Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, January 8, 2009 08:49 AM

  American regression

  Let's be clear, the level of thinking by Jackson, among others, and the principles espoused at the Nuremberg Trials, and that of Bush administration apologists (left, right and center) is not the same. The stages of moral development in the two are not the same. Where Jackson and the Nuremberg Charter tried to codify and enforce a level of moral development like this:

  In [the conventional stage moral development] (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at Stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

  The Bush administrations, the extreme-right and their enablers (including many Democrats in Congress and the Senate) have been operating and legislating more at this level:

  In [the pre-conventional moral development] (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. "the last time I did that I got spanked so I will not do it again" The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

  There was no doubt about the importance of the rule of law as it applied to the Commander-in-Chief when Clinton perjured himself under oath. But it wasn't principle that drove it then and it's not principle that drives it now. It's power-relationships and tribalism. That's the real difference between America then and now.

  —sinjan Read sinjan's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel