Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Personal integrity



Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man? I ask myself this question many times every day.

I was indoctrinated in the ethics of honesty from an early age. I internalized the principles of honesty and integrity promoted by the Boy Scouts program, embodied in the tenets of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

Though my experience with the world has tempered my naive idealism, I still firmly believe in these fundamental values.

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.


Scout Law

TRUSTWORTHY
LOYAL
HELPFUL
FRIENDLY
COURTEOUS
KIND
OBEDIENT
CHEERFUL
THRIFTY
BRAVE
CLEAN
REVERENT

“Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world.” —Thomas Carlyle

Someone asked me if I believe that following the principles of Scouting makes me better than those who do not. I had to think a while for a reply, perhaps because it seemed to suggest that such ideals contribute to feelings of superiority or elitism. I was taken aback at that thought.

My sense is that the ideal of personal integrity is something intrinsic, against which I measure myself. Integrity, as far as I can determine, offers no standard by which I can or ought to compare myself to others. I cannot know what is in another person's heart -- indeed, difficult enough to discern what kind of stuff makes up my own nature and character.

These internal rules provide metrics by which I can more objectively determine my own standing. This helps spell out to me how much I am worth as a person. It is a fixed standard by which to help me judge my own performance as I wander through my life.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

SLC Liberals

Here's a fine representation of foaming-at-the-mouth liberalism, alive and well in Salt Lake City. The argument is ostensibly over "domestic partners", though it ultimately reads "gay rights campaign". It runs downhill from the start.

Inevitable references to Hitler and charges of totalitarianism against Church members and everything related to Utah government.

Leading the charge, another typically scintillating commentary from columnist Rebecca Walsh...

Rebecca Walsh: Anti-gay patriarchy takes SLC to woodshed

The Eaglets were getting restless. While the matrons of the Eagle Forum looked on, state senators debated the doomsday consequences of Salt Lake City's domestic partnership registry - the stuff of conservative creed and eternal salvation, no less.

But these two fledglings seemed to miss the outraged breathlessness of Monday's debate; they were bored. So while practicing sign language flashcards, they pretended to pick their noses.

And on the Trib's comment blog, some choice words from the elite cadre of SLTrib readers, who claim to deplore Utah Senator Chris Buttars because of his "hateful" demeanor:

These folks aren't like parents; they are like Nazis, who also persecuted gay people.

And Mormons wonder why us liberals remain silent when Mitt Romney runs into a buzzsaw of evangelical Jesus Freak bigotry?

Oh, the irony, the irony!

I suspect that "Mormons" seldom wonder why liberals remain silent in any circumstances -- since there is no evidence that they ever do.

Inevitable reference to Nazis -- one of the standard themes of liberals characterizing those who don't share their bias.

A certain local organization headquartered at 50 E. N. Temple presumes to direct every little detail of its members' lives, down to choice of beverages and underwear. Its silence on this hatemongering by some of its members is deafening. Apparently its leaders, both the recently-departed and the living, have abdicated their role as prophet, seer and revelator to certain reactionary elements within their society.

That group should be called The Church of Chris Buttars and Gayle Ruzicka, at least until those two individuals are hauled before a bishop's court for mean-spiritedness and making the church look silly!

This comment starts off with the standard complaint that Church leaders dictate everything to members. But then rolls into a contradictory assertion that leaders have now "abdicated".

Most ironic in all such spiteful and antagonistic tirades are charges of "hatemongering". You can always invalidate logical argument by calling it "hate speech" or something equally ambiguous.

And then there's the perfect illustration of why we avoid using terms like "compassion", which are an exclusive liberal trademark. Another editorial gem in today's SLTrib, from Rebecca Walsh, liberal warrior for gay rights and whatever else violates the laws of reason and legality. In her lexicon, liberals have shifted toward the middle to become "moderates", while everyone who has read the Bible becomes a right-wing fascist.

Ten years ago, LDS General Authority Marlin Jensen gave Mormon faithful permission to be Democrats.

We all know how well that went.

Now, Jensen has been dispatched to speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency on immigration.

"I believe a more thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach is warranted and urge those responsible for enactment of Utah's immigration policy to measure twice before they cut," he said last week.

In house editorials, the church-owned Deseret Morning News has called on lawmakers to pause in their rush to demonize and purge Utah's undocumented immigrants. LDS Apostle Elder Russell M. Ballard signed an Alliance for Unity statement against a bill that would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students. And Jensen, the urbane and moderate face of the church, called out legislators in direct and pointed language, saying immigration is a moral and ethical
issue - code for legislative intervention from South Temple.

Walsh now has me convinced that Elder Jensen is an ally in her pro-lesbian camp, and Elder Ballard has joined the Gay Alliance to ensure that Church members get their measure of compassion. Remember, the term "compassion" equates to a morality that withholds judgement of sin and evil, and lovingly embraces whatever "alternative lifestyle" form of depravity happens to be in vogue. And "moderate" means anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton.

I'm trying to understand why the SLTrib would mount a smear campaign like this.

They're the ones who are always harping on "the great divide" -- the gulf that separates Church members from "normal" Utahns.

This has all the looks of a nuclear bomb set between us. I'm thinking of burning down the SLTrib editorial offices myself.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Telling the truth

As I see it, there is a serious logical conflict in the expectation that moral values which rightfully govern our normal thinking and actions ought to operate absolutely the same way in extreme cases, under duress, or when there are obvious and serious extenuating circumstances. Surely, when unethical means are exerted in the effort to force individual choice and acts, our basic obligations to simple honesty and truth will quite likely be tempered by other weightier
considerations. A willful and obstinate insistence that "telling the truth" is absolutely mandated in all instances may be more damaging than telling a "lie".

The classic example of this type of moral conflict in our theology is Nephi's dilemma. He is commanded to slay Laban, but protests that he has never taken a human life before. In the narrative we are instructed that it is better for one man to perish than for an entire
nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief.

In Nephi's case, the more immediate instruction modifies his ingrained ethical discipline that forbids killing. In this instance, the rationale for killing Laban is thus logically consistent with the higher intent and purpose of the moral law which proscribes killing.

I personally believe that this apparent conflict demonstrates a kind of flaw which originates in our simplistic approach to expressing absolutes. A perfect expression of the law which forbids killing would be fully informed by the understanding of circumstances under which that more simple framing of the law is superseded.

In some circumstances the absolute insistence on "total honesty" can even produce ludicrous restrictions. We might be prevented, for example, from telling illustrative stories or parables because they are not "true" in the strictest sense.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Honesty

How does honesty become anti-social and pathological?

Reiterating this question for my not-so-friendly friend, Steve Evans, Bloggernacle blogger.

It cannot be that people like Steve simply cannot be bothered to address such questions. But due to an unfortunate miscommunication, he shut me out of his forum before we finished the dialog.

So, in my forum, it remains an open question. Perhaps for Steve, or maybe for some other soul that values truth and honesty.

"I drew a circle that took him in".