I terminated the discussion with David Hull over Ferguson. But anyone who scrolls down to that discussion will I think see a very interesting pattern that I discussed in Faultlines. In my book I argued the deepest problem we have in the US today, the one that is most likely to destroy us as a nation, is between two different cultures rooted in two different bases for civilization: agriculture and industry, the countryside and the city. Agricultural civilization is fundamentally hierarchical and emphasizes rigid boundaries. Urban civilization is far more equalitarian and emphasizes relationships and so permeable boundaries. The moral systems of the two reflect this. For example, the agricultural outlook of the religious right, rooted in the rural and plantation culture and religion of the Confederacy, focuses on the 10 COMMANDMENTS. The relationship and context oriented urban culture centered in the North and West shifted to supporting gay marriage with remarkable, indeed amazing, speed. In our discussion Hull kept returning to the one issue that he could address while ignoring context and intricate relationships. The cop might be justified in killing even an unarmed man. He refused to even acknowledge the wider context including the history of police cover ups. His approach was rigid, hierarchical, and focused on absolutes. Only one issue mattered and Authority could be trusted to dispose of it justly. My alternative approach left open the issue of whether the killing was justified because we really do not know. But I emphasized the overall events afterwards make it reasonable to believe there would be a cover up and that the system was biased. Extra system demonstrations were justified and the brutality of the response strengthened my view this was so. I am sure Hull feels he is moral and I and most here are not. I reciprocate in the sense that his outlook is incapable of sustaining an urban scientific democratic civilization, though it doubtless would fit the old Confederacy or other rural authoritarian culture. Each honestly sees the other as practicing an inferior sort of morality. But if you respect science and reason, as I do, one is clearly wrong. If your moral/religious/philosophical outlook privileges compassion and care above obedience and authority, as I do, again, Hulls is wrong.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:38:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015