A number of years ago when I first started graduate school, I was talking to a professor who had just purchased a brand new yacht. This was nearly 40 years ago and I was pretty judgmental (I am hoping I am somewhat less judgmental today). I remember saying to him exactly what was on my mind: “Don’t you feel guilty with all of the poverty and problems we are facing in this world, to spend your money on such an extravagant purchase?” To this day (Perhaps, my continued naiveté) I remain both shocked and amazed at his reply. “John, if I can afford it, I deserve it.” I was shocked because it seemed so insensitive to the world’s problems and I was amazed because I had expected that someone who had earned a Ph.D. would have had a more reflective and thoughtful reply. Instead, he simply parroted back to me what I had labeled as the “Protestant Ethic.” According to Wikipedia:
“The Protestant work ethic (or the Puritan work ethic) is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes hard work, frugality and prosperity as a display of a person’s salvation in the Christian faith. The phrase was initially coined in 1904 by Max Weber in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Somewhere in the course of the development of American Capitalism, guilt or perhaps conscience was replaced by the moral certainty that if you only work hard enough, you can spend your money as frivolously as you want to. At least, this was the interpretation I drew and continue to draw from my understanding of the Protestant Work Ethic. Now of course, it has morphed into an abomination called the “Prosperity Gospel.” In some sense, I can understand this idea. If you work hard, why should you not be able to harvest the fruits of your labor? Why should you be expected to share with those who are less fortunate? After all, how many of the “less” fortunate are “less” because of their own laziness, stupidity, inertia or lack of ambition? Should I have to pay more taxes to support people who don’t want to work or whose entire goal in life is to eat their way to obesity, drink their way to liver failure or drug their minds to an out of this world zombie state? Why should I have to put up with the lack of ethics and self-discipline that it would appear in so many of the indigent and poor in this world exhibit? A study in England in 2009 found that:
Four out of five people see nothing wrong with stealing from their workplace – while more than half think it acceptable for a care giver to persuade an elderly person to rewrite their will, according to a new study.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1211629/How-80-think-OK-steal-work-study-reveals-wavering-moral-compass.html#ixzz2RU850BbL
In some sense, the Protestant Ethic is a direct refutation of the morals that I had been given in my early Catholic school training. Perhaps, that is why Catholics and Protestants did not get along in years gone by. I remember every lunch break being told by one of the nuns or sisters at my Catholic school to be sure to “clean my plate.” When queried why this was so important I always received the same reply “Because of the starving kids in India.” Somehow, I was expected to feel guilty for these starving children in some far away country who did not have enough food to eat. Was it my fault that they did not have enough to eat? However, it was okay if I cleaned my plate and did not leave any scraps. Kind of reminds me of when I go to a Chinese Buffet and it says on the sign posted: “Please do not take more than you can eat.” I weight 147 lbs. and scrupulously (well, sometimes) obey this admonition. I watch the 400 lb. plus people with plates that are stacked higher than the Eiffel Tower and I wonder if they saw the sign or is it simply that they are on a diet? See, there I go again, being judgmental.
Well, here it is nearly 40 years later and the question I posed to my professor colleague still seems quite legitimate to me. When is it okay to indulge? When can I binge? When is it permissible to go buy my brand new Ferrari or brand new yacht? What would Sister Evangeline say if she knew I was spending $350,000 dollars or more to purchase a new boat that I might only use two or three times per year? What would Martin Luther say? I can not imagine Luther saying: “Well, John, don’t worry about it. You are supporting the economy. Every boat you buy is a job for some boat builder in India or Pakistan or some other place where the kids don’t have enough to eat.” “Thank You Martin Luther, now I don’t feel so guilty.” Hooray for the Protestant Work Ethic!
