Saturday, October 10, 2015

Too Sensitive

Author's Note: The following little essay was recently published at The Good Men Project. As has become commonplace now it seems, the editor has deemed it necessary to meddle with my prose and dumb it down for the mass market reader. The original is printed below as it ideally should have appeared.

To always feel intensely is to always be in pain, a state of mind otherwise known as Hell. When misfortune occurs, and misfortune always occurs to everyone soon or late, they call it tragedy. But this is merely to express empathy through hyperbole. Nothing is less tragic than the common life and death of common men, those whose repetitive and un-contemplative days were spent merely with the aim of continued existence and never held a dream that did not die. Rather, to feel, and feel too much, is the tragic element in life, and only a life intense with feeling can even be called a life at all.

Edith Hamilton in her classic book The Greek Way gives us an insight into the nature of tragedy with an examination of Shakespeare's Hamlet:

“Hamlet's hesitation to kill his uncle is not tragic. The tragedy is his power to feel. Change all the circumstances of the drama and Hamlet in the grip of any calamity would be tragic, just as Polonius would never be, however awful the catastrophe. The suffering of a soul that can suffer greatly --- that and only that, is tragedy.”

As a direct corollary to this and what I said above, it would appear unnecessary to remark that, in order for someone to suffer greatly they must first be able to feel greatly. That the faculty of deep human sympathy and warmth must be present before anyone can be said to have suffered emotionally is accepted by the way our society attacks and denigrates it. We call those who suffer easily “sensitive” in a derogatory sense. They are perceived as weak and/or effeminate, not manly. It is no surprise therefore that that same society advocates a culture of “toughness.”

But what is it to be tough? Is it to be immune to pain? This is not much to be proud of. A rock feels no pain. Indeed a rock feels, probably, little at all but neither does it think, and thought and feeling go so inseparably together that one can no more be, we may conclude, a thinking man who does not feel as an unthinking one who does.

It would appear that those who advocate for toughness in their sons have overlooked the act of thought. Would they have their boy's unthinking fools? Self-reflection brings much pain but much reward too. But even more than this is overlooked how the appeal to toughness is the easy way out and is it manly to teach our son's to cheat? To be an unfeeling brute is no great challenge, we see it in the unconcern of tyrants every day. What is more challenging, and thus more manly, is to feel greatly and yet endure the pain. Those who can take what life inflicts, not with cold indifference but thoughtful reflection, and not turn their heads away, to them go the laurels of manhood in the finest definition of the term as they embody the term a gentle man.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

All Or Nothing

Author's Note:  The following was published on the Thought Catalog website in March.  The reason I am publishing it now is also the reason I will not submit to them in future.  Not only did they fail to notify me that it had been accepted, they altered my title without notice and presented the piece as though it were meant to be read literally rather than satirically.  In addition, it appears that they have no editors on staff, as my essay was published with a few quickly discernable errors that any professional editor would have spotted.  Nevertheless, here it is once more as it should have originally appeared.

Cheating in college? It's only a crime if you get caught, and if you're that sloppy you probably were never meant for college in the first place. It is an inevitability that another cheating scandal is just around the corner so let me forestall any outrage by highlighting the bright side: nothing proves more to the corporate world that you've got the right stuff than squeezing the last drop of profit out of the least amount of labor.

The cult of the free market makes for a sharp learning curve: the market demands X to be considered employable. If X cannot be obtained, well...there is no plan B sorry about your luck. Human feeling and necessities don't fit into the equation, what the market wants it wants, and it makes no allowances for a lack of means or just plain bad luck. It's perfectly understandable then that those who choose to cheat their way through college are doing the right thing. After all, what are the alternatives?

Many will be more fortunate. Dad or Uncle Jim will know someone who knows someone. Connections come in handy, especially if your grade point average isn't sparkling. If you're a member of Skull and Bones or know someone who was, even better. All that ritualized sodomy in the black hoods and the drinking of pigs blood from Geronimo's skull will have all been worth it when your secretary is doing “dictation” at your desk while you look out on Central Park from your corner office.

