Yesterday I wrote about austerity. It sparked some discussion and I was pleased with that. Discussion does stimulate thought. Some would say I defend my position but I would say I'm attempting to explain my position. Many things we discuss are hypothetical in nature. I say that because whereas we may know what is right, what is the correct thing to do, we even preach that, we still don't do it. Strangely we would all agree that if this hypothetical were actually put into practice that it would benefit others. We don't though, because it doesn't benefit ourselves. For that reason alone we seek justification. Or, the more prevalent action, demand that others practice that. We shift the blame.
To live our life within moral and ethical guidelines does require an austere lifestyle. I would suggest that can be seen in the religious. No matter which religious philosophy you subscribe to if you were to practice that " religiously " you would be living a rather austere life. I'm no biblical scholar, or a rather particularly religious person, but the beatitudes address that quite directly. If one where to follow that direction , as spoken by Jesus, your lifestyle would most certainly be an austere one! You would be different than the normal person. You would quickly be labeled crazy, or at best, eccentric. Yet we are taught to strive for that goal. That is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Man will always fall short of that bar. That isn't to say we shouldn't try.
Yesterday however I was talking about financial austerity. I was talking about needs vs wants. I was talking about who should provide for those wants and needs. It is my contention that the individual is responsible for that. In short, I don't believe it is the providence of government to provide for individual needs. Governments' concern is with the whole. What is the best choice for everyone. We all realize that isn't possible, that's why we settle for the majority. In the United States that majority, in the most important cases, requires a two/thirds majority. The general consensus being that's the best we can hope to achieve. The bigger issue however is that austerity requires personal sacrifice. Another lesson we can take from biblical teaching. But I don't want to predicate my explanation upon Biblical teachings. I just try to explain what I have observed in myself and in others. We all have different needs.
I do see a bit of a paradox in all of this. We all agree on basic principles. Sometimes called the Golden rule, sometimes natural law or common sense. Everyone agrees that is what we should do. The actual practice of those principles however will deny us some of our wants. To counter that we transfer the want to the need column. We begin to insist that we need things, that in reality we do not! Oh we may need those things to fit into societies perception of what we should have. I understand that completely. That concept is summed up with, keeping up with the Jone's. I don't really need this, but I want that. I want what others have. That is the definition of coveting isn't it? To resist that action (covet) is quite difficult, perhaps the most difficult emotion to resist of all. It requires self denial, self sacrifice. The issue being self sacrifice is predicated upon a promise, a promise of reward. We make a sacrifice in exchange for something, that's the premise. That is what the word Beatitude means. The beatitudes are promises of reward to those practicing moral and ethical ideals. Just agreeing with them isn't enough. Therein lies the paradox. We can not reach that ideal, we all fall short of that mark. There is doubt. The doubt being the promise will be fulfilled. We humans do like to hedge our bets.
Of course all of that depends upon what you want. If your wants are satisfied are your needs satisfied as well? That's the central question isn't it? Can we satisfy our needs with our wants? As humans we certainly try. That is the imperfection of man. That is what causes all of us to fall short of the mark. That is why we keep moving the target! Liberal austerity? I am certainly seeing a more liberal interpretation of Biblical teachings. A more convenient faith as it were. One less austere. I am seeing the same in government policy. What I wonder about is, which is driving which? That is to say are we legislating according to needs or according to wants? Are we attempting to have government, by transference, satisfy our obligations? If we legislate charity does that satisfy our personal obligation. It is easier to just pass the burden on, to say, see I supported that. Financial austerity, that's what I'm talking about.
To live our life within moral and ethical guidelines does require an austere lifestyle. I would suggest that can be seen in the religious. No matter which religious philosophy you subscribe to if you were to practice that " religiously " you would be living a rather austere life. I'm no biblical scholar, or a rather particularly religious person, but the beatitudes address that quite directly. If one where to follow that direction , as spoken by Jesus, your lifestyle would most certainly be an austere one! You would be different than the normal person. You would quickly be labeled crazy, or at best, eccentric. Yet we are taught to strive for that goal. That is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Man will always fall short of that bar. That isn't to say we shouldn't try.
Yesterday however I was talking about financial austerity. I was talking about needs vs wants. I was talking about who should provide for those wants and needs. It is my contention that the individual is responsible for that. In short, I don't believe it is the providence of government to provide for individual needs. Governments' concern is with the whole. What is the best choice for everyone. We all realize that isn't possible, that's why we settle for the majority. In the United States that majority, in the most important cases, requires a two/thirds majority. The general consensus being that's the best we can hope to achieve. The bigger issue however is that austerity requires personal sacrifice. Another lesson we can take from biblical teaching. But I don't want to predicate my explanation upon Biblical teachings. I just try to explain what I have observed in myself and in others. We all have different needs.
I do see a bit of a paradox in all of this. We all agree on basic principles. Sometimes called the Golden rule, sometimes natural law or common sense. Everyone agrees that is what we should do. The actual practice of those principles however will deny us some of our wants. To counter that we transfer the want to the need column. We begin to insist that we need things, that in reality we do not! Oh we may need those things to fit into societies perception of what we should have. I understand that completely. That concept is summed up with, keeping up with the Jone's. I don't really need this, but I want that. I want what others have. That is the definition of coveting isn't it? To resist that action (covet) is quite difficult, perhaps the most difficult emotion to resist of all. It requires self denial, self sacrifice. The issue being self sacrifice is predicated upon a promise, a promise of reward. We make a sacrifice in exchange for something, that's the premise. That is what the word Beatitude means. The beatitudes are promises of reward to those practicing moral and ethical ideals. Just agreeing with them isn't enough. Therein lies the paradox. We can not reach that ideal, we all fall short of that mark. There is doubt. The doubt being the promise will be fulfilled. We humans do like to hedge our bets.
Of course all of that depends upon what you want. If your wants are satisfied are your needs satisfied as well? That's the central question isn't it? Can we satisfy our needs with our wants? As humans we certainly try. That is the imperfection of man. That is what causes all of us to fall short of the mark. That is why we keep moving the target! Liberal austerity? I am certainly seeing a more liberal interpretation of Biblical teachings. A more convenient faith as it were. One less austere. I am seeing the same in government policy. What I wonder about is, which is driving which? That is to say are we legislating according to needs or according to wants? Are we attempting to have government, by transference, satisfy our obligations? If we legislate charity does that satisfy our personal obligation. It is easier to just pass the burden on, to say, see I supported that. Financial austerity, that's what I'm talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment