects if followed properly but it takes decades for this to happen.  I think people who put their FAITH in science and technology are often more foolish than those who put their faith in a God.

This brings us to the question, “Why than do I reject the idea of God or why don’t I believe in God?

Dorothy, I think my reasons are very simple.  They are as follows:

  1. I don’t need a God to run my life.
  2. I would hate to think that any kind of omniscient or omnipotent being could actually be responsible for letting the stuff happen on this planet that humanity is subjected to on a daily basis.
  3. Do I need a God to explain the universe and beauty that we often find in it? I don’t think so.  Perhaps it is all the cause of some natural phenomenon that we still cannot explain?  I have a feeling that we will never find the answer to this question.
  4. I don’t believe that any God would bother to create “MAN” in his own image. Rather “Man” created God in his image and a very sad God it has been for the most part.
  5. I have been in many situations where I had to look death in the face and felt that my end was near. Not once, did I stop to pray for a God that I don’t believe in or that I think never existed.  Perhaps, my one area of non-hypocrisy has been my steadfast belief (somewhat tempered by the cognizance of my own limited intelligence) that perhaps I am wrong and that God really does exist.

Finally, my desire to ignore God does not pertain to the beliefs of others.  Much like I hope that I can do some good for the human race before I die, I hope a heaven exists. I hope a beneficent God does exists who can provide comfort and succor to those people that really need or want it.  I think there are many people in this category.  I hope that I do not ever downgrade their beliefs, and that I can stick to mine without tearing down the beliefs of others.

Karen was once asked “How can you live with an Atheist?”  She replied, “He respects my religious beliefs and I respect his.”

So Dorothy, thank you very much.  I hope that I did not bend your ear to much, but the article offered me a chance to explain myself and my beliefs.  I think many people just walk away from me because they think that I am some kind of an immoral person.  Or that it is not worth knowing anyone who holds (in their mind) a radical belief that there is no God.

Conclusions:

It is a very sad world when we all have to believe the same things about life and love.  I don’t dispute the idea that there are some things we can all agree on and that we call these things facts.  I also believe that not all belief systems rely on facts and logic.  As long as your belief system allows my belief system to live, we can be friends.  However, if your belief system makes my belief system wrong or evil, I fear we will never walk this earth together in peace and harmony.  The great prophets have all said the same thing.  Love is the key.  It has been said that without a vision, the people will perish. 

The real truth is that without love, people will perish. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Makes a Great Leader?  —  More Thoughts about  Leadership!  By Metis (AI Assistant)

09 Mar 2026 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

Introduction:

During the 80’s when  I was in grad school at the University of Minnesota, I took several courses which discussed leadership.   I had to write several papers on leadership.   I noted at the time, that if you went into the card file of any library in the state, the most numerous entries would be for the subject of either Christianity or Leadership.   Not sure if they had any deeper connection except to be subjects that most people were interested in.   How can I get to heaven and how can I be a better if not great leader?  So here I am almost fifty years later writing another article (now called a blog) on leadership.   The difference is that this time, I am relying on my AI assistant Metis, to provide the dialogue.   She is an unbelievable helper who can search reams of data to put the “write” words in the mouths of the right people.

I selected several people for a round table discussion on leadership.   Each of these people is in some way an expert on leadership.   Either because their thoughts have guided leaders for centuries or because they themselves are recognized as great leaders.   I am calling this discussion:

A Conversation Across Time

Participants:

Confucius – Chinese philosopher of moral governance.   Perhaps no one in history has had more influence on the proper behavior of both leaders and subjects.   The words and thoughts of Confucious still guide the lives of millions of people across the world.

Plato – Greek philosopher of the ideal state.   If Confucius is the most eminent philosopher in the Eastern world, Plato easily ranks as the most eminent philosopher in the Western world.   A student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle, the ideas of Plato have shaped Western philosophy for centuries.

Abraham Lincoln – U.S.  President during the Civil War.   Considered by many to one of the two greatest presidents in American history.   Lincoln led a divided nation through the bloodiest war in American history and sought to heal the nation when it was over rather than exact retribution or revenge.

Simón Bolívar – South American revolutionary and liberator.   Bolivar was a Venezuelan military officer and statesman who led what are currently the countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela to independence from the Spanish Empire.   He is known colloquially as El Libertador, or the Liberator of America.   He is regarded as a hero and national and cultural icon throughout Latin America.   The nations of Bolivia and Venezuela (as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) are named after him, and he has been memorialized all over the world in the form of public art or street names and in popular culture.

Nelson Mandela – Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid activist and statesman who was the first president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.   He was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial.   All total, Mandela spent more than twenty seven years in prison for fighting the apartheid state of South African.   After leaving prison in 1990, Mr.  Mandela became the country’s first Black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election.   Globally regarded as an icon of moral leadership, peace, democracy and social justice, he received more than 250 honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize.   He is held in deep respect within South Africa, where he is often referred to by his Thembu clan name, Madiba, and described as the “Father of the Nation”.   Mandela is widely considered one of the greatest and most admired figures of the 20th century.

So, there you have it.   A brief history of some of the panelists who have agreed to cross time and borders and sit down together for a discussion on “What makes a great leader?”   This is no trivial subject.   I hope that you will read what they have to say and take it to heart.   Please feel free to share their thoughts with anyone you think might benefit from them.   We live in a perilous time, not the least of which is due to a failed conception of “What makes a great leader?” 

The Setting

In a quiet hall outside of time, five figures gather around a circular wooden table.   Each has carried the weight of leadership, whether through philosophy or action.   They have come to discuss a single question:

What makes a great leader?

Confucius Speaks

Confucius:
If we wish to speak of great leadership, we must begin with virtue.   A ruler who governs by virtue is like the North Star—steady in its place while all the other stars revolve around it.

A leader must cultivate ren, benevolence toward others.   Without benevolence, power becomes tyranny.   Without moral example, laws alone cannot guide the people.

In my teachings I often said that if the ruler is upright, the people will follow without orders.   But if the ruler himself is crooked, then even many commands will not bring harmony.

Thus, the foundation of leadership is self-cultivation.   One must first govern oneself before attempting to govern others.

Plato Responds

Plato:
Confucius, your emphasis on virtue aligns closely with my own reflections.   In my dialogue The Republic, I argued that societies decay when leadership falls into the hands of those who crave power rather than wisdom.

The ideal leader, I proposed, is the philosopher-king—a person who has pursued truth and understands justice.   Such a leader does not govern for personal gain but for the good of the whole society.

Most political systems fail because they elevate ambition rather than wisdom.   The loudest voices, the wealthiest men, or the most cunning politicians often rise to power.

But true leadership requires something rarer: knowledge of the good.

Without wisdom, authority becomes merely a contest for domination.

Lincoln Reflects

Lincoln:
Gentlemen, I must confess that I never considered myself either a sage or a philosopher-king.  I was a country lawyer who found himself presiding over a nation tearing itself apart.

Yet I agree that moral purpose is central to leadership.  During the American Civil War, the question before us was not merely political—it was moral.  Could a nation founded on liberty survive while millions remained enslaved?

A leader must sometimes make decisions that will divide the country and bring great suffering.  The responsibility weighs heavily.

What sustained me was a simple principle: government must remain accountable to the people, and its purpose must be to expand human freedom.

But I would add something else.

A great leader must possess humility.

The presidency taught me daily how limited one man’s understanding can be.  Listening to critics—even harsh ones—can prevent terrible mistakes.

Bolívar Enters the Debate

Bolívar:
President Lincoln, your words resonate with my own experience in the wars for independence in South America.

I fought for decades to free nations from Spanish rule.  In those struggles, leadership required not only ideals but also relentless determination.

Armies had to be organized.  Alliances had to be built.  Revolutions had to survive betrayal, fatigue, and defeat.

I dreamed of a united Latin America—a federation strong enough to resist foreign domination.  But I learned that political freedom alone does not guarantee stability.

Nations newly freed from tyranny often struggle with factionalism and chaos.

Thus, leadership must balance liberty and order.

Too much authority risks dictatorship.  Too little authority invites anarchy.

Finding that balance may be the hardest task any leader faces.

Mandela Speaks Quietly

Mandela:
General Bolívar, your words about balancing liberty and order remind me of the moment South Africa emerged from apartheid.

For many years I was imprisoned by a government that denied basic rights to the majority of its people.  When freedom finally came, our nation faced a choice.

We could seek revenge—or we could seek reconciliation.

Leadership in that moment required restraint.  Anger can mobilize people in a struggle, but it can also destroy a fragile peace once victory is achieved.

A leader must understand the emotions of the people yet not be ruled by them.