It is at this point that the defenders of Capital will cry foul. It's perfectly acceptable for those who have the means to be allowed to take advantage of them, isn't that the American way? Except it isn't. The American way is about giving everyone an equal chance, but if you've already got a leg up on the competition from the moment you're born, advantages you didn't work to obtain yourself, then the only reason you're sitting in that corner office has absolutely nothing to do with you. The only thing equal in this scenario is that you and the person without those advantages had lives equally rigged from the start. One for the top and the other in a race to the bottom.

Life isn't fair you say in a sudden about-face. Except, that this supposed equality of opportunity is the very lie that is perpetuated every day by politicians and bankers alike. It's called the Bootstrap Mantra. With a little hard work, anyone can pull themselves up and make things happen. But wait, didn't I just explain how you're daddy's connections got you that fine office at his friend's law firm with the pretty little secretary? When did you ever pull up anything but your pants from the floor?

At the end of the 18th Century, there was a man who documented a similar hypocrisy. As a young aristocrat he was shuffled off to live with his uncle for a time, an Abbe or member of the Catholic clergy, in other words, a man of God. While under his supervision he watched as his wayward uncle would seduce young women, engage in orgies, and occasionally fall foul of the authorities, get arrested, and then be just as quickly released due purely to his station in life. This young man soon learned that virtue is something that only the poor concern themselves with, and that if you want to get along in this world it's best to just do as you please. If you have not already guessed, this young aristocrats title was the Marquis de Sade.

Sade would later write a novel entitled Justine: Or The Misfortunes of Virtue, in which the heroine, a woman of supreme virtue and purity, meets with every conceivable disaster. Her trust is repeatedly taken advantage of, and even monks have no qualms about torturing and raping the young woman they had taken under their wing for protection. Eventually, the poor soul dies when struck by a lightning bolt. An absurd and ignominious end for virtue if there ever was one. Sade learned early that there are two kinds of rules, one for the rich, and another for the poor, and the poor take virtue too much to heart at their peril.

In the end the world Sade merely imagined is the world we have become. For those who cannot satisfy the demands of the market's lust there can be no hope, no salvation. Virtue is a nonsense word for fools and those who take advantage of fools. So by all means cheat, for success is the only true virtue, just as getting caught is the only sin.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Killing Rights

The following was previously published on

If I suggested to you that to euthanize the mentally handicapped would be a boon to the tax payer your first question, after many understandable expletives, would perhaps be: who was I to decide who should live and die? And you would be right to ask, but a far larger and important question is never asked. When our government makes similar choices every day, when our ongoing wars have killed tens of thousands and at the state level we take the lives of inmates at regular intervals (and drones kill citizens without trial), why do we not ask the same of the state: what gives it the right?

The primary, and too obvious response, to this question is that ours is a democracy. We elect individuals who we believe represent us and our interest's in the government. But, whether we decide for ourselves or someone we elect decides for us, when is it ever right to kill? It is as though by deferring to a representative we have absolved ourselves of guilt like Pilate washing his hand's. But, more to the point, if it is only God to whom we grant the right of life and death (as is the assertion of so many Evangelicals) why do we invest such a God-like authority in the state?

It perhaps helps more than a little to examine the history behind the nation-state. We are living with a ghost, a holdover from the Middle Ages when church and state were the same and kings ruled by divine right. The state, so embodied in the ruler, was not to be questioned only obeyed. Like the Heavenly Father whom he represented, we were to have faith his law's were just and in our own best interest's like good and trusting children. And so we have remained, with a child's faith we no longer perceive that the adult affairs of government are any of our concern, and go back to watching what passes for journalism. For this same reason the bulk of the population feel themselves so disenfranchised that it is far simpler to defer to black and white partisan politics and vote mechanically if they vote at all. It is always someone else to blame for the state of the world, never themselves. After all, it is someone else who makes the decisions.

No matter how bad things become, it is never the forms but the individuals who fill them that deserve our wrath. The economy can crash, people may starve in the street, but to suggest that democracy is an illusion is blasphemy. As with the worship of the military, the worship of the state is an open secret. For as much as conservative groups may cry out against things like socialism and statism, they continue to venerate the state while simultaneously speaking it down. Obviously they're as much for statism as the liberals they decry. What really matters to them is who is in control, not that there is control.

I began by asking when is it ever right to kill, and I answered that this is a question we would put to the state in which we have granted God-like powers. Yet, if the state, which is little more than men and women like ourselves after all, is granted the power's of divinity how can mere mortals be trusted to wield the lightning?

Kings were once gods on earth who owned the land in theory if not in fact. God granted them such trust because God, they said, had conveniently granted it to them at birth. Those elected by men still own the land, that is property, but I see no reason to trust the prudence of presidents any more than the mercy of monarchs. And so we might conclude, whoever we grant the right to kill need not take away one's rights for they were never there to begin with. Thus, we go on just whistling in the dark while we keep our head's down.

Monday, March 16, 2015

No Girls Allowed: The Problem of Military Rape

The following was previously published on

It's no secret the military has a problem with women. Not only is there a long documented history of misogynistic commentary from military elites, but the problem of rape has become too large to ignore.1 What then is to be done? Nothing. What can be done about an institution that is by its nature misogynistic, and whose purpose is purely to turn men into killers? Once you have opened such a door on human nature you may never close it again like some Pandora's Box to put away on a shelf when company comes to dinner.

My intent of course is not to defend such behavior, but not pretend it will be ameliorated either with special “sensitivity” training or weekend conferences on how to interact with female soldiers; things any sensible person is aware of and painlessly competent at doing in any other setting but this one. Unlike any other profession the profession of killing, and let us be honest for this is what it is, cannot afford failure for failure means death either for you or your comrades, or both. But it's this seriousness that makes compromise and half-measures as regards female participation criminally reckless if not impossible to carry out without grave consequences.

The effects of military combat are appalling. It has become increasingly well known that the number of suicides due to PTSD or, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, have escalated in recent years.2 This becomes understandable when you examine more deeply the effects of military training, the byproducts of which leave lasting scars even if a soldier never sees actual combat.3 To create a soldier, to take someone who has never killed and make killing second nature to them is to strip a person of their identity and then, through training, rebuild them to see that same lack of identity in turn in others.4

In addition, the effects of combat are ones that lead to a bonding between individuals that is unlike any other relationship. To depend upon the person next to you for your life creates an ethos of solidarity that can only exist between men in the stresses of war. As war by its nature has always been a masculine endeavor, one of conquest and dispassionate slaughter, it can only lead to an ethos that is rigidly masculine and antithetic to the feminine.

Such a bond between men can be classified as erotic in its intensity.5 It was not for nothing that in antiquity The Sacred Band of Thebes was viewed with the highest distinction.6 The Band was a legendary elite fighting force of 300 pairs of male lovers feared because it was believed that in the thick of battle they fought even harder than the standard soldier, both to defend their lover's, but also that they would refuse to retreat and shame themselves in that same lover's eyes.

Those who kill in battle perceive other men as inferior if they are not one of the proud few. Either they conceal a sense of divine hubris and superiority in which they are more deserving due to the enormity of the perceived service they provided, or they become emotionally disconnected from former friend's and relations who have not shared the experience. These qualities of male bonding, godlike disdain, and emotional disconnection are at the heart of what it means to kill as a profession, beside which the problem of rape in the military should appear not only as a non-mystery but should be understood as an inevitability.

The problem of women in combat will never be resolved until the dark nature of this institution is accepted for what it truly is, a factory for the manufacture of killers. As this topic is unlikely to be discussed honestly in the near future it may be best to add a final word of warning. It should always be kept in mind by those women who decide to serve their country by doing violence to others that there is always the tacit risk that that same violence may in turn redound upon themselves. Just as sudden death and brutal maiming have by tradition always been accepted risks that came with the job, now can be added to that bleak register the possibility of rape.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Rousseau on Language and Writing

The following is the Forward that was very kindly commissioned of me by my friend John for his latest book, Rousseau on Language and Writing.  It has been available for purchase for some months (you can find it on Amazon here) so this notice is more than a little late but, better late than never as they say.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau has always been a richly divisive thinker, the contradictions of his life almost displaying a split-personality. It is therefore fitting that this duality is mirrored by the essays gathered in this volume upon one of Rousseau’s lesser known works, the Essay on the Origin of Languages . Here Rousseau sought to argue, making wild and brilliant philological and sociological speculation along the way, that originally language developed in warm southern climes where it held a musical and emotional character that, with its migration to the north, would become more coldly rational and utilitarian. If we agree with this hypothesis, it may go a long way in explaining the decline of poetry from its period of greatest flowering in the antiquity of Greece, to its diminishment to the humble lyric of today. For Rousseau , ours is an age for the cold businessman’s prose of the account books not for the singing of epics.

It would be no stretch to claim that all of Rousseau’s work is one sustained attack upon inauthenticity in human relations. In this, the Essay on the Origin of Languages is just one small continuation of that project. We all wear masks, and language is just one more mask we wear to hide our true selves from one another. In the “linguistic turn” of twentieth century philosophy and the rise of the Analytic/ Continental divide , Rousseau was thus in a way prescient in reminding us that too often language can be as much a shield of self-protection as it is a means of conveying ideas. In a manner similar to C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures”, it becomes merely a tool of defense, where both parties talk past one another instead of genuinely engaging, as the recent commotion between Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek might suggest. In this, Professors Barry Stocker and John Bolender have rendered a service in helping to spur just such a dialogue. Bolender, writing from the Analytic perspective, and Stocker from the Continental, have produced essays from their respective domains, each in turn then has contributed a separate essay upon these two original interpretations.

Barry Stocker gives us an absorbing study pairing Rousseau with Jacques Derrida, exploring a deconstructed investigation of the Essay. With a subtle and nuanced analysis Stocker explains that, due to the indeterminacy of language that a flawless definition of concepts such a liberty and community can never be achieved but that political language must remain in constant discussion with its self . John Bolender asks how does emotion in language create solidarity in a community and, further, challenges the Chomskian view against oratory as a positive and perhaps necessary force for political cohesion, speculative insights that present an excellent example of philosophy’s ability to offer new lines of scientific research and inquiry.

The book as a whole is a wonderful demonstration of the limitless possibilities that a great philosopher can elicit even two-hundred years after his death, and the still greater possibilities for cross fertilization and experimentation across the, perhaps, artificial gap of the so called Analytic/ Continental divide. Regardless, if this volume does not achieve its hoped for aim and ignite similar attempts at such dialogue, it remains a unique and stimulating exchange upon a much under-appreciated work by one of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment.

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Selling Out or The Organic Capitalist

Update:  This essay was recently featured on the following blog:

The twentieth century Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci is rightly famous for his concept of the organic intellectual, a term he interpreted to mean an individual from the lower classes who would work to critique the dominant culture, or Hegemony, of a society that is influenced by the ruling class as an effective tool for social control.

I contend that there is a flip side to this coin. That, just as an intellectual may arise organically from the lower classes to critique the larger culture, there is also an organic mechanism of capital for neutralizing such threats. The observation is not unique, but so pernicious I felt it deserved to be brought out into the open and clarified.

