America Is Not the Greatest Country

America Is Not the Greatest Country………..for long

By John P. Middleton

Nov 2013

The title of this piece is a controversial and emotionally loaded concept.  But I hope the reader would stay with me awhile before throwing the tomatoes.

The Facts are that the United States currently ranks 49^th in life expectancy, between 12^th and 26^th in education (depending on discipline or specialty), 31^st in gender gap, between 27^th and 32^nd in mother, women and children issues, 114^th in “Happy Planet Index”, 85^th in Global Peace index, 13^th in quality of Life index, 46^th in suicide rates, and 168^th in Failed States Index. (All statistics from The Economist Intelligence Unit, CIA World Fact book, and Yale University.) All information is available online. Therefore, it is probably inaccurate, but not unreasonable to declare the United States the “greatest” country in the world despite the foregoing evidence to the contrary.

The argument for “greatness” may be centered on our constitution and military might. But we are clearly deficient in many humanitarian areas.

In a previous paper I mentioned how frustrating the political process had become, for most people, due to the “system”.  In Humanitarian (and even military) concepts, the system is flawed for a number of reasons, among which are;

1.       A failure to correctly identify the difference between “leadership” and “servanthood”.

The people of the United States should be the leaders and the politicians their servants, which is the basic concept behind a representative democracy or a republic. That is the concept which gives our Constitution strength.

2.       Because of our country’s embrace of unrestrained Capitalism the abuses of Capitalism are rampant.

Money permeates politics to the extent that re-election trumps all other considerations, and indeed, consensus.  Reprehensible policies such as gerrymandering, or onerous voter registration, simply further the goals of the re-election process, and have little to do with lawmaking for the general good.

These kinds of abuses could bring the U. S. down more rapidly from its position of speculative and precarious dominance.  There are many other political abuses that could, similarly, result in the fall of the United States.

While I could labor on about “abuses” of the system, there are some who might find justification that the rich should get richer while the poor struggle, or who believe only the strongest should survive, citing Darwinian evolution as justification for imbalance.  So, I will continue with something that will be much more difficult with which to disagree, something that virtually assures the demise of the United States as THE world power, and is more consistent with old Mr. Darwin………Cultural Anthropology.

At the core of Cultural Anthropology is one, no longer so controversial, concept.  This concept may be called The Law of Evolutionary Potential”, as promulgated in chapter 5 of the book, “Evolution and Culture”, Harding, Kaplan, Sahlins and Service, Univ. of Michigan Press, copyright 1960/1973; and elsewhere.

The law generally states, “The more specialized and adapted a form is in any evolutionary stage, the smaller it’s potential for passing to the next stage.” 

Now Anthropology is not an exact science. And there are many opinions as to why political/cultural history is what it appears to be. But we should not disapprove of the basic concepts of Darwinian evolution when applied to states.

Now, because I am not a graduate in cultural anthropology,  I can only deal in general terms. But that should be more than sufficient here.  There are basically two types of evolution, specific and general.

1.       Specific:  “In any given system—a species, a culture or an individual, improves its chances for survival and progresses in the efficiency of its capture of energy by increasing its adaptive specialization.” 

A man is different, and higher on the food chain, than an armadillo. But each has unique specializations suited to its line of descent and is a contemporary creature.  You would not be anywhere near as good at finding, unearthing, and eating a grub worm, than an armadillo without the aid of equipment designed for that purpose.

“We increase our specializations for efficiency at survival.”  This is specific evolution,

which is limited by several factors, among which are, The “Principle of Stabilization” forces.  The armadillo, having the tools to feed itself and breed and protect itself, is unlikely to develop much further, unless another need arises, due to it being “stable” in many areas. Someday it may even figure out that crossing the southern highway at night is dangerous, but it appears to have not developed that far yet. Similarly, humans are losing their “gills” although vestiges may remain.

Two of the several factors to consider here are Dominance and Potentiality.  Much of our world turmoil is a contest between dominance and potential. It is unlikely that the armadillo will rule the world, but mankind and the cockroach have a shot at it…..for a limited time.

2.       General:   “The more specialized and adapted a form is in any evolutionary stage, the smaller its potential for passing to the next stage.”  (The Law of Evolutionary Potential)

Another way to state this is “specific evolutionary progress is inversely related to general evolutionary potential”.

Now what does this stuff mean for the future of the United States?

