We all say the same thing, what's wrong with kids today? It's a generalized question which I'm quite certain has been asked since millennia. LOl, Im asking that about millennials now, my how the universe is filled with irony. But I have given that question some thought. What is wrong?
Well now that depends upon which generation is answering the question. Each generation does establish its' own set of norms. Whenever anyone acts outside of those norms the question is asked, what's wrong with him or her? It is a question of social accountability. Why is this person acting contrary to the social norm? What punishment should be awarded? Depends on what the wrong is and on who was wronged. Well, unless the norm becomes, there is nothing abnormal. Inclusion is the term most often applied when speaking of that. Whatever is new is abnormal, until it is accepted! That applies whether the new is good or bad. Accepting abnormality as normal is inclusion. So before we can answer the question we must know what is normal. How then are we to determine what is normal?
I'd say to determine that you must first identify the method of accountability. To whom, or what are you accountable? Accountability demands reward or punishment. Are you solely accountable to society, civil authority or to a higher power? Are you accountable to all three? Accountability is a personal matter? Ultimately; it is a personal matter. You are the one that makes the final determination of your choice of action or inaction. The criteria you use to make that determination is yours and yours alone.
How do we establish that criteria? I'd say that is derived from your family, what was taught to you as a child and displayed by your parents, siblings and others close to you. That establishes your norm. As we age we make alterations to that base. Based on our personal experiences, based on our personal wants and needs, we will make changes. What was normal may become abnormal and abnormality become accepted. Sometimes called progress. In the end however these changes are weighed against one thing, our conscience.
In my opinion good parents instill an awareness of conscience in their children. Conscience is what ultimately decides our fate. When conscience is weak or lacking we are influenced by society. For some society becomes the motivation rather than following our conscience. That's been expressed quite succinctly by the adage, " let your conscience be your guide. " In the end, reward and punishment will be administered by your conscience. Can we co-exist is a society without conscience?
It is individual conscience that will eventually fracture a society. The founding fathers were all highly educated, thoughtful men, acting upon their consciences. That's why we have the statements in the constitution that we do and that's why those ten amendments were added, that Bill of Rights. It was an attempt to delineate conscience. And what was that conscience? It was the recognition and affirmation of a higher power. A power greater than man. It was an understanding that man was accountable, not just to each other, but to that power.
It has to be understood that the founders of this nation generally shared the same sense of conscience. I'm not just talking about those in power but the population as a whole. It is often expressed as being Christians. Yes, they were Christians, although there were certainly differences in the practice of that Christianity present during that time. That was the very reason for the separation of church. There was no disagreement about what the Christian God considered right and wrong. The only disagreement was in the way that worship was conducted. A larger concern was Catholics. Catholics had to answer to the Pope and it was a fear that the Pope would interfere in the administration of America! Therefore, there was to be no establishment of a religion! There would never be a religious test to hold office. They didn't mean there wasn't a God to answer too, just that they weren't answering to the Pope or any other religious authority. The practice of religion was not to be a part of the ideology of America. Acknowledging an " Ultimate Authority " was taken as a granted. A part of the natural order of things. Government had no place in the relationship between you and you God. You were expected to act accordingly however, with an awareness of ultimate accountability.
I think it is a fair statement to say our conscience is formed by where we feel our accountability ultimately derives. That is to say, who or what is going to punish us for wrongdoing. Our conscience is concerned with that. That's why we say, in good conscience. Our conscience is what holds us accountable and determines what action we take. We often find ourselves at odds with our conscience. That's because we are human. Animals act without conscience. People also have the ability to set conscience aside in favor of an immediate need or desire. The thinking being, we will pay later on. When our thoughts turn to we can always be forgiven, the cost is considerably less. When we convince ourselves there is no ultimate accountability, only social acceptance, we begin to change the norms. We begin to adopt a new social conscience. A conscience based on individual wants and needs. We begin to try to please all of the people all of the time. We are aware that is impossible, yet we will try. Eventually that attempt will fracture the society completely. Individual conscience misdirected by civil authority to the benefit of the few. In short, placing government above God. The founders knew that. Abraham Lincoln is credited with first coining the phrase " one nation under God. " Jefferson, Monroe, Franklin and others all shared different opinions on the nature of God, but all agreed a God existed. They also all agreed in divine providence.
What does all that mean? A man named Jean-Jacques Rousseau described that as " social sentiments. " He said without these social sentiments" a man cannot be a good citizen or faithful subject. " He didn't mention any particular God or particular religious doctrine at all. He just invoked the belief, in general, of God and eternal punishment. He went further to say, " A wise sovereign would banish anyone who fails to assent, not for impiety but as an anti-social being. " What was he saying? He was speaking of conscience. He was speaking of ultimate accountability. That's what I think anyway.