At one end of the spectrum the potential organic intellectual accepts, while still young, the hegemonic propaganda that a college education is the best way out of poverty. Putting aside the problem of mounting student debt, there is the equally serious problem of the quality of education its self, a problem dealt with at great length by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa in their book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. In order to be an effective critic certain skills are essential, such as critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing. The disadvantaged student is limited in her choices as to which university she may attend, and must often sacrifice quality for afford-ability. Those institutions which are most affordable very often score the lowest in imparting those valuable skills. In large part this is due to the increasing commercialization of higher education. To compete, schools are becoming viewed more as businesses that provide a product. To sell more product means pleasing the consumer, i.e. the student, or more often their parent's, who want an easy path for their child towards graduation.

One consequence of this process has been the slackening of rigor in courses, and the sense in the student body of entitlement to a degree, since that is what they are in effect paying for. Thus, those individuals who might have the most to say about the current system are effectively silenced without coercion or complaint. The organic intellectual is effectively stillborn because she was never exposed from the start to the proper atmosphere for critique. Nevertheless, in compensation, they will be given what, in capitalist terms, is called an “education”, typically in business or some technical proficiency in the medical or technological fields, and never look back with any sense of loss as they pick the low hanging fruit from capital's tree. In essence it is little more than vocational training with the pretension of a university degree.

The second progression for organically silencing dissent is far simpler, but not in the least less unsettling for that. It comes under the name of “selling out”, but its subtlety is such that the individual being sold has so completely appropriated the modes of capitalist thinking that the transaction is never even noticed to have taken place. It is truly an invisible hand at work with magical prestidigitation.

In this instance, what amounts to the modern public intellectual for a large segment of the population, the entertainer or comedian, grows in increasing prominence their presence becoming more and more inescapable to the larger social consciousness. At this moment the individual becomes commodifiable. He or she is offered a platform were they may reach an even wider audience than ever before. However, along with this increased influence comes increased affluence. The entertainer has attained all that they desired, they can entertain and are paid increasingly well to do so. This nascent social critic began as a somewhat disinterested observer critiquing what he or she has seen. With increasing popularity however, they reached the point of commodification. Being absorbed by capital he begins to view capital's interests as his own. Whereas before he was an outsider looking in, now he is on the inside looking out, and in this natural non-coercive fashion capital thus nullifies the efficacy of dissenters who gain too much influence.

There are perhaps few better examples of this transition than Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. Stewart has repeatedly been called out for his half-hearted criticisms. His childishly naive dictum of “fairness” in giving both sides a serious hearing in his determination not to hurt feelings or ruffle feathers, has repeatedly given credibility to the worst excesses of the US government. This error of false equivalence was revealed no more tellingly than in the disastrous Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which became a massive joke at the attendee's expense. A sad deflation of hopes from a man who was reported to have been an admirer of Eugene Debs.

Organic Capitalism is stealthy, the tools at its disposal almost limitless yet it can be overcome. With an improved standard of education and a higher education put within the grasp of even the most disadvantaged citizens, as well as the simple moral backbone to resist its temptations and see through its lies, such scenarios need not be an inevitability.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

The Gold Standard: A Philosophical Dialogue On the Nature of Poverty

Cast of Characters
Benjamin: A modern Socrates.
Pastor Fred: Pastor of the church which
has been robbed.
A street outside a church.

