A Dangerous Place

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

Above is my Google Quote for the day. I thought it was appropriate and timely considering all of the stuff going on in the world. However, when you get right down to it, the world probably isn't any more dangerous today than it was a hundred, or even a thousand years ago. The threats have just changed a bit. Instead of Mongol hoards or bubonic plague, we have Jihadi Terrorists and Ebola -- well really, the disease side of the equation is under much better control. There is AIDS, but it is primarily limited to those whose behavior is risky or perverted. All the old diseases are still around for the most part, but there are medicines to treat them. There is some concern about drug resistance, but proper usage generally will do the trick anyway.

You know, I guess most of the problems are related to human behavior. Dictators, terrorists, criminal and drug gangs, perversions, hunger for power, greed, and similar behaviors cause most of human suffering. There are natural disasters, but they generally affect those who ignore the risk -- such as building in a flood plain, living in Hurricane Alley, or on the slope of a volcano, or in earthquake prone areas. It almost all comes down to the human animal and our own cruelty or stupidity. If that could be fixed, this old world would be pretty safe.

Maybe Einstein was right, we just need to step up and do something about all the evil people in this world. But, if we decide to eliminate them doesn't that make us just like them? Here it would be easy to tip into the realm of moral relativism. Who determines what is right and wrong? -- what is evil and what is good? I personally think that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, but then I find myself disagreeing with myself. Is there a single standard for good and evil? Some might say that what is generally accepted by the majority of people is the standard for good, or correct behavior. I guess that makes abortion good. I don't think so! We must look beyond the human animal for a standard.

That brings us to God. The next question is whose God? Is it Jehovah God of the Christian and Jewish scripture, is it Allah of the Muslims, or is it some other god that is accepted by another group of people? Who determines which god sets the standard?

I ask you the question: How do we determine what is good and what is evil?

My Response to the Question of Why Politicians Lie

Politicians lie because we as a country have lost our way morally. Sadly, this lost direction includes the so-called Christian Right along with every other self-identified group in the country.
In a society bereft of moral clarity, the driving motivation for political activism becomes "me-centric". Certainly it is the natural tendency for each member of mankind to look out for his or her own self-interests. That is part of the self-preservative mechanism that we all possess. However, that self-preservation quickly expands to include factors beyond self that impact self -- sometimes indirectly. When that self-interest is bound by clear moral boundaries, society organizes itself in a manner which embraces those values. When there are multiple, but limited moral paradigms, society will organize around commonality within those multiple paradigms. When there are no clear moral boundaries, society will slowly devolve into chaos until moral clarity, or majority is achieved, typically because some clearly defined group steps into that vacuum. Our country currently lack a common definition of morality.
In such an environment bereft of moral clarity, there will arise individuals whose primary motivating factor is the quest for power or influence. With few exceptions, this describes our current political slate of candidates. In that environment, most of the political candidates who rise to prominence will do so because of their ability to convince the greatest number of voters that they will adequately, if not perfectly, represent their self-interests. Since these politicians typically possess little moral clarity themselves, they will adjust their positions to fit their current audience in an attempt to sway their vote. This closely represents a moral-relativistic worldview. Such a worldview espouses that there is no ultimate truth, therefore, I cannot lie. Political positioning suited to a specific audience is merely that, it has no real meaning. What is said is done only to garner votes and therefore ultimately, power.
If the politician is bound by clear moral boundaries that include the Judeo-Christian prohibitions against lying, there will be a greater likelihood of clear positioning in spite of the specific audience. If the politician were Muslim, there would be prohibition against lying to Islamic believers, but no prohibition against lying to "infidels".
Lying is a part of the basic character of some individuals. Lying should reveal to the informed voter at least some facet of the basic moral character of the politician in question. Part of the difficulty though involves the ability to discern whether a statement is truly a lie. This is due in large part to the media which covers the politicians and often distorts their statements. The distortion is due to the moral-relativistic worldview of many within the media. In this scenario you may have a lie (by the media) distorting a lie (by the politician). It is totally manipulative on the part of each entity in an effort to sway the voters according to the individual self-interest.
Ultimately, lying is the result of the morally relativistic nature of our society. That nature, unless checked, will lead ultimately to a chaotic vacuum into which will step a morally absolute-centered group such as the radical Islamic sects that are rising all across Europe and in some areas of this country.