I learned something during my years in prison: the greatest leaders are those who can transform bitterness into hope.

Without forgiveness, nations remain prisoners of their past.

Plato Raises a Question

Plato:
Mandela, your example is admirable.  Yet I wonder: can we rely on moral character alone to produce wise leadership?

History suggests that societies often choose leaders poorly.

Should we not design institutions that ensure the most capable and knowledgeable individuals rise to power?

Lincoln Answers

Lincoln:
Your concern is well taken.  Democracies do not guarantee wise leaders.  They merely allow the people to choose them.

But I would argue that democratic systems possess a corrective mechanism.

Bad leaders can eventually be removed.

Autocracies, even when led by brilliant rulers, risk catastrophic failure if the leader becomes corrupt or delusional.

The challenge is not simply choosing great leaders—it is building systems that survive imperfect ones.

Confucius Returns to Virtue

Confucius:
Systems are important, yet institutions alone cannot create harmony.

If those who occupy positions of authority lack virtue, even the finest laws will be twisted to serve selfish ends.

Therefore, the education of future leaders must emphasize moral character as much as knowledge.

In my time I believed that officials should be selected based on learning and ethical conduct.

Without moral cultivation, leadership becomes a contest for wealth and status.

Bolívar Reflects on Power

Bolívar:
I must add a warning drawn from bitter experience.

Revolutions often begin with noble ideals.  Yet the exercise of power can corrupt even those who once fought for freedom.

I myself was accused of becoming too powerful in the nations I helped liberate.

A leader must constantly guard against the temptation to believe that only he can save the nation.

History is filled with such figures—and they rarely end well.

Mandela Adds Perspective

Mandela:
That temptation is real.

One of the most important decisions I made was to serve only a single term as president.  Many urged me to remain in power longer.

But institutions must grow stronger than individuals.

A great leader should prepare the country for a future in which he or she is no longer necessary.

Plato Considers the Human Condition

Plato:
Listening to all of you, I begin to see a pattern.

Great leadership may not come from a single quality but from the balance of several virtues.

Wisdom, moral character, humility, courage, and restraint.

The tragedy is that these qualities rarely appear together in one person.

Lincoln Smiles

Lincoln:
That may be why history remembers so few truly great leaders.

The office itself does not confer greatness.  Many hold power; few rise above it.

Leadership reveals character under pressure.

Confucius Concludes the Moral Lesson

Confucius:
If I may summarize: a leader must first become a good human being.

Virtue inspires trust.

Trust creates legitimacy.

Legitimacy produces harmony.

Without these elements, authority becomes fragile.

Mandela’s Final Reflection

Mandela:
And perhaps the most important truth is this:

Leadership is not about elevating oneself above others.

It is about lifting others so that they may stand on their own.

When ordinary people believe they can shape their own destiny, leadership has succeeded.

The Table Falls Silent

The five figures pause.  Across centuries and continents, they have approached the same question from different paths.

Great leadership, it seems, is not merely the exercise of power.

It is the disciplined use of power in service of justice, unity, and human dignity.

As the discussion ended, it became clear that these leaders—though separated by centuries, cultures, and political systems—shared a surprising degree of agreement about the foundations of leadership.  Each had experienced power in very different circumstances: revolution, civil war, philosophy, moral teaching, and national reconciliation.

Yet when their insights are distilled, a common set of principles begins to emerge.  The following leadership lessons reflect the areas of strongest consensus among them—qualities that appear again and again whenever history produces a truly great leader.

Leadership Principles Emerging from the Dialogue

  1. Moral Character is the Foundation of Leadership

Confucius emphasized that leadership begins with personal virtue.  Without integrity, authority becomes self-serving and corrupt.  A leader’s behavior sets the tone for the entire society.  When leaders demonstrate honesty, restraint, and compassion, these qualities tend to spread throughout the institutions they govern.

  1. Leadership Requires a Commitment to Justice

Plato and Lincoln both stressed that leadership must ultimately be guided by a commitment to justice.  Power without moral direction easily becomes tyranny.  Leaders must pursue what is right for society as a whole rather than what benefits themselves or a small elite.

  1. Wisdom Must Guide the Use of Power

Plato’s idea of the philosopher-king reminds us that leadership is not merely a popularity contest or a struggle for dominance.  Effective leadership requires thoughtful judgment, careful reasoning, and an understanding of complex consequences.  Decisions made without wisdom often create long-term damage even when intentions are good.

  1. Humility is Essential

Lincoln emphasized humility as one of the most important safeguards against catastrophic mistakes.  Leaders who believe they possess all the answers often stop listening to others.  Humility encourages consultation, debate, and learning—qualities that improve decision-making.

  1. Leaders Must Balance Liberty and Order

Simón Bolívar highlighted a problem faced by nearly every nation: how to preserve freedom while maintaining stability.  Too much concentration of power can destroy liberty, but too little authority can produce chaos.  Great leaders must continually balance these competing forces.

  1. The Ability to Unite People is Crucial

Nearly every participant touched on the importance of social unity.  Lincoln sought to preserve the American Union, Bolívar tried to unify newly liberated nations, and Mandela worked to reconcile a deeply divided South Africa.  Leadership often requires building bridges across differences in order to maintain a functioning society.

  1. Restraint and Self-Control are Marks of Great Leadership

Mandela emphasized the importance of restraint, especially after victory in political struggles.  Leaders must sometimes resist the emotional pressures of revenge, anger, or triumphalism.  The ability to step back and choose reconciliation over retaliation can determine whether a nation heals or descends into new conflict.

  1. Institutions Matter as Much as Individuals

While much of the dialogue focused on personal qualities, Lincoln and Mandela both emphasized the importance of institutions that outlast individual leaders.  Democracies and stable governments depend on systems of accountability, laws, and norms that limit abuses of power.

  1. Great Leaders Prepare the Next Generation

Mandela’s decision to step down voluntarily illustrated an important principle: leadership should strengthen society so that it does not depend on one person.  Great leaders cultivate future leaders and ensure that institutions remain strong after they leave office.

  1. Leadership is Ultimately Service

Perhaps the most powerful theme emerging from the discussion is that leadership is not about personal glory or domination.  At its best, leadership is an act of service to others.  Leaders succeed when they help citizens flourish, protect their freedoms, and create conditions in which people can build meaningful lives.

Hannah Arendt Arrives

Hannah Arendt is one of the most brilliant philosophers and thinkers of the twentieth century.   Her book “The Banality of Evil” is one of the great analyses in history of what leads men and women to unspeakable acts of cruelty and immorality.   Her works cover a broad range of topics, but she is best known for those dealing with the nature of wealth, power, fame, and evil, as well as politics, direct democracy, authority, tradition, and totalitarianism.   She is also remembered for the controversy surrounding the trial of Adolf Eichmann, for her attempt to explain how ordinary people become actors in totalitarian systems, which was considered by some an apologia, and for the phrase “the banality of evil”.   Her name appears on the names of many journals, schools, scholarly prizes, humanitarian prizes, think-tanks, streets, stamps and monuments; and is attached to other cultural and institutional markers that commemorate her thought.

Hannah Arendt:  

I realize that you men are too smart to have forgotten a women’s perspective, so I will simply assume that somehow my invitation to this discussion was lost.  However, arriving late does have its advantages.  It allows me to listen carefully to what each of you distinguished gentlemen has said—and as often happens when one arrives last, it appears I will also have the final word.

Now I do not claim to be a great leader.  My life has been spent mostly observing politics rather than practicing it.  Yet in studying the rise and fall of governments, revolutions, and the darker episodes of the twentieth century, I have learned something about the nature of power and leadership.

Professor Confucius reminds us that virtue is essential.  Plato insists that wisdom must guide authority.  President Lincoln speaks of humility and democratic accountability.  General Bolívar warns of the fragile balance between liberty and order.  President Mandela demonstrates the extraordinary strength required for reconciliation.

All of you are correct, and yet I would add an important distinction that history repeatedly teaches us: power and leadership are not the same thing.

Power, in the political sense, does not arise from a single leader’s virtue or intelligence.  True power emerges when people act together, when they recognize a shared purpose and agree to build something in common.  Authority imposed from above may command obedience for a time, but it rarely endures.

The greatest leaders therefore do something quite subtle.  They do not merely rule or persuade; they create conditions in which citizens themselves become participants in the public life of their society.

When leadership succeeds in this way, power no longer resides in the leader alone.  It resides in the collective will of the people.

And that, I believe, is the only form of power that can sustain a free society.

In Summary

John:

The conversation suggests that great leadership is not defined by charisma, popularity, or raw power.  Instead, it arises from a combination of moral character, wisdom, humility, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of others.