Benjamin, taking an afternoon walk, encounters Pastor Fred
sitting head in hands outside his church in apparent
Are you alright Fred? You look awful.
I’m not surprised. Someone broke into the church last
night and stole the big screen TV from the community
I’m very sorry to hear that. However, if they needed
it that badly perhaps we should consider it an act of
desperation and forgive it as such.
Desperation!? How can a night time robbery, that was
obviously planned, be considered desperate? There is
plenty for those who know how to ask for it.
There is plenty enough that’s true. However, the way
it trickles down to those on the bottom is perhaps not
all that efficient.
It’s too efficient if you ask me. I pay enough in
taxes as it is, and those taxes pay to provide for the
Very true. And yet, even then it is hard to get by for
most. Only the smallest portion is allotted based on
what the government considers an acceptable standard of
living, while those who live with more than an
abundance are unwilling to part with even the smallest
That is only right, one should keep what one earns. Of
course we should give to the poor and needy, but not as
a legal obligation. It should come from the heart or
not at all.
This is well taken, and is a commendable ideal. How
would you implement it?
As it has always been done, through the church.
But Pastor, the churches already do this and yet
someone still felt compelled to steal your TV. If all
of their needs have been met, what may have motivated
their action’s?
Obviously the thieves were not content with what they
had been given. They were probably drug addicts.
How do you know they are drug addicts?
Well I don’t know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Let us assume for the moment that they were not. Let
us assume that, like you they were angry.
What reasons would they have to be angry? I’m the one
who’s been robbed.
Perhaps it was the anger of frustration, the
frustration of a desire for luxuries they could no
longer afford with work being denied them.
That’s no excuse.
No, but it is not as easily dismissed. The addict we
assume cannot control himself, someone stealing sober
is acting out of more complicated motivations, or so at
least we can imagine. Is it not possible we jump to
the most convenient cliché to strengthen our own black
and white thinking?
Alright, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume
you’re right. It still doesn't change the fact that
they stole, and it still doesn't make it right.
I don’t claim a different set of reasons make it right,
only that the reasons may be more complicated than they
at first appear. Here, you once told me you were nearly
arrested for vagrancy. Tell me that story again.
I hardly see how that applies, but oh well. Some time
ago I was working late at the soup kitchen. While
preparing the food I managed to spill the larger half
of it on myself, soaking my clothes. I was forced to
change into some donated clothing that had seen better
And what happened when you left for home that night?
I was stopped on the street by two police officers who
thought I was homeless. They didn't believe me at
first, but I managed to explain the odd circumstances.
But while you were still under suspicion, how did you
As though I had been stripped of my dignity, as though
I were less then human.
And how does that relate to the thieves?
It may not relate at all. But it does offer another
plausible explanation.
That they had lost their dignity?
Perhaps not so much lost it as found it
unrecognized. Perhaps when one is assumed to be
something repeatedly, out of exasperation one decides
to give into expectation and act the person the world
desires to see.
And what sort of indignities might they have
encountered, as I believe that is what you are getting
Well, starting with the very churches you would have
dispense charity.
Do you mean to imply my church disrespects the poor!?
Certainly not. Your own church, I know, never turns a
man away, but there are those that do, or put
conditions upon God’s unlimited love. What happens
when the criteria for acceptability is not met? Where
then are the poor to go?
To Hell! Like the thieves who stole from my church.
Now Fred, I know you don’t mean that.
No I don’t. I’m just frustrated. It took months for
the congregation to save for that TV, now we must begin
all over again.
Yet, at least the loss is not irreplaceable. Your
congregation will recover quickly, whereas those who
stole from you have probably gained little to
compensate them for their effort by comparison.
You want to speak of effort, what of our effort’s? And
the efforts of everyone who works hard to earn a living
in the expected way? If a man cannot enjoy the fruits
of his brow then why bother collecting to begin with?
Perhaps the question is not why collect the fruits but
rather, need we collect so many? You and I have had
many talks about the history of the church. I’m sure
you remember our discussion of Luther. One of his
complaint’s against Rome was its acquisition of worldly
I can see what you’re doing Benjamin. You mean to
accuse my church of the same vice. Don’t my
parishioner’s deserve a nice sanctuary and pleasant