Here is what the Gandhi Institute has to say about this issue:
Pleasure Without Conscience: This is connected to wealth without work. People find imaginative and dangerous ways of bringing excitement to their otherwise dull lives. Their search for pleasure and excitement often ends up costing society very heavily. Taking drugs and playing dangerous games cause avoidable health problems that cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect health care facilities. Many of these problems are self-induced or ailments caused by careless attitudes. The United States spends more than $250 billion on leisure activities while 25 million children die each year because of hunger, malnutrition, and lack of medical facilities. Irresponsible and unconscionable acts of sexual pleasure and indulgence also cost the people and the country very heavily. Not only do young people lose their childhood but innocent babies are brought into the world and often left to the care of the society. The emotional, financial, and moral price is heavy on everyone. Gandhi believed pleasure must come from within the soul and excitement from serving the needy, from caring for the family, the children, and relatives. Building sound human relationships can be an exciting and adventurous activity. Unfortunately, we ignore the spiritual pleasures of life and indulge in the physical pleasures which are “pleasure without conscience.”
From: http://www.rabbitadvocacy.com/gandhi_teachings.htm
A person I really admired was the teacher and prophet OSHO. OSHO also believes that all the violence in the world comes from the need people have to address the boredom and meaninglessness in their daily lives. People who are bored and who feel that their lives have no meaning turn to violence and or drugs in an effort to fill their lives with something that excites them or makes them feel alive. The problem with such stimulation is that it never really fills the void and as with any panacea it is only temporary. The void returns and the need to find new or greater stimulation also returns. The cycle is not broken by the search for outside stimulation since the only real meaning of our lives must come from within. No matter how great the wealth we achieve, no matter how many titles we accrue, no matter how famous we become and no matter how many people want our autographs, this kind of stimulation can never fill the void that we have if we do not find real meaning for our existence.
Let us pose the central issue here (Pleasure without Conscience) in the form of series of questions. Each question puts a slightly different slant on the issue: Here are some ways to reflect on the issue:
- How much pleasure is it okay to feel before I feel guilty?
- If I am enjoying my life, should I feel guilty?
- Do I have to feel guilty if I am feeling great pleasure?
- Does a sense of conscience have anything to do with my personal pleasure?
- Do I need to tie the concept of pleasure in with conscience?
Depending on which way we posit the question, we will come up with different answers. Try the exercise yourself and see what you find as your personal answers. For me, I would answer some of these questions in the negative and some in the positive. Nevertheless, such a pedantic method of addressing the issue actually ignores what I think Gandhi was really getting at. I don’t think this is an issue of us not enjoying our lives or not finding pleasure but it is more of what I have come to think of as a “Happy Days” issue. Do you remember the sitcom that ran from the mid-seventies to mid-eighties? It featured Ron Howard as a too good to be true teenager and Henry Winkler as a thuggish type of Greaser. The term “Happy Days” was associated with how many Americans felt about the period of time between the end of the Korean War and the beginning of the Vietnam War. Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, I Love Lucy and the Mickey Mouse Club show were only a few of the sitcoms to depict a happy America where all was right with the world and Americans knew only bliss and prosperity.
Those “Happy Days” for middle class White male Americans were not so happy for the rest of the world. During this period, there were many groups and constituencies in the USA who were denied rights, served excessive prison terms, could not find employment and were often subject to abuse and/or lynching. I refer here to minority groups and women in the USA during our “Happy Days” period. One could argue that either stupidity or a lack of conscience was a prerequisite for putting on “Happy Days” blinders. Kind of like those folks who miss the “Good Old Days” down south. Those nostalgic summer days when the happy slaves would sing and dance all day long in the cotton fields. At the end of the day, they would trudge merrily home to their cozy cabins to sit by the fire-place and eat their fill of watermelon, sweet potato pie and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Before going to bed, the young slaves would all have cute stories read to them by Uncle Remus. Stories that would prepare the young slaves to get ahead in a world dominated by racism, discrimination and non-citizenship. No doubt migrant workers, women and many other minorities would have their own version of the “Happy Days” fantasy that dominated American Psyche for so long. In fact, there are many Americans who still believe in the “Happy Days” fantasy.