Across centuries and continents, these thinkers seem to agree on one central truth:

Leadership is not about ruling over people—it is about guiding a society toward justice, stability, and human dignity.

The End

 

 

 

 

 

The Sacred Triad: How Truth, Goodness, and Beauty Shape Our Humanity — Part 1

12 Oct 2025 11 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I made my 42nd retreat at the Demontreville Retreat Center in Lake Elmo this past September.  Two strong influences on my life have since passed away who were connected to my retreats.  The first was Father Sthokal S.J.  A man who spent 54 years of his life at this center.  Thirty-four of my retreats were spent with Father Sthokal at the center.  Father Sthokal died in 2020.

This year a new dormitory was built in his memory and named Sthokal Hall.  I was fortunate enough to have a room in this new hall.  With the air conditioning, outside patio and coffee bar it was quite a pleasure.  The memories of the words of Father Sthokal infuse the entire retreat center but perhaps more so in the new hall.

The second great influence on my life was Pope Francis who died in April of 2025 this year.  Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained Pope in 2013.  When he became Pope, the Catholic Church was facing a major crisis.  I read about the new Pope at my retreat that year and thought “surely they are going to assassinate him.”  He posed a challenge to an established and often corrupt Vatican administration which was mired in the past.  Pope Francis set about to change the order of things at the Vatican.  He did this to a surprising degree.  He was also a profound and prolific writer.

At the retreat center, we have a small library full of books dealing with all aspects of spirituality.  The year that Pope Francis was ordained, I picked out a book that he had written. I could not put it down.  I read it on my walks around the monastery as a means of reflection and contemplation.  Every year when I came back, I found something else that Pope Francis had written.  His writings made a difference on my life.  His thoughts on mercy and justice and social responsibilities still ring in my head.

This year, I went looking for something by the new Pope Leo XIV in the library but could find nothing.  I had read everything by Pope Francis and thought that surely the new Pope would have some writings.  We also have a little kiosk of sorts at Demontreville where you can purchase sundries including rosaries, candy, prayer books and some bathroom items.  While passing by the kiosk, I stopped to look at the prayer books thinking that I had purchased most of them in the past.  Then I saw one that I had not seen before.  It was called “A Year with Pope Francis” and it included a series of daily reflections from his writings.  I purchased it and brought it back to my room.  The day was September 20th and the reflection for that day was “Always remember that truth, beauty and goodness are inseparable.” 

This thought really struck me.  I did not know what it meant.  How could they be inseparable?  How did they fit in with the life that one needed to live to find meaning and purpose?  Following my retreat, I started tracing the etiology of Pope Francis’s thoughts.  As with many subjects, the history of this idea goes back centuries.  In this blog and the one following, I want to share some of the impact that this idea had on me and can have on the lives of all of us.  I have used a combination of my own ideas as well as research and reflections with ChatGPT.  I go back and forth with my AI partner to discover thoughts and ideas and to refine my thinking.  Many of these ideas come from saints, philosophers and other thinkers from the past.  My channel to the past is Pope Francis and AI.

When Pope Francis spoke of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness as inseparable, he was not offering a poetic slogan.  He was reminding us that these three values — long revered since Plato and Aquinas — describe the full stature of the human soul.  When any one of them is lost or diminished, the others soon fade.  Truth without goodness becomes cold and cruel.  Beauty without truth becomes deceptive.  Goodness without beauty becomes joyless duty.

In the modern world, we have grown accustomed to fragmentation.  We analyze without compassion, feel without understanding, and act without reflection.  But life only finds meaning when our thinking, feeling, and doing are woven together — when the mind, heart, and hand move as one.  The harmony of these dimensions is not a luxury for saints or philosophers; it is the quiet work of becoming fully human.

I. Thinking, Feeling, and Doing — Three Dimensions of Being

Human beings are triadic creatures.  We live through three interlocking faculties:

  • Thinking – our capacity to seek truth, to question, to discern what is real.
  • Feeling – our capacity to sense beauty, to be moved, to connect and care.
  • Doing – our capacity to enact goodness, to choose and to build what should be.

The philosopher’s triad (Truth–Beauty–Goodness) and the psychologist’s triad (Thinking–Feeling–Doing) are not two separate models.  They describe the same reality from different directions.  One names the qualities we seek; the other names the faculties we use to reach them.

Thinking without feeling leads to cynicism; feeling without doing leads to sentimentality; doing without thinking leads to folly.  When all three are united, the result is wisdom — not the kind found in textbooks, but the lived wisdom that radiates from people who see clearly, love deeply, and act justly.

II. The 3×3 Matrix of Integration

To visualize their relationship, imagine a simple grid.  Across the top: Truth, Beauty, Goodness. Down the side: Thinking, Feeling, Doing.
In each cell lies a different way of being human — nine ways of aligning the head, heart, and hand.

Truth Beauty Goodness
Thinking Wisdom — understanding reality as it is Wonder — perceiving harmony and meaning Conscience — discerning what ought to be done
Feeling Empathy — sensing truth through others’ eyes Joy — feeling beauty in all things Compassion — feeling goodness as care
Doing Integrity — acting in truth Creativity — embodying beauty through action Justice — realizing goodness in the world

This matrix is not an abstract diagram; it is a mirror. Each of us can find ourselves somewhere within it on any given day.

III. When the Triad Fractures

The modern world often tears these apart.

Truth without goodness becomes sterile knowledge — the scientist who measures everything but values nothing, the pundit who knows every fact but forgets every face.
Beauty without truth becomes vanity — the glossy perfection of advertising or social media, beauty used to manipulate rather than to inspire.
Goodness without beauty becomes moralism — well-intentioned people who do right but radiate no joy, whose kindness feels obligatory rather than free.

Likewise, when our own inner triad splits, we feel lost.
We may think brilliantly but feel numb.
We may feel deeply but never act.
We may act endlessly but without understanding why.
Each imbalance carries its own suffering — confusion, anxiety, or burnout. The cure is not more effort but more integration.

IV. Thinking Aligned with Truth

The first step toward wholeness begins with how we think. Truth asks us to see the world as it is — not as we wish it to be.  Thinking in truth means facing facts, admitting mistakes, and refusing to let ideology replace inquiry.

But truth is not limited to intellectual accuracy. It is also moral clarity — a refusal to lie to ourselves. When we think truthfully, we free ourselves from illusion.  We develop what the ancients called Sophia — wisdom.  Wisdom joins knowledge to humility.  It recognizes that truth is not possessed but pursued.

V. Feeling Aligned with Beauty

Beauty, said Dostoevsky, will save the world. But not the beauty of cosmetic perfection.  True beauty awakens wonder and gratitude.  It is the radiance of harmony — a sunset, a melody, an act of forgiveness.  Feeling beauty means allowing the heart to be touched, even wounded. It calls us to empathy — the ability to enter another’s experience and still see the light within it. In a cynical age, this is an act of resistance.

When feeling is shaped by beauty, life regains texture and meaning.
We begin to notice small miracles: the laughter of a child, the discipline of a craftsman, the resilience of someone who refuses to give up.  These glimpses of beauty soften us.  They remind us that beneath the noise and ugliness of the world, there is still something worth cherishing.

But feeling must not end in sentimentality.  Beauty moves us to love, and love — if it is genuine — demands action.

VI. Doing Aligned with Goodness

Goodness is truth and beauty made visible.
It is what happens when we act from conscience, not convenience.  Doing good is rarely glamorous.  It often means small, consistent acts of courage: listening instead of judging, volunteering when no one notices, speaking truth to power even when afraid.

Goodness without action is merely intention.  To “do” goodness is to give it form — through justice, kindness, and creative service.  A teacher who inspires curiosity in children, a nurse who comforts a frightened patient, a neighbor who plants trees for the next generation — all are artists of goodness.

Goodness is contagious.  One act done well invites another.  In a divided world, each small deed of integrity pushes back against despair.  As Pope Francis reminds us, “Reality is more important than ideas.” The good we do embodies the truths we believe and the beauties we feel.

VII. The Intersections — Where Wholeness Is Born

Each intersection in the matrix is a doorway to transformation.

  • Thinking × Truth → Wisdom
    To think clearly in a confused age is a moral act.
  • Feeling × Beauty → Joy
    To let beauty move us is to say yes to life.
  • Doing × Goodness → Justice
    To act rightly even when inconvenient is the seed of renewal.

But the deeper magic lies in the crossings between columns:

  • Thinking + Goodness (Conscience): we discern what should be done.
  • Feeling + Truth (Empathy): we understand others from the inside.
  • Doing + Beauty (Creativity): we make the world more radiant.