There are several factors at work, some in general cultural evolution and some in environmental evolution as follows:

“There’s a word for this new era we live in: the Anthropocene. This term, taken up by geologists, pondered by intellectuals and discussed in the pages of publications such as The Economist and the The New York Times, represents the idea that we have entered a new epoch in Earth’s geological history, one characterized by the arrival of the human species as a geological force. The Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen coined the term in 2002, and it has steadily gained acceptance as evidence has increasingly mounted that the changes wrought by global warming will affect not just the world’s climate and biological diversity, but its very geology — and not just for a few centuries, but for millenniums. The geophysicist David Archer’s 2009 book, “The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” lays out a clear and concise argument for how huge concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and melting ice will radically transform the planet, beyond freak storms and warmer summers, beyond any foreseeable future.

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London — the scientists responsible for pinning the “golden spikes” that demarcate geological epochs such as the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene — have adopted the Anthropocene as a term deserving further consideration, “significant on the scale of Earth history.” Working groups are discussing what level of geological time-scale it might be (an “epoch” like the Holocene, or merely an “age” like the Calabrian), and at what date we might say it began. The beginning of the Great Acceleration, in the middle of the 20th century? The beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around 1800? The advent of agriculture?

The challenge the Anthropocene poses is a challenge not just to national security, to food and energy markets, or to our “way of life” — though these challenges are all real, profound, and inescapable. The greatest challenge the Anthropocene poses may be to our sense of what it means to be human. Within 100 years — within three to five generations — we will face average temperatures 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, rising seas at least three to 10 feet higher, and worldwide shifts in crop belts, growing seasons and population centers. Within a thousand years, unless we stop emitting greenhouse gases wholesale right now, humans will be living in a climate the Earth hasn’t seen since the Pliocene, three million years ago, when oceans were 75 feet higher than they are today. We face the imminent collapse of the agricultural, shipping and energy networks upon which the global economy depends, a large-scale die-off in the biosphere that’s already well on its way, and our own possible extinction. If homo sapiens (or some genetically modified variant) survives  the next millenniums, it will be survival in a world unrecognizably different from the one we have inhabited.” ---“Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene,”  by ROY SCRANTON   http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/

The foregoing, while horrific in its consequences for the world, and heavily fueled by the recent dominance of North American energy consumption and the emerging energy consumption of the East, is not the only the specific Darwinian cultural change I am discussing here. Although the consequences of an Anthropocene period are culturally world changing, in this paper, I am specifically bound to the shorter term cultural changes of world dominance by specific states.

America, “the greatest country,” cannot sustain that position for much longer.

Evolution applies to both species and technology, but, in this case, and more importantly, cultures. Greece fell, Rome fell, Spain fell, Portugal fell, England fell, France fell, Germany fell and all other powerful nations have fallen from the pinnacle of dominance. Were they morally insufficient?  Some yes, most no. Were they sufficient or “efficient” for the future…..NO! That’s why they fell.

In the next 35 years futurist colleagues see the growth of the middle class as enormous in India and China and falling in the US and Europe.  An anthropologist might make the claim that those countries are filling the middle class vacuum because the U.S. and Europe already have a middle class. Additionally, their lower labor costs allow them to develop manufacturing whereas it is declining in our country as jobs and plants are sent to cheaper labor markets thus growing their middle class. Where the middle class grows, development usually occurs.

At some point in a system the dominance one exhibits tends to become non-progressive.  We already all own TV’s AND CARS thus General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have already identified the next market as India and China and are building their manufacturing plants in those locations. It is likely the advances in TV and Cars will come from India and China as they are still adapting to TVs and Cars, while we already have them. Needless to say, with manufacturing plants located in those target countries employment and economic growth and the growth of the middle class will follow in those places.

A young man recently referred to my desktop computer as a “Grandpa Box”.  I objected. I have studied computers and built this one I am using from the best available and affordable components. It is a very fast and flexible machine, loaded with the best software, cleaned and pruned and checked daily.  What the hell did he mean “Grandpa Box”?  Dr. Jerry Rose, an anthropologist colleague at the University of Arkansas, helped me to understand the young man was right. It IS a grandpa box. Youth today do their work on cellphones to a great extent.  They are portable (my box is not) they have downloadable apps (which are much rarer on my box). They have more instant communication from wherever they are, etc.

As an old fart, I reserve the right to claim that THEIR COMMUNICATION IS not as complete as mine and currently done in the severe limitation of 144 characters.  But that is changing. And how does the futurist see the value of my rambling essays in an era of “Instantaneous Knowledge”?  Is my longer essayist’s opinion any more valid than their 144 character opinion? Clearly I represent the past and the young man the future. It is, for that example, understandable that most cell phone developments are a product of the east since the east lacks a viable land line network.