The point I am getting at is that no matter how you look at it, it is immoral and unethical to divorce Pleasure from Conscience. To do so, is to be guilty of at best a form of benign neglect and at worst, a criminal conspiracy to keep other people degraded and denied the same opportunities as we might have. Christians should all be familiar with many of Jesus’s teachings on this subject:
- “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:25
- “Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” Mark 10:21
- “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” Matthew 16:26
Clearly anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ could not put profit or pleasure above conscience. Jesus was all about helping others even at the expense of his own life. His entire mission was to help those who were poor, sick or downtrodden. Is there anyone who could do this without a conscience? Perhaps we have focused too much in the past few decades on success and getting ahead. This intense focus may have allowed many of us to put our consciences aside with the result that they seem to have atrophied or in many cases disappeared. Too many people now measure success by how much money they have made and not how many people they have helped. It is time we start focusing on conscience again. Pleasure without conscience is simply hedonism.
Ok, time for questions:
What pleasures do you have that you may sacrifice your conscience for? Do you think it is possible to have both conscience and pleasure? What does it mean to have an “ethical” conscience? Can we have too much conscience? Do you think people should have more pleasure or more conscience? Why? What about yourself? Where do you fall on this issue?
Life is just beginning.
I wrote this blog more than four years ago. Many have read it during the past few years. With hindsight, I can see that we have gone further down the path. Our political systems are rife with a lack of conscience. Furthermore, this lack of conscience is justified by a “Prosperity Gospel” which preaches that: financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one’s material wealth.
In other words, that God rewards increases in faith with increases in health and/or wealth. Thus, if you are wealthy, you are a “true believer”, anointed by God and deserving of your wealth. The poor and sick are not true believers and thus are deserving of their fate and little or no sympathy or help.
Too many of us have given up on conscience and have become more and more Amoral. We don’t care what we do or the consequences of our actions as long as they are “legal.” Unfortunately, the law has never been a good barometer for ethics and morality. The law has too frequently been usurped by the rich and powerful to promote their own self interests. A history of the Supreme Court decisions in the USA would show this truth as would the Nazi Laws in Germany during the 30’s or the slavery and apartheid laws that existed throughout history in many parts of the world. Law does not make right. It never did and it never will.
We shop till we drop. We invoke our privilege to use our money as we want to. We make holidays out of holy days where we spend our time hunting for bargains and sales. Greed has now become a sacrament. Greed is no longer evil. Greed is holy. Greed is the American Way of Life. Millions of Americans adore the wealthy. The story of Lazarus holds no credibility – Luke 16:19-21. Nor does the story of the Rich Fool – Luke 12:13-21. Money is sacred and those who have more are worshipped by Americans and exalted as better people and better leaders. We elect millionaires and billionaires to Congress and even the Presidency on the sole basis of their acumen at having stored up wealth.
As years have gone by, I have learned from the sages (who profess to know these things) that “being” is more important than “doing” in terms of defining who we really are. In other words, just because I work as a management consultant or educator, that job title does not describe the real me. The real me exists apart from what I do to make a living or to earn a paycheck. I discovered that It would take an epic journey of soul searching to find my real being, the real me. Ever since I learned that I needed such a quest to know my true inner self, I have been struggling to find out who I really am. I am now 73 years old and I am still wrestling with this question.
Socrates said that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” These words were reportedly spoken at his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates believed that living a life where you unthinkingly obey the rules of society and never stop to examine what you actually want out of life is not worth living. I believe that Socrates was thinking too much. It is relatively easy to know what one wants out of life. I want happiness, money, good health, good love, good sex, good food, interesting friends, a challenging and meaningful job and a perhaps a few exceptional children or two to round things out. I am not sure what else I would want if I delved into the issue any deeper.
On the other hand, what if we are not faced with a coin here but with a Mobius Strip. So there are not two sides but only one side. Unlike a two-sided coin, there is no division in a Mobius Strip. This is more of an Eastern perspective on life. Thus, being rolls into doing without any breaks and doing rolls back into being. Life is simply be-do-be-do-be-do. If this is what life is really about, then trying to separate the two ideas is simply impossible. When I do, I am being and when I am being, I am doing.
There have been many theories proposed for the policies held by Trump and his Republican supporters. They include “Greed Theory.” The Republicans are held to be greedier than most people and only want to accumulate as much money as they can. Another is “Hate Theory.” This theory holds that since most Republicans are White European in ancestry, they loath and detest any people who are different then they are. This includes Asians, Blacks, Indians, Latinos and any immigrants not from Europe.
