Friday, September 7, 2007

Is the "Golden Rule" still applicable?

For several decades it has been difficult if not impossible for one who wishes to practice Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy (standard Judeo-Christian [golden rule] ethics) in action to aspire to anything other than slave labor/wages (how does one properly utilize one’s gifts under such a circumstance?). The so-called professions have been corrupted through and through. They destroy anyone who brings traditional moral principles to the work-place.

For example, Medicine in the United States has only one goal—to make as much money as possible, Law the same. Any specialist/sub-specialist physician (dependent on referrals) who tries to practice ethically is “cut-off” from cases and run out of town for lack of work. The system will not tolerate a person who fails to “play the game.” Evil thus reinforces itself. Those who pervert the system are rewarded. How does one follow (Catholic) social justice principles in such a situation? There is virtually no one with whom to band in an attempt to change the system.

Justice in America is not blind, it is perverted. Those with the most money obtain the best lawyers and those without it the worst. “Justice” is for sale to the highest bidder. Celebrities and the super-rich have one legal system the masses another. Multinational corporate interests eclipse those of the poor and middle classes. This is simply fact which is undeniable. The current system is corrupt from top to bottom as rank utilitarianism has become the reigning immoral philosophy of the day.

Only a wholesale revamping of public morality will do; meaning the total repudiation of utilitarianism and the moral relativism it has spawned and a return to the golden rule ethic so perfectly articulated in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis. This means a return to and respect for the tenets of the Natural (moral) Law.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Pre-emptive (Preventive) War Remains Immoral

A disturbing development has taken place with respect to making war in the 21st. century. Since the immoral invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the promulgation of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" influential members of both US political parties have virtually en-masse accepted the notion of preventive war otherwise known as offensive war(s) of aggression. Until then, offensive war was deemed immoral and illegal under international law e.g. the UN Charter and the entire doctrinal corpus of Just War Theory as well. All but two of the present aspirants for President in 2008 have indicated their support for this radical departure from classical moral principles with respect to waging war. Moreover, the most enthusiastic supporters of the concept from each political party respectively are those who at present have the highest standing in the polls--Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Giuliani, McCain and Romney. This strongly suggests that the next American President will continue the preventive (immoral) war policy of George W. Bush et al.

Barring a tremendous outpouring of protest on the part of Americans, it appears the Bush administration is poised to initiate another war of aggression, this time against Iran. Since the presence of the United States in Iraq is illegal and immoral to begin with, and since Iran represents no existential threat to the US; any such attack would be both immoral and illegal under international law--numerous relevant documents/stipulations of which the US has willingly signed and agreed to abide by.

If the United States has no intention of adhering to its international agreements with regard to war and peace, she should withdraw from them rather than continue what amounts to a charade and miscarriage of justice. Such a course would be regrettable but intellectually honest.