So it is with states.

What will happen to the United States when our declining middle class and economy can no longer sustain our investment in our military that is four to eight times higher than our next competitor?

As our economic advantages disappear, albeit slowly, our military dominance must also disappear.  Our cultural dominance will take much longer to disappear. We still talk about the cultures and ideas of Egypt, Greece, Rome, England and others who have, in many cases, disappeared from the world stage as dominant players. Ours will be the “Lingua Franca” (with apologies to my British friends), the dominant world language, for some time to come.

Our dominance is likely to be a long slow process downward.  Since we already have one of the highest standards of living in the world, change, and improvement, will more likely come from somewhere else.

There will be some plateaus and blockades.  For instance, as a nation, we are spending an enormous amount of time on development and sustaining fossil fuels like oil, when the future is clearly in solar, wind, battery and lesser environmentally damaging technologies. If we were to shift gears to the latter technologies the United States could be a world leader in those areas for some time to come. Sadly, those developments are, apparently, being ceded to the East through greed on the part of our oil and auto and energy barons.

Physical Evolution is a slow process, Cultural Evolution appears much faster. Our future as a nation is likely destined to be a long slow downward spiral as the forces of evolution overtake us.  Even without those forces, the prospect of world government looms large in the potential history of the planet as it gets smaller and smaller culturally.

This probable spiral can be aided by several diverse factors.  In the beginning of this essay I indicated

“Money permeates politics to the extent that re-election trumps all other considerations, and indeed, consensus.  Reprehensible policies such as gerrymandering, or onerous voter registration, simply further the goals of the re-election process, and have little to do with lawmaking for the general good.” 

Our culture is addicted to greed.  It chokes the engines of development, the interest in fossil, rather than alternative fuels, dominance of the single commuter in the large SUV, and many other examples of how we seem determined, as a powerful and influential nation, to hasten our demise.

While change and progress are still possible, our greed will certainly trump and slow them and ultimately assure our national disappearance from the earth.

John P. Middleton

Nov 2013

Subjective v. Objective Truth

Subjective v. Absolute Truth

by John P. Middleton

Sept. 2013

“In his wonderful book "Simulacra & Simulation” Jean Baudrillard posits that reality is no longer relevant, and that our perception has become the new reality. 

The old Platonic paradigm stated that our perception was like a map that was drawn full size across the world, the edges of the map rotting and decaying above reality.  Mr. Baudrillard's theory is that this has changed to where now the map is whole and the edges of reality are slowly decaying.  Power, money, politics, even religion and science have become simulacra’s of the truth, idols that we worship rather than the real items.  Our current monetary system is based not on gold or precious metals, but on whether or not people believe it has value.  Our political system is a shell of its former self, with both parties becoming caricatures of what they once were.  Even music has succumbed to this, most popular music representing caricatures and stereotypes rather than real people or cultures.  We look back to a past that never really existed as the "good ole days" that we should return to. To paraphrase an old Zen koan, there is no truth, and it is all around us.”  ---David Atkins-2013

The question of whether “Truth” is Subjective or Objective has severe implications for the future of our species. 

In the most recent seven decades the idea of an “Absolute” truth, (“God’s” Truth, if you don’t mind the phrase, or Supernal Truth, if you do) has been under great attack.  It manifests itself in any number of ways that I will not enumerate, but phrases such “That’s my perception” or “That’s my reality” or That’s the way I see it”, while potentially, “wrong” are also “true”. 

The morality of mankind (choosing right from wrong), is based on the concept of our truth, subjective truth only.  But that does not make our perception, our subjective truth, objectively “Right” or “Real” or “True”.

After much deliberation and research I have taken the position that Objective Truth does exist. It is independent and has no agenda, “Natural Law” might be an example.  However, I must also affirm Subjective Truth exists and is the limitation of all human and sentient beings.

Consider Schroedinger’s Cat, which pays tribute to the paradox Schrödinger proposed in 1935 in the following theoretical experiment.

A cat is placed in a steel box along with a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, a hammer, and a radioactive substance. When the radioactive substance decays, the Geiger detects it and triggers the hammer to release the poison, which subsequently kills the cat. The radioactive decay is a random process, and there is no way to predict when it will happen. Physicists say the “cat” exists in a state known as a superposition—its atoms both decayed and not decayed at the same time.

Until the box is opened, an observer doesn't know whether the cat is alive or dead—because the cat's fate is intrinsically tied to whether or not the atom has decayed and the cat would, as Schrödinger put it, be "living and dead ... in equal parts" until it is observed. 

In other words, until the box was opened, the cat's state is completely unknown and therefore, the cat is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until it is observed.

"If you put the cat in the box, and if there's no way of saying what the cat is doing, you have to treat it as if it's doing all of the possible things—being living and dead—at the same time," explains Eric Martell, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at Millikin University. "If you try to make predictions and you assume you know the status of the cat, you're [probably] going to be wrong. If, on the other hand, you assume it's in a combination of all of the possible states that it can be, you'll be correct."

Upon looking at the cat, an observer would immediately know if the cat was alive or dead and the "superposition" of the cat—the idea that it was in both states—would collapse into either the knowledge that "the cat is alive" or "the cat is dead," but no longer both.

What Schrödinger was illustrating with the cat paradox, Martell says, was "In any physical system, without observation, you cannot say what something is doing," says Martell. "You have to say it can be any of these things it can be doing—even if the probability is small.”

However, our observation is only required to discern the cat is EITHER dead or alive. There is no objective third state of dead-aliveness possible. A “real” state of dead-aliveness can never be observed because it has no objective existence. It is a mathematical or scientific distinction to discern further absolute truth.  The reality, the absolute truth, is that the cat is either dead or alive. Our inability to determine the state of the cat without observation does not change the “either-or” reality. There is no possible natural/objective state of dead-aliveness, despite its mathematical use.

Objective truth, therefore, must exist even if we cannot see it or are “forbidden” to see it from our human condition. 

If we are forced to define the difference between Objective or Subjective truth it would be something like the following;

Subjective:  characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of perception.

Objective:  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition independent of individual thought, independent of perception by all or even most observers: having reality independent of the mind.

I am reminded of the United States Constitution which states “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”…..created in a land where women, slaves and others were considered non-worthy of equality or voting rights.  It was an attempt at objective truth in its conception, but subjective truth in its reality and use.

The “Axiom” of “First Principle” according to Aristotle, are self-evident points, demonstrating their existence without proof.   For example Rene Descartes famous, “I Think therefore I am”, proves you exist even if someone told you did not exist, you would still have to think about your existence, therefore proving the one who told you did not exist is wrong.

This proves two points in the search for Truth.

Existence (To be aware of yourself proves existence)

                 Reason  (To think about yourself proves reason)

We can logically conclude we exist and we can have reasoned thought about our existence.

The implications of this Objective-Subjective distinction in moral philosophy are enormous. What is “right” and what is “wrong” if we can’t absolutely determine it, but know it absolutely, objectively, exists? We know “right” objectively exists, don’t we? I would conclude “yes”, but can we ever “know” it!  Absolute Truth appears to belong to a power beyond humankind
.

The Law of Non-Contradiction: (LNC)(A is not non-A)   states that opposite truth claims cannot both be true. For example if an atheist believes God does not exist and a theist believes God does exist, it is impossible for both to be right.  (This does not question the “Form of God”, for example, Spinoza or classical theist, only the fact or non-fact of God’s existence).

Another example of how the Law of Non-Contradiction works, is If someone were to say, “there is no such thing as absolute truth, and the above quoted LNC is meaningless”, he has done two things. First, he has assumed that his view is true as opposed to false, and thus he uses the LNC (which of course, implies that the LNC has meaning, because his view is assumed to be meaningful). Second, he has violated the LNC by suggesting that there is no such thing as absolute truth while at the same time  and in the same sense insisting there is such a thing as absolute truth—The truth of his own view. By doing so, he automatically validates the Law of Non-contradiction.

The Law of Excluded Middle: (Either A or non-A) This asserts that it is either A or non-A but not both. God cannot exist and not exist. In other words, there is no middle ground, opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the “cracks” between being and not being, not even Schroedinger’s cat or God or a ghost, despite our inability to see them.

The Law of Identity (and Language): (A is A) This law simply states that something is what we say it is: A is A. When someone says, “I loved the book” it is understood to mean a “Book”.  Without the law of identity, there would be chaos and language would be incoherent.

Using these basic laws of rational thought, we can examine the logic of certain truth claims, such as, when is Truth objective or subjective?  Can we find absolute truth? Probably not, due to our limited perception. But is truth ultimately objective….YES!!!!! Science and the scientific method affirm the existence of absolute truth. 