About a week later, I was substitute teaching in a Casa Grande High School. I drew an eleventh-grade social studies class. The teacher had left an assignment wherein the students had to find certain terms and concepts associated with the second industrial revolution and write definitions for each of them. Included among such terms as: robber barons, corporations, patents and trusts was the term “Social Darwinism.” One of the students asked me to explain it beyond the simple definition she found on line. I tried to recall my ideas relating to this concept from many years ago. I gave her my explanation and then later I looked up the definition at Wikipedia. I was struck at how well my memory had served me. It was at that point that the proverbial light bulb or blinding light of inspiration hit me. I suddenly realized that the Republican Party was not just trying to create elite systems but they were also trying to build on the theories of Herbert Spencer. The following excerpt explains this theory very well as it applies to many current concepts such as: trickle down theory, privatization, corporate welfare and tax reform.
So, there you have it. Trump and the Republican Party are not greedy, hateful or fearful of others, they simply do not believe that you have a right to anything unless you are also rich and successful and White like they are. Based on the concepts of Social Darwinism, they have the right to whatever you have if they can find a way to take it away from you. If you cannot keep it, that means you are inferior. If you are inferior, you have no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to Social Darwinism, the elite will eventually Trump the poor because they are stronger, smarter and more fit. This will eventually result in a society wherein everyone is fit, and everyone is trying to screw everyone else.
ove kingly power. The Pope was supreme and no appeals could be made for his decision. Sovereign power had now shifted to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.
manifested its power in the grandeur and elegance of its buildings.
CE) and King Phillip IV of France. Several other skirmishes had already taken place between Popes and rulers in the decades preceding with the battles seesawing back and forth. However, the decisive battle for sovereignty was between Pope Boniface VIII and King Phillip IV. It was vicious and at times bloody. It saw the end of Church sovereignty and the beginning of the
During the period of nation/state rulers, they built some magnificent buildings such as Versailles in France, Castello Del Valentino in Italy, the Palace of Placentia in London and the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna. If not the largest buildings in each country, they dwarfed in overall grandeur and size the churches that had been built by the clergy. The period of nation/state rulers lasted from about 1400 CE to the middle of the 19th century.
The new sovereigns started building. No more castles or palaces were built to house the new rulers. Instead, capitals, state houses and mansions would be the new domiciles for politicians and bureaucrats. Government leaders were no different though than Kings and Clergy when it came to siting their residences. They also sought the high ground to place their buildings on. The tallest buildings in the land now belonged to the Government. This situation would not last very long. Even more changes were taking place. In a few short years, nations would no longer have an exclusive on sovereignty. A new challenger was rapidly emerging.
The list includes skyscrapers built in China, United Arab Emirates, Dubai, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Russia and several other nations. Perhaps presaging the emergence of China and Asia as the dominant world economies, Asia is already assuming the role of having many of the largest buildings in the world. What we are witnessing is a contest of global economies vying for supremacy in terms of world economic sovereignty. An interesting aside is that the world currency is considered a reflection of the nation that is the most powerful in this arena. To date, the United States still holds that distinction but many are predicting the demise of the US dollar as the standard for world currency.
Is Trump’s election an anomaly or does it truly represent the emergence of corporate power into the political arena? My view on this is that Trump’s election is merely the tip of the iceberg. For over 20 years now the United States has been electing more and more political leaders who are not politicians. I am considering someone as not a politician if they are people who have not made a career of politics.
My point here is that most millionaires make their money in business. On the 
It is my prediction that business leaders will continue to make the transition to political leadership. The business model is now the sovereign model for world power. The power of the state has been usurped by the power of big business. Global power is corporate power. The public is sick of career politicians. The common people bring a (perhaps unfounded) belief in the power of business to save the world. Considering that we have tried the power of academia, the power of science and the power of big government to save the world, perhaps the power of business can do better. One might argue that they can at least do no worst.
Aging Capriciously 