I’m not making an accusation, just raising a point you
may not have considered.
I am well aware of the debates in the early church you
are alluding to. But the church serves a function in
the community of spiritual uplift. A shabby looking
church is something few would want a part of, or have
confidence in.
True, you have a point, but let me propose a different
thought. A few moments ago you were willing to condemn
the thieves to Hell, correct?
Yes, but I was speaking out of anger.
Precisely, in anger. Nevertheless, I’m sure you would
agree that the soul of someone, such as a murderer for
instance, is deserving of Hell?
I would certainly say I believe murderers to be in Hell
if anyone is.
Why is that?
Isn't it obvious? Murder is a terrible crime.
So you would agree that murder is a very great sin?
Of course.
And murder is a sin deserving of eternal punishment?
I would think more so than any other.
And theft is not?
I do not feel so.
But why?
Do I need to explain such a thing? When you take a
human life you presume to act like God, who alone can
decide questions of life and death.
Yet, if you were less the forgiving fellow I know you
to be, you could easily make such a judgment feel
appropriate, and could perhaps understand if any one of
your parishioners with similar anger made the same
I suppose that would be understandable, yes. But what
do you mean by all this?
What is the difference between a soul such as the
murderer and the thieves who stole the TV?
The magnitude of the crime of course. Theft is not the
same thing as taking a life.
And what is theft?
The taking of that which does not belong to us.
Just so.
What point are you trying to make?
That theft and murder are two different crimes.
We already know this.
But the implication is still unspoken.
Which is?
That a dispassionate observer would not condemn the
thief to Hell, but for the murderer would.
So in my anger you are saying I made a rush to
judgment. Yes, I will admit it was un-Christian of me,
but we are all imperfect.
Quite so, and we forgive the imperfections in others
that we find in ourselves more readily.
You mean to say that I’m a thief as well because I do
not give enough.
No, merely to suggest that, just as the dispassionate
person would not send the thief to Hell for theft, that
we cannot feel that what is stolen is of equal worth to
the thief. To murder is to take a life, to steal is
merely to take what is not our own.
But the murderer too takes what is not his.
True, but I doubt you would equate a human life with an
object, even less with something so abstract as money.
Where are you going with all this?
I’m getting there, I just wish to be sure we have come
to the same place together. What we have discovered
seems can be stated thus: what is owned by us is not
us. That we view an act such as murder or rape
differently than mere theft.
But it could be argued just the opposite, that what we
own is an extension of ourselves. When a man has built
a fine house for himself, is it not a part of him, of
the image he projects to others?
But Pastor, would that not be the sin of pride?
Pridefulness is indeed a sin, but only in excess. A
little pride taken in our appearance and
accomplishment’s is natural, and even perhaps
That is true, but it is pride in excess that I am
referring to.
And what of our labor? (If you wish to be
abstract.) Is that not something we own as well?
The capacity for labor is something we do possess but
not all possess equally, nor is it equally valued by
all. Like a talent, we may possess it, but a talent
for making pleasant sounds is of little value in the
land of the deaf.
If someone is unable to find work that’s why government
programs exist, and that’s what I pay taxes for.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no
workhouses?” Forgive me Fred, I couldn't resist. Let
me take a different approach. What did we determine in
the relationship between theft and murder?
That murder was a more serious crime than theft.
So we agreed that not all crimes are of equal weight?
I believe so, yes.
And I think you would agree that the judgment of a
crime should be impartial, and free from the emotions
of anger and disgust?
Well then, if we have determined that the magnitude of
a crime, as well as the image of that crime distorted
through the haze of anger are things we must consider,
would you then defend the hoarding of wealth?
Not in excess.
Would you then acknowledge that, if one has acquired
enough wealth to feed, clothe, and house himself
adequately, any more than this would constitute a sin?
Depending on the circumstances.
And what are those?
I don’t know. I would have to take it case by case.
But Fred, if we've already determined that crimes such
as murder and theft can immediately be recognized for
what they are, and with what severity we might judge
them, why so picky with the sin of greed? Let’s call a
spade a spade.
It’s not so black and white as that. It’s...
Yes, it’s always complicated when it’s our own action’s
we are considering, funny how that is. The gold
standard is in the end the only standard, and a crime
becomes no crime at all if it’s big enough.