Since we cannot prove the existence of electricity (Absolute Truth) and it is, therefore, still scientific “theory” does not mean it cannot exist absolutely.  Therefore our experiments are to prove the “wrongness” of theories about electricity in order to be left with only the absolute truth which we cannot yet “know”. We suspect electricity exists and can use it even if we cannot prove its existence.

When we examine something like the Holocaust and question the “wrongness” and the “rightness” of the event, we are confronted with the basis for what makes humans wrong and what makes humans right. “Rightness” of behavior can never be objective because all human ethics and morality are situational. Only the outcome can determine “righteousness” and often not perfectly.

Is abortion wrong?

What if the mother is ten years old?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed and society will have to pay for the child’s care forever?

What if the mother is ten years old and the birth will kill the mother and the child will be born hopelessly deformed and society will have to pay for the child’s care forever and the child’s father was a sociopath-with inherited genes for violence?

And so forth……. Abortion is wrong only in certain situations. We cannot say it is absolutely wrong because we have no ability to perceive absolute truth unless we have a burning bush speaking to us in our garage. There will always be situations when it may appear “right” to abort.

Another example of relative truth is “thou shalt not murder.”

                How about when I am a soldier in war?

                What about self defense?

                Capital punishment?

Therefore, the “objective” truth may be that murder is wrong, but, for humans, the situational ethic either adds or subtracts from that truth.  In certain situations murder appears more right than wrong to humans. But the outcome determines the value. The Amish, for example, take the position that all violence is absolutely wrong and live by that “absolute” code. Most of us do not see that clearly or that absolutely.  Are the Amish “right”?  Yes, for the Amish; but not for those of us who would defend ourselves against someone attacking our family and feel absolutely right in doing so. The objective truth is  less clear to us. The Amish have settled on what is "absolute" using their small database but a "societal" understanding of Truth.

Another example of absolute truth might be the color Red.  Red exists. We know it.  We see it, we measure its waves; we can view it in light terms the human eye cannot see. In wave form it exists absolutely as a specific wave among other waves. But I, if afflicted with certain genetic mutations, may be color blind to Red.  That does NOT abrogate its value or condition.  It means my view of absoluteness is flawed for some reason. For me, the condition Red is totally subjective. However, I should not deny its existence, as I can probably still see it, but only as some weird brown shade. Someone will attempt to correct my perception before I am three years old. The color exists but I cannot see it as it should be seen by MOST ALL of us! My perception is bound by subjective awareness, as would be the person who sees “red” as a heavy pink, or shade of copper.

The fact that we humans are only able to deal in subjective truth does not mean there is no objective truth (perhaps perfection) to strive for. In fact, the existence of absolute truth gives meaning to our lives.

Similar to the painter or the scientist who is not satisfied until his painting or experiment reveals a new, more perfect perspective, we are bound to struggle toward what seems to be unattainable goals.  That is the human condition.

I have often heard Christian minister’s claim “perfection in Christ” is an obtainable goal, an allegation to which I have always scoffed. My, perhaps erroneous, claim was that humans could never be “perfect”. I will cling to that statement knowing what I know about “old souls”, like Mother Theresa, who, despite her apparent near human perfection, revealed doubts, concerns, frustration and defeat in her letters.  Despite a lifetime of selfless service to others, she was not perfect or “absolute” in her own eyes under any circumstance.  

This inability for humans to attain Objective Truth or perfection, renders us the victim of situational ethics.  We can never say, “This is the only way”; nor “God wants this”; nor “only my condition or religion or belief structure, is acceptable to God or Mankind.”

The individual is, therefore, a flawed arbiter of truth or worth.

For moral philosophy, how do we as human beings then proceed to make moral decisions knowing there is an absolute value and truth but being unable to apply it in all situations or even specific situations?

Our morality cannot be based on societal standards, due to the vast differences in subjective truth in each specific society. What is “right” for the Nazi’s “society” was not “right” for the Jewish society.

We know, for example, that harming another human being violates some basic cosmic code of absolute truth. Our issue is “am I justified in doing it?”

For me, subjectively, and I believe objectively, the answer must be that we must apply both “Love” and “Do the least harm”. These are the only standards that can apply to moral righteousness. Any other standard fails in testing. Joseph Fletcher promulgated these concepts in his book “Situational Ethics”.

Similar to the Scientific method of inquiry, since we cannot know “absolute” truth, we must use the measuring stick that we generally believe gets us as close as possible to what “Absolute Truth” or “God” would like or what would be best in a comic sense. The preservation of my family from the aggressor, however, renders me in a position of applying love for my family, but clearly not love for the aggressor. This is our sad dilemma. This is our human limitation. Any standard other than Love and Do the least Harm falls short in its value and method of inquiry. But even “love and do the least harm” are not perfect tools. Ask anyone who survived Hiroshima.

