compromise

  I do not have to capitulate to be the better man. That is my feeling when it comes down to it. I do not have to justify, agree, or in any way support anyone else's position. I do not accept that I should. I have no problem with offering the proverbial olive branch and it remains up to the person to either accept or reject that. That is their part of the equation as far as I'm concerned. If they chose to not accept that branch, so be it. I will not seek any further interaction, just go about my business as usual. 

 I'm not buying into this whole philosophy that I should simply accept whatever it is the other person presents. I'm not buying into the whole idea that by just going along with everything some universal peace will follow. No, life doesn't work that way at all. Life requires discipline, structure and standards. We sometimes call all of that governance. The fact is governance begins with self-control. The individual has to accept that they are not at the center of the universe. Spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. A noble sentiment indeed. Thing being, that isn't how humans normally react to a situation. Remember Spock is half Vulcan and logical. Being humans we can sometimes be logical, but only when it suits our purpose. Science fiction or science fact? 

 I should exercise sound judgement. That is a basic skill to learn and master as an adult. Maturity is the acceptance of reality. It has nothing to do with how you feel, your emotional state or desires. Judgement is a binary thing. It is either right or wrong in any given situation. Yes, the judgement may very well be different based on circumstance, motivation or practicality, but it remains binary. It is either right or wrong in every situation. Gender is the same way; you are either male or female regardless of how you feel. 

 Our judgement is based on personal morality combined with the ethics of the society in which we live. That is what we use when passing judgement upon an action. It is the action that is being judged, not the individual. What is acceptable to you? Beyond that feeling, your personal feeling regarding an action, is that action acceptable to the society? That will depend upon the moral and ethical base of that society. And that is what laws are all about. Our laws define those parameters. The mature individual will either accept those laws, abiding by them, or work to change them. The founding fathers of this nation spelled out, quite plainly, their reasons for rebellion. Those reasons were based in morality! Yes, that is what inspired that rebellion, fueled the fires of rebellion. We felt justified in issuing that judgement against the King. In the Declaration of Independence, it is spelled out. At least 15 of those lines begin with the word HE. He, being the king. We judged his actions against us and rendered judgement. 

 This judgement was justified by this statement " appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," And what is rectitude? It means moral integrity. It means doing what is right and just. The supreme judge of the world refers to God. Some of those involved with the writing and composition of that declaration where Deists. They didn't doubt the existence of that supreme being just the degree of intervention that deity may have with us mortal men. The importance lies in that it was a moral judgement. It was only right. 

 I grow concerned with laws today and the moral framework being established by those laws. That is what the king was doing to the colonists. He was imposing his own moral judgments as the law of the land. That judgement was being based on what was best for him. It was based on his feelings, his wants and desires, not on what was best for the people. For some it was acceptable, they were more than willing to capitulate, to just go with the flow to avoid any confrontation. They were willing to surrender their morals. They did so by the sacrifice of ethics. Many of today's laws are designed for the benefit of the government, not the people. Many are designed to create a dependence upon that government. And isn't that exactly what the king desired as well? 

 It could be argued that it was commerce, money that really fueled the rebellion. No doubt it motivated many to join in the cause for freedom. A cause that could be justified with a simple statement, it isn't fair. Immediate needs are hard to ignore. That is being utilized even today.  Many are more than willing to just "go along with anything" as long as it puts money in their pockets. As long as it makes life easier for them.  All that is necessary for that to succeed is the removal of rectitude. Can that be accomplished by litigation? Possibly, that is if you believe you can litigate with the supreme judge of the world. Can you get him to compromise? Or is it right and wrong.