I will add this final statement. Every act of civil disobedience is not acting upon your social conscience, sometimes, it is just doing what you want.
Well now that depends upon which generation is answering the question. Each generation does establish its' own set of norms. Whenever anyone acts outside of those norms the question is asked, what's wrong with him or her? It is a question of social accountability. Why is this person acting contrary to the social norm? What punishment should be awarded? Depends on what the wrong is and on who was wronged. Well, unless the norm becomes, there is nothing abnormal. Inclusion is the term most often applied when speaking of that. Whatever is new is abnormal, until it is accepted! That applies whether the new is good or bad. Accepting abnormality as normal is inclusion. So before we can answer the question we must know what is normal. How then are we to determine what is normal?
I'd say to determine that you must first identify the method of accountability. To whom, or what are you accountable? Accountability demands reward or punishment. Are you solely accountable to society, civil authority or to a higher power? Are you accountable to all three? Accountability is a personal matter? Ultimately; it is a personal matter. You are the one that makes the final determination of your choice of action or inaction. The criteria you use to make that determination is yours and yours alone.
How do we establish that criteria? I'd say that is derived from your family, what was taught to you as a child and displayed by your parents, siblings and others close to you. That establishes your norm. As we age we make alterations to that base. Based on our personal experiences, based on our personal wants and needs, we will make changes. What was normal may become abnormal and abnormality become accepted. Sometimes called progress. In the end however these changes are weighed against one thing, our conscience.
In my opinion good parents instill an awareness of conscience in their children. Conscience is what ultimately decides our fate. When conscience is weak or lacking we are influenced by society. For some society becomes the motivation rather than following our conscience. That's been expressed quite succinctly by the adage, " let your conscience be your guide. " In the end, reward and punishment will be administered by your conscience. Can we co-exist is a society without conscience?
It is individual conscience that will eventually fracture a society. The founding fathers were all highly educated, thoughtful men, acting upon their consciences. That's why we have the statements in the constitution that we do and that's why those ten amendments were added, that Bill of Rights. It was an attempt to delineate conscience. And what was that conscience? It was the recognition and affirmation of a higher power. A power greater than man. It was an understanding that man was accountable, not just to each other, but to that power.
It has to be understood that the founders of this nation generally shared the same sense of conscience. I'm not just talking about those in power but the population as a whole. It is often expressed as being Christians. Yes, they were Christians, although there were certainly differences in the practice of that Christianity present during that time. That was the very reason for the separation of church. There was no disagreement about what the Christian God considered right and wrong. The only disagreement was in the way that worship was conducted. A larger concern was Catholics. Catholics had to answer to the Pope and it was a fear that the Pope would interfere in the administration of America! Therefore, there was to be no establishment of a religion! There would never be a religious test to hold office. They didn't mean there wasn't a God to answer too, just that they weren't answering to the Pope or any other religious authority. The practice of religion was not to be a part of the ideology of America. Acknowledging an " Ultimate Authority " was taken as a granted. A part of the natural order of things. Government had no place in the relationship between you and you God. You were expected to act accordingly however, with an awareness of ultimate accountability.
I think it is a fair statement to say our conscience is formed by where we feel our accountability ultimately derives. That is to say, who or what is going to punish us for wrongdoing. Our conscience is concerned with that. That's why we say, in good conscience. Our conscience is what holds us accountable and determines what action we take. We often find ourselves at odds with our conscience. That's because we are human. Animals act without conscience. People also have the ability to set conscience aside in favor of an immediate need or desire. The thinking being, we will pay later on. When our thoughts turn to we can always be forgiven, the cost is considerably less. When we convince ourselves there is no ultimate accountability, only social acceptance, we begin to change the norms. We begin to adopt a new social conscience. A conscience based on individual wants and needs. We begin to try to please all of the people all of the time. We are aware that is impossible, yet we will try. Eventually that attempt will fracture the society completely. Individual conscience misdirected by civil authority to the benefit of the few. In short, placing government above God. The founders knew that. Abraham Lincoln is credited with first coining the phrase " one nation under God. " Jefferson, Monroe, Franklin and others all shared different opinions on the nature of God, but all agreed a God existed. They also all agreed in divine providence.
What does all that mean? A man named Jean-Jacques Rousseau described that as " social sentiments. " He said without these social sentiments" a man cannot be a good citizen or faithful subject. " He didn't mention any particular God or particular religious doctrine at all. He just invoked the belief, in general, of God and eternal punishment. He went further to say, " A wise sovereign would banish anyone who fails to assent, not for impiety but as an anti-social being. " What was he saying? He was speaking of conscience. He was speaking of ultimate accountability. That's what I think anyway.
I will add this final statement. Every act of civil disobedience is not acting upon your social conscience, sometimes, it is just doing what you want.
No comments:
Post a Comment