The conclusion must then be that any position we hold that does not exhibit love or harms another must be avoided OR justified, and our result will be subjective.

“Love thy neighbor” was Jesus Christ’s greatest commandment. It is unlimited compassion in, perhaps, its finest expression yet echoed, or preceded, by others;

RABBI Hillel- ---What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man.

Mohammed----One cannot be a believer until he wishes for others what he wishes for himself.

Confucious and Mozi his disciple---Others must be regarded like the self and this love must be all embracing and exclude nobody.

How are the religions of the world doing with that?  Not well.  But it is still, apparently to most of us, both subjective AND (what we believe to be) probable Objective truth.  One cannot often perceive of any situation where doing harm to another is desirable. But what if a GREATER GOOD IS SERVED? Would the assassination of Adolph Hitler in 1933 have served objective truth, or God or society?  I would answer, yes!

The concept of Greater Good, however, is a slippery slope. It asks the question of what happens when six of us are in the hospital waiting for a transplant.  One needs a kidney, one a lung, one a heart, etc. when in walks a healthy 25 year old for a checkup.  Do we slay him and harvest his organs in a quest for the greatest good for the greatest number? I would venture most of us would not. But my opinion is subjective.

While I believe the greatest good is a worthy goal in a quest for absolute truth, “situationally” it must apply to conditions that make subjective sense and are viewed by the results. Would the murder of Hitler be justifiable?  Possibly. But would the slaying of the 25 year old? Never!

My foregoing situational (perhaps flawed and maybe only shared by me) truth is that the assassination in the first case, Hitler, may have saved millions of lives whereas the second case only serves a few who do harm for only selfish purposes. Is it a perfect solution?  Is it pleasing to any higher authority or even society? I cannot know, but it is my solution under the circumstances given me and with hindsight as to what transpired. The Amish would certainly disagree. I must then live with that subjective truth in the hopes it gets us as close to perfection as possible. I have applied love and did the least harm in the best way I am capable despite the fact that harm, in the Hitler case was done. if Absolute Truth did not exist, our highest measure of truth is societal. As mentioned before, societal truth is deeply flawed and the secular humanist has a quandary.

It is the JUSTIFICATION of our actions, as in the case of the family aggressor where the most harm can be done. I am reminded of wars that perhaps could have been avoided by cooler heads or diplomacy. I would avow that war is ABSOLUTELY wrong but sometimes necessary subjectively.

 The murderer, standing outside the abortion clinic door, wielding his weapon and killing anyone who works there is an example of a case where the perpetrator feels subjectively that he or she is ABSOLUTELY doing the right thing (and often in the name of God). Most of us would say that subjectively AND objectively there are both better solutions to be tried and the perpetrator is delusional in thinking he acts on God’s behalf (unless there is the garaged burning bush available).

What do we do? Aristotle suggested until we see the results of our choices we cannot determine rightness or wrongness. The moral efficacy of an action can only be determined by the result, by the potentially ABSOLUTE result.

This is where objective and subjective truth converge for the human being.  What is the objective result of my subjective action? For the abortion clinic killer he/she may have saved some potential babies, but at what cost of misery, suffering and death? Objectively and subjectively the result is unacceptable.  The same paradigm applies to the religious suicide bomber.  His cause may have some validity but the unacceptable result of his actions invalidate the causes worth.

Absolute truth exists and is absolute. Subjective truth exists but is limited to this world, to the individual.

 What tool can we employ to have our subjective action result in the best objective result.

The only real tool we have is “Love and Do the Least Harm” which is what Christ and other holy men/women have suggested, but which we perceive subjectively.
 
 When we see the result of our choices we can re-evaluate and reposition our goals. While we can never agree in advance as to what is absolute or perfect truth, it is probable that any action that violates those two concepts Love and Do the Least Harm are, at least partially, flawed.  It is a result of subjective action that harms someone. The degree of harm, the closeness to Absolute Truth, God’s Truth, can only be determined by the outcome which, while subjective, should become much more (objectively?) obvious. In other words, in viewing the result, accord, among other people may be more possible. If the majority of the world, not my society, sees an action as I do, it is probably valid. If they do not, it is pretty clearly invalid.

If only subjective truth exists then I, individually, am the decider of truth, worth and behavior’s goodness.  This is unacceptable. We must be accountable to some higher goal or purpose than what I think.

What do YOU think?