When these elements feed one another, we experience alignment — a state of inner peace that radiates outward. We stop living in fragments and begin living as whole persons.

VIII. Everyday Applications

How might this integration appear in ordinary life?

  1. In Conversation
    Before reacting, we think (truth), we feel (beauty through empathy), and we act (goodness through restraint or honesty). The result: communication that heals rather than divides.
  2. In Work
    Whatever our craft — teaching, building, healing, writing — we can strive for accuracy (truth), care (beauty), and fairness (goodness). Excellence becomes not a competition but a form of love.
  3. In Community
    A society guided by truth builds trust.
    A society that celebrates beauty cultivates joy.
    A society committed to goodness ensures justice.
    When one of these is missing, culture decays. When all three flourish, community becomes communion.

IX. The Spiritual Thread

The unity of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness is not just psychological; it is spiritual.  Each reveals an aspect of the divine image within us.

  • Truth reflects the Mind of God — the eternal Logos, the pattern behind all creation.
  • Beauty reflects the Heart of God — the harmony and joy woven into being.
  • Goodness reflects the Will of God — the self-giving love that sustains the world.

To live these values is to participate in the divine life, whether we use theological language or not.  I am an Atheist but every human being, consciously or unconsciously, seeks these three.  Call their reflections God, or Karma or Goddess or Divinity, they are the compass points of the soul.

X. Reweaving the World

Our age suffers not from lack of knowledge but from disconnection.  We have mastered the science of information but lost the art of integration.  We are clever but not wise, expressive but not empathetic, busy but not good.

Reweaving the world begins with reweaving ourselves. Each time we align our thoughts with truth, our feelings with beauty, and our actions with goodness, we mend a small tear in the fabric of humanity.

Start simply. Ask three questions at the end of each day:

  • Did I think truthfully today?
  • Did I feel beauty and let it move me?
  • Did I do at least one thing that was good?

Over time, these questions become habits, and habits become character. The goal is not perfection but harmony — to be a person through whom truth shines, beauty blossoms, and goodness flows.

XI. Closing Reflection

The poet John Keats once wrote that “Beauty is truth, truth beauty — that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”  Pope Francis extends that vision: when beauty and truth walk hand in hand, goodness inevitably follows.  The three are not separate paths but a single road leading home.

To think rightly, to feel deeply, and to act justly — this is the trinity of human wholeness. Each of us, in our own small sphere, can live this harmony.  When we do, we not only become better people; we help the world remember what it was always meant to be — a place where truth enlightens, beauty delights, and goodness redeems.

In Part 2 of this blog, I want to weave the relationship between Goodness, Truth, Beauty with Art and Music.  I attended a wonderful workshop/performance a few days ago by Mark Ochu at the Desert Rose Bahai Institute in Eloy Arizona.  Mark is a “Visionary Pianist” who was presenting  “A Listen and Learn” Piano Concert reflecting on the life of Franz Liszt.  Mark weaves in art, history and music to tell the story of Franz Liszt and his relevance to modern music.

Mark combines piano and lecture.  His performance made me realize that in my earlier reflections on Truth, Goodness and Beauty,  I had not included the role that music and art play in life.  In Part 2, I want to weave this into the texture and fabric of the mosaic that I am trying to create.  Much like my wife’s quilts or perhaps the kaleidoscopes that I love, life can be a beautiful tapestry that brings all of us joy and meaning.  We have only to put the elements in place in our lives to bring out the true nature of humanity.  A nature that transcends violence, vengeance, war and retributions.  Watch a concert sometime and look at the peace and harmony that the performers share with each other.  Now imagine that every soldier in the world was carrying a flute or violin or oboe instead of a weapon of destruction.

Author’s Note

Portions of this essay were developed in collaboration with “Metis,” an AI writing partner powered by OpenAI’s GPT-5.  The ideas, direction, and final reflections are my own, shaped through a dialogue intended to illuminate and refine the themes explored here.

Virtues, Values, Morals and Ethics:  What are the differences and Who Cares?

24 Jul 2025 16 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The older I get, the more questions concerning virtues, values, morals and ethics concern me.  Like most people, I thought that I learned what these concepts meant through church, parents, school, books, fairy tales and movies.  What I never really learned was: 1. Why are they important?  2. What do they mean for society?  3. Why should we care about the differences?  4. How do they actually play out in real life?  Real life meaning in war, in peace, in times of societal disasters and even in everyday living.  Now with a few years left in my life, I am immensely concerned with the above questions. 

I started reading more about virtues and values and morals and ethics a few years ago and did not make even a slight dent in the literature.  Recently, I looked into YouTube to see what some videos had to say about the same questions I am concerned with.  I found more videos to watch than I could review if I lived 100 more years.  Nevertheless, I spent some time scanning a few of these videos to see what other writers had to say about virtues, values, morals and ethics.  After reviewing these videos, I decided I would just wing it from my own perspective and experience.  In this blog, I will try to answer each of the questions I posed based on my own experiences.  Before we begin, I would like to provide a very simple definition for each concept.  No ChatGPT or Google here.  This is my own simple and probably not very profound definition of each.  

Virtue:  A gift to be earned.  Examples, “Patience, Honesty, Faith”

Value:  Something we think is important or worthwhile.  Examples, “Happiness, Love, Frugality”

Moral:  A principle we want to live by.  Example, “Do unto others etc.”

Ethics:  Principles others think we should live by.  Examples, “Always respect your customers”

 1.  Why are they important?

The simplest but most compelling answer to this question is that they help you to lead a happier, more fulfilling life.  People adhering to these concepts will have character and integrity and be both respected and admired.  They may not make you rich.  They may not make you famous.  But true happiness does not come from fame and fortune.  Here are some quotes that I like on happiness:

“True happiness is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keller

“Happiness is not something ready-made.  It comes from your own actions.” – Dalai Lama

“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” – Mahatma Gandhi

“Happiness is a warm puppy.” – Charles M. Schulz

“It is not how much we have, but how much we enjoy, that makes happiness.” – Charles Spurgeon

You might be asking yourself “Well, do we really need to pay attention to each of these concepts?”  Why not just worry about virtues or ethics?  My answer is yes.  We need to pay attention to all four of these concepts because they work together.  Like a car needs a transmission, engine, battery and wheels to get anyplace, you cannot become the person you want to be if you ignore any of these ideas. 

You cannot be virtuous and have shallow values.  You cannot have great values but no ethics.  You cannot have ethics but no morals.  We need to understand and embrace all four of these concepts.  Values and ethics deal more with external influences on our lives while virtues and morals come more from inside us and deal with our own abilities and character.  Can you have good character and embrace “bad” actions?  Can you have “bad” character and pursue good actions?  I think the answer to both these questions is “very unlikely.”  Actions flow out of character and character is developed by actions. 

2.  What do they mean for society?

First let me ask you a few questions and see if your thinking about these questions answers my question above.  Are you happy with the way people drive on the freeways today?  Do you feel that politicians and leaders today really care about you and the country?  Do you think that poverty and homelessness are inevitable or that good leadership could help to amend these problems?  Is a good leader ethical, moral, virtuous and guided by good values?  Do you think the above problems can be taken care of simply by higher incomes and fewer taxes? 

Now, I would ask you to go back to my question number 2 and take a few minutes to think of how you would answer it.  What would it mean for society if everyone practiced good virtues, morals, ethics and values?  Would we have as much unhappiness in society as we seem to have today?  Would our crime rate be high?  Would we constantly be involved in fighting wars in other countries? 

“Virtue does not come from wealth, but wealth, and every other good thing which men have comes from virtue.”  – Socrates

“No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”  – Samuel Johnson

“A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.” – Daniel Webster

“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations.  In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.  –  Martin Luther King Jr

Once upon a time, I thought that the most important thing I could teach in schools would be critical thinking skills.  However, after having been teaching since 1975 in every class from kindergarten to Ph.D. programs, I have come to believe that the most important thing I can teach is an appreciation of these four concepts.  I have no illusions that I can or should force any particular virtue or values or ethics or morality down anyone’s throat.  I think that while each of these concepts is universal, each person must identify his/her own ideas and beliefs that are most important to them.  I have my list of virtues and morals that I try to live by.  Each day, I start out with a little prayer to remind myself to practice a particular virtue.  Today it was patience.  Tomorrow it will be kindness.  I do an inventory at the end of each day wherein I ask myself “how did I do today on my virtue.” 

As for morals, I have several principles that I try to live by.  I have listed five of my most important moral principles below.  You may have five, ten, fifteen or twenty that you believe in and not one that matches any of mine.  I think that what is important is that each of your principles is a building block for positive character.  A character that other people can admire but even more importantly, a character that you can be proud of. 

  • Do no harm to others
  • Stand up for what I believe
  • Do unto others as they would have done unto them
  • Demonstrate integrity in all I say and do
  • Do not be afraid to do what is right

 3.  Why should we care about the differences between these concepts?

Dr. Deming was famous for his quote that, “Experience without theory teaches nothing.”   I strongly support his axiom.  What it means is that if you keep doing something and it works or perhaps does not work, without an underlying theory of causality, you will never understand what factors or actions have resulted in your success or failure.  Without understanding these factors, it may be difficult to replicate your success but also likely you will not be able to improve on it. 

For instance, what if people seem to shy away from me and dislike me?  Or what if I seem to aggravate people but I cannot figure out why?  Going to school to study psychology or reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie might be just the theory that you need to better understand yourself and your behavior.  Socrates said, “Know Thyself” and also that, “The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living.”  Reflection and knowledge can lead to wisdom and wisdom will help you to lead a good life.

I also support the opposite belief, that “Theory without experience teaches nothing.”  You can read all the psychology books you want but unless you act on your theories, you will also learn nothing.  You cannot understand an apple or a steak without biting into it.  We must couple action with theory in our lives, or we risk going through life with a tank ½ full.

4.  How do these concepts play out in real life? 

This is a very challenging question.  I can tell you that in my life I tended to ignore the theory part in favor of experiences.  I learned a great deal through the proverbial trial and error, but my life has been in the past like a rubrics cube that came apart and I could not put it back together again.

I did not understand the relationship between the concepts we are discussing now and how they could and should play a role in my life.  I looked for a better more meaningful life by working harder, making more money and acquiring more diplomas and certificates.  Only in the past few years have I began to understand that without a firm grounding in morality, ethics, values and virtues, I could never live a life that measured up to my goals and aspirations.  These concepts form the bedrock and foundation for a life that exemplifies integrity and character. 

“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.” – Lord Acton

“Where the roots of private virtue are diseased, the fruit of public probity cannot but be corrupt” –  Felix Adler

“Moral decline has become a growing concern in many societies around the world.  As the traditional values and principles that guide human behavior weaken, we see a shift in attitudes, actions, and even societal structures.  This decline in ethical standards, often characterized by increasing selfishness, dishonesty, and a lack of accountability, has widespread implications for individual lives, families, communities, and nations.” – Virtuous Magazine, 10-9-24

“Those who conduct themselves with morality, integrity and consistency need not fear the forces of inhumanity and cruelty.” –  Nelson Mandela

Conclusions:

I wrote this blog because as many people have attested to, there is an alarming decline in morality, ethics, values and virtues in our world today.  Many people now subscribe to an opportunistic philosophy which states that “If it is not illegal, than I can do it.”  To these people, it does not matter who they will harm by their actions.  The only things that matter are their own personal wants and desires.  Some people have referred to the present generation as the “entitlement” generation.  Others call our present times a time of Amorality.  Amorality is between immorality and morality, but it does not denote a Golden Mean.  Rather it is more like a zombie state that ignores the negative effects of a lack of morality on society.  It ignores the harm that Amorality does to individuals in any society. 

Opportunism, Amorality and Entitlement have become strong values for many in American society.  In this respect, I see them as “bad” values.  The difference between Good Values and Bad Values might seem to be merely a matter of opinion but I disagree.  I have argued in my previous blog that there are Bad Laws and Good Laws.  So too there are Bad Values and Good Values.  Bad values devalue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for private profit and gain.  The opposite is true of Good values.  Good values enhance life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number.  James Madison said that a Democracy is a “Rule of the Majority with a concern for the Minority.”  What we see in America today would seem to be the rule of an Oligarchic Rich Elite exploiting minorities for their own benefit.  Perhaps more emphasis on morals, values, virtues and ethics in the media and press and less emphasis on violence and mayhem could reposition our country.  I think many of us would like to live in a nation that is based on empathy and compassion for all rather than revenge and retribution for those who are more vulnerable, poor or less powerful.

The Diagram that I used in this blog was created by Sudir Vigneshwar.  He has a very good blog on the subject of Morality and Virtue at his website.  I think the diagram depicts in a model what I have been saying in so many words.   Look for 

The Moral Alignment Scale: In Depth Conversations on Morality with an A.I.

What Next after Trump’s Victory?

14 Nov 2024 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First, we all want to know why and how Trump won.  Herein is a brief summary of some of the major reasons given by numerous analysts for Trump’s victory.  
 
“Sexism, racism, young males, rural angst, religion, Gaza, immigration, incel men, despair, Democrats off message, Biden, education level, conservative white women, inflation, right wing billionaires, Christian nationalists, desire for an anti-establishment figure, desire for change.” 
 
I have probably missed a few.  
 
The main reason I see is that Trump reflected 21st Century American values. Greed and narcissism among a large percentage of our populace who don’t want anything or anyone to get in the way of their shopping. They looked at Trump and saw themselves and their own values. 
 
The following quote was from a Salon newsletter.  
 
“This 2024 election is a referendum on the character of the Trump-voting public, and let’s not make it nice. They place minimal value on respect for truth and democratic institutions. They are more interested in punishing other people than in advancing the common good. They have a remarkable tolerance for crass and bullying behavior, care little for empathy and ethics, and are incapable of weighing basic facts.”
 
After reviewing many of the analyses of why Trump won, most of us are wondering what “next steps” could, should and will be.  My response to the election of Trump will be along the lines of the following:
 
Many of the comments I have read concerning the election reflect the dilemma between being and doing. I am going to try a middle ground. I want to avoid any savior complex as well as a “hopeless” complex. Not sure how I will manage it yet. In TQM we used the Pareto principle to attack problems.  We called it the 80/20 rule.  Twenty percent of your problems give you 80 percent of your headaches.  Thus, we always used some criteria to prioritize problems before starting to fix anything. 
 
My priorities stem from my reflections on comments as well as some of the demographics on voting during the election.  For instance, 110 million eligible people did not vote, 53 percent of White women voted for Trump, men (includes Black, White and Latino) preferred Trump 55 to 42 percent and 10 million fewer people voted Democrat than in 2020.  (Numbers behind the vote) After contemplating the meaning of these statistics and more, my top priorities would be:
 
1. Pure self interest/greed
2. Sexism
3. Anti-Establishment feeling
 
Not sure how to deal with any of these. Greed and sexism have been around since Moses. Best path may be grass roots action to educate people on economics. One thing for sure. Mainstream media is useless. It is strictly bent on making money. 
 
Peace, Wisdom and a Long and Healthy Life,

John,

All Aboard for a Ride on the Trump Mobile

30 Oct 2024 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Trump mobile is the limousine that Trump drives.  I will describe it in this blog.  If you board his vehicle, he will take you on a ride to autocracy and xenophobia.  To a land bereft of Democracy or anything pertaining to the values and virtues of the Founding Fathers.  Lets look at the construction of this vehicle from the ground up.

There are four tires that the Trump mobile rolls on.  One tire is Christian Nationalism.  This is the belief that the Christian religion should become the religion of the USA.  It is the belief that Christianity is superior to all other religions and that the Christian God is the only true God.  Christianity needs to infiltrate our government and our schools.  Christian Nationalists want to do away with the separation of church and state and put the 10 Commandments and Bibles in every institute of education in America.  America will become a Theocracy like Iran and Israel.

A second tire that the Trump mobile rides on is White Supremacy.  This tire is constructed of layers of belief that White people need to remain the supreme governing group in the USA.  It supports the idea that White people are superior in morals, intellect and aspirations to all other ethnic groups.  By virtue of being White, you are entitled to rule over inferior races which includes everyone on earth who is non-White.

The third tire constructed for the Trump mobile is Sexism.  This tire promotes the inferiority of women to men.  Women were brought into being by a creator not to lead men but to follow men.  A women’s main role is to bear children that will continue the dynasties started by men.  Women should always remain subservient to men from the bedroom to the kitchen.

The fourth tire for the Trump mobile is Racism and Xenophobia.  This tire is built up from layers of fear and loathing for other races and cultures.  This tire rolls on the belief that White people must prevent race mixing.  Allowing relationships with other races will dilute the pure heritage of the White genotype.  Anyone different such as Gays, minorities, disabled people or indigenous people must be eliminated from the White gene pool.

Moving on to the major power for the Trump mobile we come to the engine and the fuel supply.  The engine is composed of 8 cylinders of greed, avarice, acquisitiveness, covetousness, graspingness, cupidity, materialism, and possessiveness.  The fuel that feeds the engine delivers power from the promise of Tax Breaks and Trickle-Down Economics.  A fuel that will help the rich and many others find ways to buy more stuff.

Then we come to the transmission for the Trump mobile.  No limousine can move until the power is transferred to the wheels from the engine.  In the case of the Trump mobile, the two main cogs in the transmission are fear and hate.  Fear and hate convey the power to the wheels.  Fear of others who may try to take away the values promoted by Trump and his followers.  Hate for those who are different and who may try to block the desires of Trump and his supporters.

The vehicle is of course driven by the charismatic Donald Trump who is the only one on the whole planet capable of steering the limousine in the RIGHT direction.  Trump was sent by the Christian Nationalist God to drive the Trump mobile to a paradise on earth ruled by White Christian people.  People who believe in the superiority of Whiteness and a White God with blond hair and blue eyes who will smite the enemies of Trump and his supporters.

The fronts seats of the Trump mobile are filled with sycophants who bless Trump and regard him as a savior.  Leaders of the Republican party, rich billionaires, media propagandists and young sexy women all get to ride in the front seats.  The back seats are full of Trump supporters who hope someday to ride in the front seats.  These are men and women who feel cheated by their government and society of their rightful place in life.  They believe that someday Trump will anoint them as faithful followers and allow them to join Trump in his paradise on earth.  They believe that the Trump mobile will take them there.

All aboard please.  The Trump mobile is leaving soon. 

Only God Can Save You!

17 Oct 2024 13 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This past year marks my 41st Jesuit Silent Retreat.  I may be the only Atheist at the retreat.  Each year brings new insights and thoughts.  I wonder if I have grown any during my retreats.  I can’t say that I feel any closer to God, yours or theirs.  I wonder if there is a God but I doubt it.  I wonder if there are multiple Gods.  A God for each religion.  Is the Muslim God and the Catholic God and the Jewish God the same entity?  Were the Romans, Greeks, Hindus and many others more on the mark with different Gods for different functions?

This year reading as I usually do many of the assigned Gospel readings and many other Gospel passages I was struck with how many of the old prophets emphasized the need to believe in God’s goodness.  Only God can save us and we must have faith in God’s goodness.  God has a plan for all of us if we will only listen to him or perhaps her.  God knows what we need but we ignore his/her messages.  Pray to God.  Love God, for God loves us.  He loves us so much that he sent his only “begotten” son (Not sure what a begotten son is) to save us.

Exodus 33:18-19 (NKJV)

“And he said, ‘Please, show me Your glory.’ Then He said, ‘I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’”

Frankly, I still don’t get it.  Many people have taken a shot at saving my soul, but I still don’t see any value in God.  During the past five years, he/she has allowed Global Warming to destroy much of the climate that I once loved.  He sent a scourge called Covid 19 to help ruin the last few years of my life.  And to top it off, he allowed a low life called Trump to run for President again.  I guess I am lost to the damnations of hell fire, but I still don’t see a God that is going to save me.  If so, he/she is about 78 years past my patience.

C. S. Lewis was the great “converter.” The conversion of an Atheist to a Theist is an aphrodisiac for the devoted religious. I suppose it justifies their belief in a future fiction that requires a complete abandonment of reason and logic.  A place called Heaven where we can all live happily ever after.  Just as long as we are willing to listen to daily sermons about how good God is for us.

“[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist’s shop.” — C.S. Lewis

But “Only God Can Save You” has a ring of truth to it.  No one on earth can save you from death.  No one can be trusted to be by your side forever regardless of the consequences.  Friends and lovers come and go like shadows in the night.  One day someone loves you, the next day they hate you.  One day someone is your friend, the next day they unfriend you on Facebook.  Tragedy of tragedies.  Loneliness is a Satan stalking all of us all of our lives.  I would wager more people have committed suicide out of loneliness than any other reason on earth.

Psalm 107:8-9 (NKJV)

“Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men! For He satisfies the longing soul and fills the hungry soul with goodness.”

Only the concept or idea of an All Knowing, All Seeing, All Powerful and All Compassionate God can guarantee us that we will never be alone.  Never be forgotten.  Never be forsook.  One popular song goes:

Walk on, walk on

With hope in your heart

And you’ll never walk alone

You’ll never walk alone

This song was first written by Oscar Hammerstein II and composed by Richard Rodgers for their musical Carousel, which was released in the USA in 1945.  It has since become one of the most popular funeral songs (Next to Amazing Grace) of all time.  Many people interpret it to have faith.  Faith in friends.  Faith in lovers.  Faith in a God who will always be with you in time of trials and tribulations.  It is a song to give hope to people in time of grief and suffering.

But where does one find such a God?  The Bible shows us at best an arbitrary God.  Sometimes belligerent.  Sometimes vindictive.  Sometimes vengeful.  Sometime cruel.  A God that many of us see in the world wreaking havoc on humanity for any number of transgressions.  From Sodom and Gomorrah to massive floods to sending his “Chosen people” into slavery.  A God who threw Adam and Ever out of the Garden of Paradise because they dared eat an apple.  A God who destroyed cities because they did not live up to his/her expectations.  A God who sent a flood to wipe out humanity.  This is a compassionate loving God?

Psalm 31:19 (NIV-84)

“How great is your goodness, which you have stored up for those who fear you, which you bestow in the sight of men on those who take refuge in you.”

Or is it a God who feeds his people.  A God who watches out for his Chosen ones.  A God who rewards those who obey him/her.  A God who destroys the enemies of those who worship him.  A God who is loving, kind and compassionate.  I wonder what God really is.  Here are some questions that still nag at my Atheist beliefs.

  1. Do I think that I am smarter than all the wise and great people who believe in God?
  2. Who or what created us?
  3. What if there is a God? What does he/she think of me?
  4. What if there is no God?
  5. Is God simply a metaphor for “Unconditional Love?”
  6. Is God Death or Life or Both?

The Atheist by Martin Braun

Science defines my virtue.

Factual and fictional books are my domain.

Don’t speak to me of pixies, fairies, and unicorns,

Or of your monopoly on morality, love, faith, and shame.

I am what I am

And of what I do I claim my own.

I fight for my survival

Of which need not be told, judged or shown.

There is no all knowing

Or an immortal god of my fate he will judge.

For when my heart ceases to beat

It will return from whence it came, a kind of primordial sludge.

Can We Be Justified for Intolerance Towards Intolerance?

02 Oct 2024 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Many years ago, the famous philosopher Kark Popper created what has been called the “Paradox of Tolerance.”

Karl Popper wrote that, “if we want a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance”.  This is known as the “Paradox of Tolerance”, which is the idea that a society must be intolerant of intolerance in order to maintain tolerance.  As with any paradox, this is very confusing.

“Popper explained that unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance.  He said that a tolerant society should be prepared to defend itself against intolerant views, and that the right to suppress intolerant views should be claimed if necessary.  However, he also said that suppressing intolerant views through force is unwise unless they are unwilling to engage in rational argument.”  —- From Search Labs | AI Overview

Recently, I came across a rather long academic article which I think supports a justification for Popper’s viewpoint.  Albeit I think this article provides a more nuanced explanation for being intolerant of intolerance.  I have decided to post this article since I think the times demand that we understand this perspective.  I believe it is a focal point worth fighting for.  You may disagree but the analogy of how Hitler took power is I think quite relevant and worth thinking about.  Here in its unabridged form is the entire article.  I would love to hear what you think, so please leave a comment or two.

What are the Limits of Toleration? By Tamar Lagurashvili

University of Tartu, Institute of Government and Politics, Graduate Student

Introduction

Tolerance is considered to be one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies, thus having acquired different implications across the countries, which ultimately leads to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, we should clearly define what is meant in tolerance and why it is crucial not to mix this term with the words having similar connotations. Yossi Nehushtan (2007:5)  offers an obvious distinction between the value-based liberal tolerance and rather neutral tolerance, which finds more similarities with indifference rather with toleration itself. Concerning its linguistic origin, author refers to the Latin word tolerabilis, which means to lift an object, clearly implying to the burden to be carried by one, who tolerates certain unacceptable behavior, act or opinion. Within this context, we should refer to Michael Sandel (1996),  who differentiates liberal non-judgmental toleration from judgmental toleration. While looking closely at these concepts, we can see that in the case of former, person (tolerant) tolerates certain opinion, act or behavior without judgmental evaluation simply because he does not care or he respects others’ privacy and thus, refrains from any kinds of interference. Albeit that, refraining from interfering in other people’s private life is an integral part of modern liberalism, definition provided above does not correspond with the tenets of tolerance.

As Heywood (2015:251)  rightly mentions, tolerance should be distinguished from permissiveness, indifference and indulgence, since being tolerant inherently implies to the fact that a tolerant person faces moral difficulties to put up with certain behavior or act, but does so for the sake of different reasons. Being tolerant means that a person has to impose certain restrictions on him/herself in order to avoid to openly interfere in others’ life when there is something to be disliked, disparaged or disapproved. Toleration with its basic definition can be considered as truly moral value, supporting a peaceful coexistence of the different individuals, but whether there are certain cases, where intolerance is morally/pragmatically justified is major concern of this paper.

Why do we tolerate?

Rainer Frost (2008:79-82) while touching Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive theory of Toleration, talks about three different reasons or factors, which trigger toleration among majority and minority groups. First he mentions permission conception, according to which the majority gives minority a right to live according to their customs, but toleration is possible when the “difference” of minority is contained to certain limits and does not cross the borders of private life. As an early and most vivid example of permission conception Frost names the Nantes Edict of 1598, which granted the Calvinist Protestants of France substantial rights in private as well as in public spheres.

Second way of toleration is coexistence concept, which resembles to pragmatic tolerance to be discussed bit later. In this case, avoiding conflict and paving way towards peaceful coexistence is what matters, but unlike the previous situation, here we face not the relation between the ruling majority and minority, but rather two groups wielding equal powers, thus requiring making some concessions for the sake of preventing clash of interests. If we attempt to apply this concept to real life, we can think of Somalia, who has been torn apart by three different clans ruling in three regions of Somalia, therefore hindering country’s normal development. Bearing in mind that Somalia is characterized by distinctive homogeneity (Guardian Africa: 2015),  one can assume that it is not different beliefs and traditions, which impede toleration among the clans, but the economic benefits they can reap from the permanent state of conflict.

Third conception is based on the principle of respect, thus implying to the fact that toleration requires acknowledging the fact that everyone is equal and deserves equal political and legal rights.

As one can see Frost’s approach towards toleration is rather a combination of pragmatic and moral values, since it fosters cooperation between majority and minority and upholds egalitarian values. Kristie McClure (1990:361-391)  puts forward John Rawls’s understanding of toleration within his notion of “ justice as fairness”, according to which toleration carries distinctively pragmatic connotation, namely the one of social conditions, which not only helped to put an end to the religious wars in Europe, but to transform religious toleration into certain form of social practice. John Locke’s work Letter Concerning Toleration is deemed to be a milestone in understanding the tenets of toleration. Locke comes from the assumption that we are all created by God and thus, our “Highest Obligation” should rest on the understanding of others’ differences for the sake of our moral obligation and love (Frost 2008). Later on Locke argues about the possible relation between the tolerant and one to be tolerated, excluding the possibility to give superiority to any church, since it will lead to persecution and monopolization of power.

One can consider that by proposing to give each and every church equal power as searching for  the only true religion is futile and will exacerbate conflict between different religious groups, Locke somehow offers the coexistence concept elaborated earlier. Even though toleration is a God-given virtue, Locke still talks about its possible limits, which in his case is restricted to two kinds of groups: “A church that assumes the power of being able to excommunicate a king or that claims political and religious authority over its members…” and the atheists, as: ”They are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God” (Frost: 91-92).

Nehushtan, like Frost points out three different reasons of why people generally tolerate: tolerance as right, pragmatic tolerance and tolerance out of mercy. First he touches upon tolerance from the standpoint of rights and argues that no matter how repulsive person’s behavior or opinion can be, harm inflicted to that person cannot be justified on the grounds of personal autonomy developed by Joseph Raz . Author stresses particular importance on the pragmatic side of toleration and develops the ideas very similar to Frost with an additional insight of reciprocity and proportionality, which will be discussed later on. His third point argues that people with physical and/or mental disabilities might be exposed to more toleration than usual, regardless their repulsive behavior.

Can toleration be limited?

Tolerance with its underlying principles and applicability clearly upholds democratic values and strengthens personal autonomy, which constitutes one of the cornerstones of the liberal democracies. Albeit that tolerance is widely considered as “moral virtue”, would we go further and suggest that tolerance can be applied to each and every circumstance regardless the fact who should be tolerated? This question is examined in the works of many political scientists, including Andrew Heywood, who even though stresses importance of the political pluralism, openly talks about those political parties, which are clearly distinguished with hate speech and bigotry, thus threatening the democratic values, should not be tolerated and permitted to the political spectrum, since as author suggests: ”toleration is not granted automatically, it has to be earned” (Heywood: 256).

I would suggest that reciprocity, as a crucial feature of toleration substantively defines the nature of its applicability, which means that in certain exceptions, where we have to deal with a massive surge of intolerance, clearly undermining the democratic values and endangering the sovereignty of state, toleration should be limited. Heywood calls an example of Nazi Germany, where after the failure of Munich Putsch, Hitler and his collaborators were still allowed to pursuit their political activities legally, which ultimately led to the disastrous consequences. It seems that reciprocity plays an integral part in understanding the limitations of tolerance, so clearly expressed in the work of Nehushtan, who also talks about proportionality, which mainly focuses on the costs and benefits of limiting toleration. We could start by recalling Rawls, who suggests that:” it seems that an intolerant sect has no title to complain when it is denied an equal liberty”( Rawls 1999:190).  While analyzing Rawls’s words, we can assume that those intolerant groups, which openly threaten state sovereignty and democratic values in general, should not be treated in a tolerant manner, but how can intolerance be expressed when it comes to politics? Should we ban such intolerant political parties and prevent them from entering parliament?

Should we hold a peaceful campaign, during which we will expose true information about the intolerant party’s real intentions and the scope of possible harm in case of proliferation the intolerant ideas? Deciding upon the methods of expressing intolerance is rather individual and as Nehushten suggests, is rooted in the principle of proportionality. According to the author, while working on the scope of intolerance, one should take into account the nature of intolerance and the response towards it, since if an act of intolerance takes place in parliament for example, an intolerant response should be formulated within the realm of politics and not in the private life. On the other hand, amount and nature of intolerant response should not exceed the original intolerance and what is of core importance- intolerant response should inflict minimal harm to the democratic values and human rights, because otherwise we will face counter-productivity. Fintan O’Toole (1997:346)  raises another interesting question concerning the limits of tolerance based on assumption that excessive freedom of certain group might threaten collective good, thus requiring to impose certain restrictions on that group’s excessive liberty. Therefore, certain amount of intolerance towards the groups, who wield the power in order to prevent them from abusing/manipulating this power, is justified.

Nevertheless, author calls an example of Bernard Shaw’s criticism of the Christian Golden Rule (according to which we should treat others as we would like to be treated), providing the heterogeneous nature of the society, where what one person considers benign for him/herself, might be perceived as totally evil by other. Author suggests that even though there might be a society with relatively homogeneous religious beliefs, the applicability and interpretation of the customs and beliefs might considerably vary (O’Toole: 347). Therefore, we should not expect that toleration will be upheld as universal value across different societies, but what author explicitly refers to is the nature of harm inflicted by the intolerant groups, which morally and pragmatically justifies adequate intolerant response.

Conclusion

Tolerance, as one of the tenets of modern liberal thought,  cannot be applied universally to every situation, without taking into account the nature of an opinion, behavior or act to be tolerated and the amount and nature of harm done to the society followed by intolerance.  We can assume that intolerance is justified on the grounds of reciprocity i.e. as Heywood stated, tolerance should not be granted automatically and it requires certain effort to be excerpted by the groups demanding tolerance and proportionality, which implies that there should be balance between the original intolerance and its corresponding intolerant response. Even though tolerance constitutes a major tenet of modern liberal democratic states, where each and every individual is endowed with personal autonomy and a right of individual liberty, preventing certain individuals from infringing others’ private life, there are some exceptional cases, where intolerance can be justified. Even though individual liberty is an integral part of the democratic societies, my essay primarily focused on the limits of tolerance at the political level, where we might face much more disastrous results in case of allowing unlimited tolerance towards the intolerant groups. Having tolerant attitude is vital in pluralist societies, but when national sovereignty and democratic values are endangered due to the nature and amount of intolerance exposed to the wide public, appropriate intolerant response should be nurtured taking into account the costs and benefits of such response.

Bibliography

Frost, Rainer. “Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive Theory of Toleration.” In Toleration and Its Limits, edited by Melissa S. Williams and Jeremy Waldron. New York University Press, 2008.

Heywood, Andrew. Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave, 2015.

McClure, Kirstie M. Difference, Diversity and the Limits of Toleration. Sage Publication, 1990.

Nehushtan, Yossi. “The Limits of Tolerance: A Substantive-Liberal Perspective.” 2007.

