22 April 2013
The moment an individual represents a group in a forum of other groups, it seems as if the urge to be right at all cost overcome all rational notions of right and wrong. This state of affairs happens, for example, with people representing their sports team, even as a supporter and a military officer representing his/her army, a CEO representing his/her company and politicians.
There seems to be no exception to this phenomenon . Liberal or conservative, socialist or capitalist, all find a way to convince others about how right they are.
This phenomenon also present itself with individuals acting in general, but in a world where reasons for justification have become almost completely subjective notions of the combination of hedonistic* & narcissistic convictions, representing a group is a sort of catalyst for being right at all cost.
There is the situation where a representative of a group becomes so far removed from reality and the actual mandate of the group, that it is difficult to even see the relationship of the representative's actions and the mandate of the group. The best example is the breakdown of European monarchies during the French Revolution and subsequent changes to the roles of kings.
Modern leaders & representatives are also experiencing the same disconnect which can be seen in the current state of the market economy and international monetary system. The evidence is ample and can be studied with ever increasing detail as the rift between leaders' actions and the real needs of humans (...and life in general) increase.
The biggest and most pronounced evidence is the disjunct between human activity and the sustainability of life on earth in general. Without even resorting to notions of global warming the effects on human well-being physically and psychologically are enough to see the problem. The existence of weapons of mass destruction underscore the disjunct between technological advances and unjustified application of the technology.
The common and accepted excuse for this has always been scarce resources. Scarce resources as an excuse for conflict does not make sense in a world where abundance of energy and human innovation is a clear and present possibility. Therefore we can conclude that there are no logically sound or legitimate excuse for belligerence of any sort.
The conclusion is therefore that any leader or representative of a group has the moral obligation to evaluate his/her actions against the objective truths of our reality. This is only possible with realism as the preferred view of reality where actions are testable against the uniform flow of causality. Reality is an objective truth that can be explored by the human mind. This means that truth is not the monopoly of any single mind (...that does not have all the properties of GOD) and can only be explored by a collaboration of minds. This collaboration of minds include the human mind's interaction** with GOD through prayer.
*There is a relationship between hedonism and the "Golden rule", that holds to the principle, "do to others as you would want them to do to you..." The relationship is in the knowledge about what is good for yourself. Hedonism is perceived to place the notion of personal good as an overruling principle. This perception bind Hedonism to a subjective moral base. The pure intention of the Golden Rule stays open to the authority of transcendent objective moral authority. Therefore the question remains, what is the nature of the moral authority anyone subscribe to. It should be clear that the combination of Hedonism and Narcissism has a uniquely individualistic subjective nature.
** There seems to be a clear union between the soul (...equivalent for mind) and spirit of a human when it comes to our interaction with GOD. There is the suggestion that the spirit is the non-physical notion/kind of a body that gives our soul instantiation in the non-physical realm. Any suggestion that can clarify this matter will be welcome.