I have a class that I’m taking this semester that used to have me extremely worried and now only has me a little worried. The last CORE class we take here at Queens is an ethics class. Now Queens is a private school that is affiliated with the more liberal end of the Presbyterian Church almost to the point that you don’t see the Christianity at all unless you go down to the dusty tomes of the archives (which I was privileged to work in for two years). My worry was ‘what kind of ethics am I going to be taught in this type of atmosphere?’ I had heard horror stories from former students (including KB) about the class simply smashing liberal platform ideals into the student’s head without a glance at the conservative side. Not only is this unbalanced but it’s also pompous, arrogant and stupid. How can you expect to induce ethical thinking when you’re telling the student’s what to think anyway?
So I went into my first day of class with just a bit of trepidation. My first bit of ease was the fact that my teacher is Dr. Mowrey, who is the school chaplain. I don’t agree with some of her personal conclusions but at least I know that she approaches things from both sides before making a decision, which is a major stress reliever. We started the class analyzing Kant and Utilitarian ethics and comparing the two. Kant’s theories are referred to as duty ethics but instead of having a duty to God to do what is right, the principles are based on reason, universality of the decision (like not telling a lie ever), and treating men as an end in and of themselves instead of just as a means to an end. The Utilitarian theory, which is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, has been used to shape most of the social policies including the child labor laws, Medicare, social security, and environmental laws.
So we started out with the beginnings of a balanced curriculum: Kant = conservative and Utilitarianism = liberal. We discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each theory with case studies and class discourse. So far so good, but I still have some wariness because of how my other CORE classes were taught.
Then I started reading my homework for Thursday (which I finished about an hour ago). The next people we are studying are John Rawles (combine duty ethics and social ethics…but still fairly liberal), John Locke (natural rights put in place by God….big impact on Jefferson and other founding fathers during the formation of our country), and Ayn Rand (only fundamental right = “a man’s right to his own life”).
It was when I got to Ayn Rand’s article that I realized that it seems that I’m going to get a fairly balanced look at ethics and that heartened me. Rand was born and reared under the Soviet Russian government and came to the United States in 1931. She is just about as far away from the social collectivism and distribution that you can get. So far in fact that I don’t agree with her on some points because she’s too conservative. Overall, however, she has some wonderful things to say that I thought were worth repeating so here goes. These are going to be snippet sections of the article that I thought were really good and I’ll put a reference to the original at the bottom.
((Bear in mind that I don’t agree with all that is being said, just that it’s thought provoking.))
~ A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences and corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.
~ The right to life is the source of all rights – and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
~ The right to property is a right to action….it is not a right to an object….It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
~ The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government – as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power…
~ It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of the individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin (now for Rand’s example)…
The democratic party of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers:
“1 – The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2 – The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
3 – The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
4 – The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competitions and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
5 – The right of every family to a decent home.
6 – The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
7 – The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
8 – The right to a good education.”
A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the
issue clear: At whose expense?….Who is to provide them?~ If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
~ A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.
~ One of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights” no “collective rights” no “public interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.
As you can see I found several things to be quite interesting (but I’m not sorry for the length). I would like to add one thing in response to the democratic platform that Rand criticizes; those things listed fall better under the category of “privilege” than “right.” By all right’s all we really deserve is death, but instead God has been merciful and gracious so that we can take advantage of the tools and gifts he’s given us in order to shape a better society.
neumatikos 
One of you (or anyone else) tell me your thoughts (intuition? feelings?) on this site: http://www.endtime.com/
LikeLike
I think they’re operating from a “Left Behind” eschatology. Other than that, I couldn’t tell you.
KB
LikeLike