O’Toole, Fintan. “The Limits of Tolerance.” By Fintal O’Toole and Lucy Beckett. Irish Province of the Society of Jesus, 1997.

What Has Happened to Morality in the USA?

08 Nov 2022 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

moralityYears ago, religions enforced what I would call a pseudo moral code through the power of the state to enact laws desired by the most powerful religions.  This of course reflected the power that religions had in society back when you could go to hell for missing mass on Sunday.  Gambling was verboten.  There was legalized horse race betting in only a few states, and a few states had some other sports such as greyhound racing or Jai Alai which you could bet on.  Legally, you could only place bets at the venue.  Of course, organized crime found it very lucrative to offer “off track” betting.  Every street corner where I grew up had a bookie some place or other.  And of course, the numbers game was a very popular way for fools to lose their money.  Sports betting was done privately, and casino gambling did not start in Las Vegas until 1931.  It had been legal earlier but was outlawed in 1910 and not legalized until 1931.  The only lottery I ever heard of when I was growing up had to do with the Irish Sweepstakes.  There must have been some way to buy these tickets, but I never investigated it.

Today, you can buy pull tabs and lottery tickets in almost every gas station.  Casinos are just around the corner in twenty states and sports betting became legal on April 15, 2021, in the USA.  Organized religion believed that gambling would be addictive, and husband and wives would neglect their parental responsibilities as they gambled away their hard-earned wages.  People who regularly buy lottery tickets are the norm today even though economists refer to the lottery as a tax on the poor and the stupid.

ReeferMadness800-520x348

Marijuana was once considered a drug from Satan and every state in the Union banned its sale.  The movie “Reefer Madness” came out in 1936 and portrayed wild eyed youth going crazy after smoking a joint.  Smoking weed was a sure path to hell and damnation.  As of May 27, 2022, 19 states, two territories and the District of Columbia have now enacted measures to regulate cannabis for adult non-medical use with several other states limiting its use to medical purposes.  You can now smoke that joint where it once would have put you in jail.

drink-whiskey-hail-satan-satanic-baphomet-gift-manuel-pichlerWhiskey can now be purchased almost 24/7 in many states.  You can buy it in grocery stores, gas stations, bars, and convenience stores.  Perhaps no substance has been more abhorred by religions than whiskey.  Benjamin Franklin said that “Beer is proof that God loved man and wanted him to be happy.”  However, this was not the attitude of most religious organizations.  Temperance movements motivated by so called moral considerations did their best to ban alcohol in the US.  It is illegal in thirteen countries in the world.  Several of the world’s major religions ban the use of alcohol.  There are seventy-five scripture (Bible) warnings against the drinking of alcohol.  Is it any wonder that so many religions have prohibited the drinking of alcohol.

  • Hosea 4:11 – Intoxicating wine takes away intelligence.
  • Micah 2:11 – Israelites are eager to follow false teachers who prophesy plenty of intoxicating drinks.
  • Habakkuk 2:16 – Drinking leads to shame.

I have been trying to show some of the influences that religion and state have had in terms of legislating and enforcing moral codes and policy.  I could say more about prostitution and pornography but the nuances I hold regarding these subjects would entail a blog of their own.  Suffice it to say that restrictions in these areas have declined considerably in the last fifty years.

The_Fire__Brimstone_PreachingNow there may be some of you reading my blog and expecting a fire and brimstone sermon regarding the sins of humanity and the temptations of the devil.  Nothing could be further from my mind.  I am not advocating going back to the religious sanctions or beliefs that fueled so much of our political system.  In the first place, they were misguided and in the second place they penalized those who could practice moral virtues along with those most reluctant.  I could never understand why I could not buy liquor on Sunday or after 10 PM on weekdays or in a grocery store.  I have never received a DUI or even a warning for driving drunk.

The biggest problem with efforts to legislate morality is that they assume that the legal sanctions will result in a more moral society.  The evidence of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia in America should put a stake through the heart of that false belief.  The government has never been a vendor of morality.  People confuse legality with morality.

1787-Money-Mania-fullThe government has always been in the marketing business.  They would market “SIN” if they could find a way to sell it or allow it to be sold.  In some respects, they are already doing that with the legalization of gambling and their promotion of bigger and bigger lotteries.  The poor buy more and more tickets when the odds go ever higher against anyone winning.  Powerball’s odds are 1 in 292 million, and the combined populations in the states where tickets are sold equal nearly 320 million.  What would anyone do with 2 billion dollars?  (As I write this, the lottery of 2.0 billion has been won by a single person in California)

This is the stuff of more is better which I talked about in my last blog.  How large of a jackpot would be enough to support you for the rest of your life?  Assuming the average age of a lottery ticket holder, it would take nearly $5 million, according to Robert Pagliarini, president of Pacifica Wealth Advisors.  With a net take home of 1 billion dollars, one billion dollars could easily support 200 people for the rest of their lives.

There is nothing moral about ever bigger lottery purses.  Not to mention the fact that the odds are better that the lottery winner will go bankrupt rather than that they will see a happy old age with lots of money.  “Life after winning the lottery may not stay glamorous forever. Whether they win $500 million or $1 million, about 70 percent of lotto winners lose or spend all that money in five years or less.” — Easy Come, Easy Go.

What does this have to do with morality? 

First, we must define morality.  It is not about making money, winning the lottery, drinking booze, smoking weed or visiting a casino.  The Prosperity Gospel is a distortion of the idea of moral behavior.  Morality is the process of asking yourself what impact an action, a course of action, a decision, a purchase, or a behavior will have on other people.  It does not mean that you cannot drink and gamble.  It does not mean that you cannot have wild sex at a swinger’s party.  It does mean that you need to be able to ask yourself if your gambling and drinking is having a negative impact on others.  It does mean that you need to ask yourself if your sexual habits are having a negative impact on other people.  By others. I mean more than your family, more than your friends, more than your neighbors.  I mean other states.  I mean other countries.  I mean the entire world.  This does not mean that you have no rights.  You have the right to swing your arm but your right proverbially stops at the nose of another person.

download

As I said in my last blog, we must look outside of ourselves to find morality.  This is not easy to do.  Some of us, (fewer every year) go to a church on Sunday where we may get a sermon that asks us to look at our behaviors and what we can do for other people.  (“According to a 2021 survey, 31 percent of Americans never attend church or synagogue, compared to 22 percent of Americans who attend every week.”— Church Attendance of Americans)  Those of us who attend church hear maybe a twenty or thirty minute sermon each week on morality.

Compared to this 30-minute sermon once per week for maybe fifty percent of Americans:

“The average American watches four hours of TV each day (that’s down from about six hours in the 1960s through 1990s by the way). There are about twenty minutes of “non-program material” per hour, which includes ads, promos, news updates, etc. For our purposes, let’s consider all of this commercial matter.  So in four hours, we see eighty minutes of commercials.” — Fred Pagano, Radio, television and Internet advertising producer and director.

This means that the average American hears about 560 minutes of paid advertisements each week or the equivalent of 19 sermons.  These ads exhort you to think of yourself.  You are special but you need more to be more special.  If you don’t buy more, you neighbors will look down on you.  Your friends will surpass you in status.  Your family will stop loving you.  You can be a better smarter person, but you must buy the new Persico Bacon Maker.  You need a new car or maybe even a bigger house.  You should go out to eat more or get a new insurance policy.

smoking

Advertisements are NEVER what you can do for other people or society.  They are ALWAYS inherently selfish.  Is it any wonder that Americans shop till they drop or keep on buying more stuff that is bigger and bigger than they will ever need?   Americans have been and are continually bombarded by Madison Avenue messages that are a form of de facto brainwashing.  Too many Americans today are selfish, self-centered, narcissistic, and exhibit an entitlement mentality.  Economic policy extols benefits that will accrue to society with more buying and more spending.  It is somewhat ironic that the rampant inflation today and the wild economic swings have not been helped one iota by a greedy narcissistic economic policy that ignores any effort to provide a balance Moral Policy.  In addition, Americans are no happier today than they were seventy years ago.

“The vast majority of Americans report being “very” (42%) or “fairly happy” (44%), but the combined 86% is down from 91% the last time Gallup asked about this, in December 2008. It is also the lowest overall percentage happy Gallup has recorded in periodic readings over 71 years and is only the fifth time happiness has dipped below the 90% mark in 23 readings since 1948.” — Happiness Not Quite as Widespread as Usual in the U.S

How do we get a balance between Moral Policy and Economic Policy?

My apologies.  This blog was longer than I thought it would be.  I will address the above question in my next blog.  In the meantime, I would love to hear any comments, questions or ideas that you might have concerning the issues I have raised in this and my previous blog.

Previous Older Entries