Amerika

Managerial Organizations Forget Aristotle And Create Monsters

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. – Aristotle

Moral decisions can be ethical or technical. If they are ethical, they can be difficult. You have to think or something and it can make your brain hurt. It’s better, cleaner, and nicer if you can just run the Rules of Engagement for life’s long-standing war past your attorney and see if it’s legal. Oh, wait…

Archbishop says “he simply didn’t know having sex with children is a crime.”
Of course he didn’t, it’s encouraged at the Vatican in Rome. #DrainTheDeepState
pic.twitter.com/HGMZZfEI9B
— Deep State Exposed® (@DeepStateExpose) December 19, 2018

The hashtag #ShouldINotDoThat? needs to permanently trend. Archbishops, by definition, should not be troubled over legalities. St Paul read and carefully interpreted his Aristotle so that his new clergy wouldn’t be lawyer-bound. One of the biggest fights the early church had was with a group of heretics who attempted to converge the Early Christian Church in Greece. The were known as (((The Judaizers))) and sought to impose detailed and specific Mosaic Law on Early Christian Churches. Thus, like the Fake Right we have today, they could call themselves different without really being anything different.

The “Judaizers” seem to be a group of Jewish Christians in the first century CE who preached to the recently founded churches of the Gentiles the need to conform to the Law of Moses, even after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This group originated in Jerusalem; we know little about them, only that at least some are likely Pharisees (Acts 15:5). We do not know how organized they were or any names of any individuals within the movement. They are called the “Judaizers” for lack of a more official term; they attempted to make Jews out of Gentile Christians.

Looking at the state of the church and at the state of most Democracies; I can only conclude that The Judaizers are winning the long war. We are a society that is legal rather than decent. The rules could lead us all to ineffable damnation, but that’s ok. Let’s cross all the ‘i’s” and dot the hell out of the “t’s.” This is terrible in two ways. The first of which is that it leads to a moral and mental apathy.

The laws do your thinking for you. They set the guardrails and allow you to walk around blind. They do your moral reasoning for you. Doing the right thing becomes doing stuff that doesn’t get you arrested. This is what leads us to the second evil of the legalistic managerial society – moral hazard.

Once you establish a priori that the legal is the good, then we get in the game of making anything we want to do legal so that anything we feel like doing is good. Nobody seems to ask the obvious things like whether I’d want this done to me. Or even just “What’s grosser than gross?” It totally allows people who could and should know better play the moral idiot.

A fully-invested cardinal in The Roman Catholic Church is an extremely learned man. They typically have the ability to converse in fluid Ciceronian Latin or Koine Greek. They’ve read The Book in the same vernacular in which St. Origen and his council had it tabulated. You are talking about a man who has a minimum IQ of 125 and a twenty-year life sentence of higher education. This is the man claiming he didn’t know it was illegal to have sex with young alter boys. In a rational world, the Red Bull-Shit Flag has been thrown at the good cardinal’s head.

But a rational world is neither legal nor managerial. Questions of right and wrong are passe amongst the sophisticates. Normal, functional adults go through a rough heierarchy of questions when they make the call on whether or not they take an action.

1) Would this get me something I want? The Id or Lizard Brain will ok it here if you answer “Yippee-ki-Yeah!”

2) Would doing this get me jailed, censured or stomped a new, bloody mud-hole? The Ego or Cat Brain will sign off on it here if the answer is “No.”

3) #ShouldINotDoThat? This is the question that was the mark of the true Ubermensch. This seperates a man from a base, lower animal. This seperates a paladin from an NPC. If I were a learned Cardinal, fluent in languages that most people on the street are probably too ingorant to know even exist; then that would be the question I would expect myself to ask – as a baseline standard to obtaining fundamental decency.

And this brings me ’round to the moral hazard of the managerial society. I can get plugging the 10 Commandments into the heads of 80 IQ NPCs the way you send a remote terminal data through a fire wire. Show the average man-schlub who struggles to make it through high school Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and they aren’t ready to even contemplate (much less critique) it’s applicability as an ethical heuristic. But what do you say about the guy who is obviously smart enough to know better?

You say that he is weak enough and evil enough to pretend otherwise. The SJWs have converged his sorry butt. The Judaizers have won. And that’s the true evil of modernity. So many people who are smart enough to know goddam well this crap is wrong, are just taking a dive. The law says I can. I’m allowed to do this, aren’t I? Little Junior can just put an Absorbo-Pad in his cute little undiewear if The Good Cardinal wants to show him the puppy he keeps out in the van. This is exactly the sort of selfish and dishonest thinking that pervades any society that needs more laws than the standard bookshelf can possibly hold. Once your society has forgotten its Aristotle, it will be only good for the creation of monsters. All the damn laws in the world will not be a good enough firewall to protect the weak, the helpless and the innocent.

Tags: , ,

|
Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading