An Essay on the Death of Idealism and the Rise of Pragmatism

Black Codes Definition - An Essay on the Death of Idealism and the Rise of Pragmatism

Hello everybody. Yesterday, I learned about Black Codes Definition - An Essay on the Death of Idealism and the Rise of Pragmatism. Which may be very helpful in my opinion so you. An Essay on the Death of Idealism and the Rise of Pragmatism

Is there a definite right, or wrong, to every examine moving human law and morality? If there is, the habitancy of any particular community embracing this philosophy, called idealism, come to perceive over time that there are things permitted by statutory and natural law (man-made rules and rules of nature), and things not permitted by those same constraints. They possess a clear understanding of the society's behavioral expectations. If not, any human community becomes lost in a turbulent sea of ambiguity and indecision, which ultimately leads to a pragmatic disintegration of order and societal purpose. For example, is it proper for one to lie and to deceive other human beings by lying? Most habitancy will, right off the bat, say no, that lying is consummately bad. Every human civilization that has endured over time has eschewed lying. Isn't it also clearly stated in one of the Ten Commandments that one should not bear false witness? Yet, if placed in current situations where telling the truth will, either, follow in dire punishment or lucrative reward, most of those same habitancy will, if they are not true blue idealists, have second and, possibly, third thoughts about being totally honest. Say, perchance, you and two others (Americans) are sitting in a room in Juaraz, Mexico, when angry men in police uniforms and guns burst-in and examine to know who in the room is American, because whatever American is going to be executed. Are you going to be honest and proudly stand-up? Most habitancy in that situation will lie through their teeth to keep from dying. Or take another situation where you are in a store paying for an item and hand the cashier a five dollar bill for a two-dollar purchase. A occasion later she hands back turn to you for a twenty dollar bill. When she hands you the improper change, she asks you if that is correct, and you say, either, yes, take the change, and leave the store, or fill in her that she's given you too much money.

What I said. It just isn't the actual final outcome that the actual about Black Codes Definition. You check out this article for home elevators a person need to know is Black Codes Definition.

Black Codes Definition

Sadly, most Americans will, given those options, select the former, which entails both lying and stealing. What is that I hear you saying? Is it, not me, I'm honest? Well, currently there's a better chance for the midpoint ten-year old to do the right thing than the midpoint adult. But let's put it in another distinct context. Let's say that you are an American traveler in Kuwait, sitting in a café, when fundamentalist Islamists rush in with guns wanting to know if you are Christian, because if you are you will die. Will the midpoint Christian deny Jesus to save his skin? I will just say that it is much more difficult for a true Christian to deny Jesus than to deny being American, or lie about the turn a cashier gives back; but, in the 21st Century, pragmatism, instead of idealism, has become the philosophy of choice for most American citizens regardless of religious belief. This plainly means that, despite what you say you believe and hold dear to your heart, you will ultimately behave according to the rule that the desired end-result of any action, (legal or illegal, moral or immoral) justifies the means used to perform it.

Going a bit further, to the substance of a socially legalized moral rule such as "thou shalt not steal," you find that pragmatism still, today, rules the greatest behaviors of general human beings. Stealing happens in nuclear families all of the time. Sons and daughters steal from fathers and mothers. Brothers steal from sisters, and visa versa, and most familial theft is done with impunity. That is, the police aren't commonly called, and no one is arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Stealing in most families is thought about an offense, but not a crime. On the other hand, it takes much more temerity to walk into a store and, ignoring the shoplifting signs, stick items in your pocket and walk out without paying for them. Why is this? Why would a brother, desperately needing some money to pay-off a gambling debt, not be afraid to take five dollars from his sister's wallet with no intention of returning it, but have a fear of shoplifting a two-dollar can of Coke from the around Safeway? Could it be a prevailing fear of punishment, if caught? Most general habitancy in the American society, since around 1920, have been ruled by the conception that ideals no longer exist or categorically matter, and that situational ethics, or moral compromise, generally rule life's many diverse situations. That is, the exigent needs of the someone dictate that the working philosophy of pragmatism, not hard and fast rules of morality or law, will guide the private to obtaining satisfying end results. Even the most seemingly devout religionist in today's American community may be, secretly, the most heinous violator of moral rules. A good example of this is Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. In the same fashion, the most affluent men and women pretending to be the bastions of civility, law, and justice may be the worst criminals who just haven't yet been caught in their lies and deceit. Remember Richard Nixon, Spiro T. Agnew, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards. They conception that they wouldn't be caught in their pragmatic immoral acts. Or, what about the petite black book of Dc madam, Deborah Jean Palfrey's clients? Where is it now, and how many names of, supposedly, respectable men and women of power in the nation's capital were listed on its many pages? Moreover, was her hanging death in Florida categorically a suicide? Was her death categorically investigated by law enforcement, or was it favorably ruled a suicide for thought about designed pragmatic reasons by the same habitancy who were listed in Palfrey's book?

In approaching a study of natural law, you find many, many individuals who maintain that morality is not inseparably linked with nature, and that nature does not examine explicit moral behavior from an individual. Going back to the fifth of the Ten Commandments, "thou shall not steal," all human beings detest being deprived of their personal possessions by theft. In the same way that nature abhors a vacuum, it is completely natural for general human beings to resist someone stealing something from them. Stealing has been regarded as a serious crime from the dawn of human civilization, for when a general someone learns and internalizes the principle of possession, when at a very young age, resistance to theft becomes second nature to that individual. Let's take another example, such as "thou shall not commit adultery," the sixth commandment. Why do you think that there have been innumerable heat-of-passion homicides committed since the dawn of recorded history by husbands who have caught their wives in bed with other men, and by wives who have caught their husbands being unfaithful? It just isn't natural for human adultery to occur. It is much like framing the fifth commandment in human terms. "Thou shall not steal thy neighbor's wife." Adultery is something ultimately taboo, socially and morally, which most newly-wed heterosexual couples never expect in their relationship. Adultery was regarded as a serious common law crime by all of the original 13 states, and became a statutory crime in most of the states when penal codes prevailed over the common law. The only question with the crime of adultery was that it was soon regarded as unenforceable. You see, how could it be enforced if mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, and judges found adultery pragmatically satisfying, even in the face of existing law, and were able to get away with it by manipulating the law? If men and women of power could get away with it, how could farmers, bricklayers, and carport mechanics (ordinary people) be prosecuted for adultery. Blatant hypocrisy was the only hypothesize that adultery, one of the major causes of marital divorce, was decriminalized after centuries of it being regarded as a crime. Adultery is only a destructive act that is against the basic rules of nature. It only causes grief and emotional distress when committed by husbands or wives. Nothing good can come of it, but it has been declared as pragmatically justifiable. Why? It has happened because of the tragic death of idealism and the embracing by human community of pragmatism expressing that unnatural acts that follow in despair and the death of family values are only human.

American political behavior since around 1850 has become increasingly ruled by designing pragmatism to the point that the word, prevarication, has, for all intents and purposes, substituted the word, lying, by the mainstream media as the politically literal, verb for communal deception in American government. Fraudulent gross misrepresentation by U.S. Representatives, senators, and appointed federal officers and bureaucrats is no longer regarded as a heinous offense by those who impose and explicate the law. For some reason, there seems to currently be an explicit difference between prevarications and lies. It seems that federal officers can, today, bear false examine and grossly misrepresent the truth with impunity and have their falsehoods regarded by the mainstream media as, almost, jocular prevarications. Does it number to a play on words, an issue of semantics, which favorably accompanies the compromising ideas expressed in the words political correctness? common sense, which doesn't currently seem to be as common among habitancy as it is made-out to be, dictates that that is all it is, and all that it will ever become.

A republic, such as the American republic, commonly becomes what it is through bloody revolution, where a despotic ruling ideas of government is vociferously declared unjust and tyrannical by a vanguard of persuasive revolutionaries. A newly formed republic is commonly founded upon a ideas of laws drawn-up by those revolutionaries, which declares the proprietary and liberties of the private human being as sacred and immutable. Such a written foundation of law and order is called a constitution or charter. Then the rank-and-file habitancy supporting the revolutionaries collectively rise-up to fight the existing tyrannical regime for their independence and the freedom to form another distinct regime, a republic predicated upon the will of the majority of the lowly habitancy as expressed by their elected representatives before a legislative, or law-making branch of the newly formed government. If the revolution is ultimately successful, the new fledgling republic is formed. If it is not successful, the revolutionaries are, either, suppressed and killed by the existing regime and despotism continues, or they are forced private to covertly show the way a long-term paramilitary resistance against the tyrannical regime. History tells us that every revolution since the dawn of human civilization, which has produced new governments and communal orders from existing despotic civilizations, has only lasted hundreds of years, not thousands. There has been an inexorably repeating cycle of change, from worse-to-better and from better-to-worse, in all of these successive civilizations and their governments, which has seemingly been based upon the fleeting potential of the human beings populating these civilizations to collectively cling to the ideals expressed in the constitutions or charters predicating those governments. Over periods of time, the governed masses become apathetic about their economic/political freedoms and liberties, which are guaranteed to them by natural law and natures's God; and only awaken to harsh realities when they open their eyes, look around, and examine that their trusted governmental representatives have betrayed them in the worst fashion.

History has sadly revealed that pragmatism, by design, has subdued constitutional idealism in America. Over the past nine decades, the underhanded lies and deceit of those few men and women of the federal government, banking organizations, and the wealthy seven percent of the nation, who have sold their souls to the devil for power and money, have fueled the awful changes that have systematically occurred. Call them controlling plutocratic oligarchies within an apparent republic if you will. In 1958, J. Edgar Hoover wrote a book entitled "Masters of Deceit," in which he said that Americans should worry most about the designs of Soviet communism, and its threat to the American way of life. The widely-read book, and many others like it, were successful, from 1945 until 1990, in distracting American citizens away from the real menace to their way of life, Keynesian economic ideas (Fabian socialism) and its application by the federal government for the subversion of the American Constitution in the greatest formation of a nation geared to a global cheaper and an eventual one-world government. While the masses were finding for communists behind every bush while what was called the Cold War, presuming that their representatives and senators were doing the best for them in Dc, the federal government was working overtime to originate an eco-political ideas with greater tyranny than that which was imposed on the American colonies by King George Iii. Alas, this perpetual cycle of governmental turn seems to be the way of all humanity, and has nearly run its course in the United States of America. Before long, a "new world order" will be enforced for an indefinite duration of time, which will completely replace constitutional government with an eco-political regime that will be as far from the ideals expressed in the announcement of Independence and the Constitution of the United States as heaven is from hell. There, in the depths of despotism, the habitancy will remain until a bloody counter-revolution is fomented, despotism decried, and freedom, liberty, and natural law reclaimed. And how old is the American republic? It is only 231 years old, but comprised of a sheepishly duped citizenry, the majority of which are being led with smiles on their faces to eco-political oblivion and slavery by those they trust, who have hypocritically sworn fidelity to constitutional ideals. The words of Taylor Caldwell, in her book, "Ceremony of the Innocent," are very acceptable in this context. "The sweet smell of money has driven millions of good men to the most appalling heights of treachery, madness, betrayal, and greed. It has turned potential saints into devils, and has more crucifixions in its name than have ever been recorded." One would do well to remember the old aphorism coined by Samuel Johnson, which describes human behavior very well, and take stock of it. "The road to hell is paved with grand delusions that are generally, and incorrectly, construed as good intentions."

I hope you get new knowledge about Black Codes Definition. Where you may offer utilization in your day-to-day life. And most significantly, your reaction is passed about Black Codes Definition.