Skip to main content

In Search of Good Manners Or The Importance of A Good Conscience

Buckley

Bill Buckley used to say, “The problem with bad manners is that they sometimes lead to murder.”

If Buckley was speaking, as he often did, from a sort of transcendent skepticism, attractive in people with good manners, he never-the-less said the truth. Many murderers, most people reading these lines will have noticed, lack a certain social grace.

They are unacquainted with Kant or other enlightened pre-20th century moral philosophers. The postmoderns, addicted to group-think, usually end up finding Nietzsche less wearing on their frayed nerves.

Kant, modern philosophers tell us, is a deontologist. For Kant, “morality is not defined by the consequences of our actions, our emotions, or an external factor. Morality is defined by duties and one’s action is moral if it is an act motivated by duty.” The moral law proceeds from “the good will” directed to a good end.

Kant summed up his moral law this way: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” 

Duty, by the way, lies at the opposite pole of self-indulgence.

The postmodern age is no friend of duty or, for that matter, of ethics, which is centered in the concept of duty. One has a religious duty to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” People arrange a prison-breakout of such duties by eschewing religion altogether or by becoming what Jacques Maritain calls “practical atheists.”

Politicians, when they are lustily practicing their art, are mostly concerned with their own power positions or, worse, their unending campaigns for reelection. And power, rule by force, has little to do with the moral law, Kant, or ethics. Most murderers have gotten into in the habit of re-defining the moral law as a code of infinitely adjustable personal behavior.

Joseph Stalin, a postmodern-father-figure-mass-murderer, used to say, “One death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths is a statistic.” He subdued Ukraine in 1932-33 by inaugurating a famine he and his henchmen caused that resulted in the death by starvation of upwards of 5-10 million Ukrainians. If Vladimir Putin’s offensive war on Ukraine is to teach us anything at all, it may be that a reanimated post-Stalin Stalinism is by nature un-Kantian precisely because it elevates naked force above ethics.

My own mother and all the males in my extended family, were Kantians. The iron law of the household was: If you strayed from your moral duty – you were given to understand, often and at great length, what that was -- you would very soon face “a higher power,” once he arrived home from work. Both work and moral probity were, for the males and females in my extended family, moral duties like, on a much smaller scale, taking out the garbage, or cleaning your room, or being kind to older people, while being patient with younger people.

Kant’s “good will” is related directly to good manners. Or, if the reader prefers, it flows from good manners in precisely the way the ongoing creation proceeds from the liberating creative idea of the God of Jesus, Moses and Abraham: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

And the Word was Good.

For the past half century here in the United States, we have witnessed an anarchic attack on the foundations of Western culture to which we owe our moral duty. On an ever broadening scale, we owe a moral duty first to ourselves, then to our fathers and mothers, then to our extended family, then to our neighbors, then to our towns, then to our state, then -- up the line and as far away as Oz -- to our nation. All these institutions have come under a sustained attack by moral anarchists for whom duty is an ethical fiction.

Duties imply obligations and a moral accounting. To put it in other words, conscience is a duty director. The postmodern era, which shrinks at any idea of an outward moral obligation, pretty much in the way the Devil shrivels to dust when aspersed with Holy Water, is no friend to conscience or a correcting guilt.

We have banished guilt and the pangs of conscience, and that is why bad manners lead so effortlessly to the murder of virtue, to the murder of the Good, and to the murders of fatherless, 14-year-old African American urban gangsters by other 14-year-old urban gangsters.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...