Thought and Thesis

Is it justifiable to vote on strictly moral grounds? Rather, is one justified in voting for someone in spite of immoral acts and beliefs because of that persons nonmoral policies? The labor to craft the right question alone has taken slow deliberance. As such it is clear that to answer it will be no small task.  At first blush it seems that the answer should be no. Resoundly no! But to explain why goes well beyond the first blush. It also requires an answer to the first question. Or, at best an answer to both jointly. First I will attempt to answer the first fully and concisely.  Clearly it seems there are times in which it is justifiable to vote on moral grounds. Should one individual be so morally corrupt it seems our duty toward the body politic to vote against that individual. (Admittedly a question is begged here as to what is moral. The answer should be too obvious for those clear minded. It is that which promotes and supports equality among the body politic). In other i

In preparing my next post, 'The Moral Vote', it occurred to me that at the root of my conversations I will draw upon language that may not be universal. The philosophical language of ethics, political theory, epistemology, etc., may not be widely understood by all readers.  Wherefore, with a desire to remain as concise as possible, I have made the decision to not define, in brief or otherwise, the terms and language that will be used throughout these posts. To that end I will make the assumption the language is understood. In those instances where it is not, I take that it is for the reader to acquaint ones self with those terms that are not understood. Comment: It is often tempting to feel the deep passion of a news event and have the desire to comment on it as soon as possible. I am not immune to the pull of these passions. Assuredly, I have made many rants elsewhere concerning my joy or displeasure about an event. Here I will endeavor to avoid such comments. 

How does one begin to share ones thoughts onto the world? Moreover, how does one reengage where once one had done so for some time but halted? Slowly, it would seem. So too with deliberance. With slow deliberance then I shall begin once more to lay down my thoughts, beliefs, passions, and to do so as logically as I can.  This, the logical development of things, is the most important. It is also which requires slow deliberance. I could, as many do, simply rail against the misgivings of the world. Stream as one gone mad in desperate hope of finding sense of the world. No. Surely this will not, and should not, do. Least of all given the mad political world in which we find ourselves of late.  It is to that now I wish to only speak briefly. I do so as merely a preamble to what may come in future, slow, deliberate, posts: On 8 November 2016 this nations body politic placed into its presidency a man that possess all the hallmarks of a racist. All the trappings of a bigot and sex

*What follows is a write up that I did for one of my grad classes concerning a number of claims that Eduard C. Lindeman makes in his book "The Meaning of Adult Education". I don't claim for it to be authority, or exactly what Lindeman means by his claims, but I do believe that what I have written is a good explanation of some of the implications for the claims that he makes and doesn't defend.* While reading “The Meaning of Adult Education” I ran into a number of major claims made by the author that I believe needed to be clarified and expounded upon. In the first paragraph on page 17 Lindeman makes a number claims that need to be unpacked. These claims will go on to have a profound effect on the rest of the book. Although a few pages before Lindeman tell us what intelligence ‘is’, we don’t find out what makes an intelligent person until pages 16 and 17. It is to these points that I’d like to address. First, “The person who knows what he wants to do and why i

So this is a draft of a piece that I have been working on for a while now on and off. It's not complete yet, and it may not be complete for some time, but it is a view that I believe is the best explanation for ethical and moral views. Enjoy and any comments are welcome. If there is something in this piece that you would like to use feel free to do so, but please site it properly. Thank you.   Sociological Ethics by Larry N. Wagner Master of Adult and Post Secondary Education (on going), University of Wyoming Bachelor of Philosophy, University of Wyoming (draft 23 November 2013  ©2013) Contents Introduction 3 Theoretical Bases 3 Philosophical Bases 3 Sociological Bases 4 Social Contract 4 Ethics from Individual 5 Ethics from Society 6 Justice 7 Laws as Ethic 7 Education of the Social Ethic (Updated 23 Nov. 2013) Introduction Over the course of history there has been much discussion across the academic world about Sociological

The entrepreneurial spirit has lead to a world of wondrous creations. Great individuals with great minds have advanced the world to horizons hitherto unforeseen. When the individual puts ones life into a thing it takes on a quality and a value that enriches the individual. One should revel in ones creation. One should allow what is created to be a defining factor in life. When one allows that to happen, the individual is elevated and made greater then otherwise. Yet, there is a cancer that infects this relation. A loss of self creation. When one dominates the labor of another to create what is of ones own invention, that which is created is cheapened and worth less. It looses it power to make its maker greater. Worse yet the individual can no longer feel the joy of creation; one is alienated from the creation. When an individual no longer creates that which comes from ones own invention, that joy that was felt in creation is replaced by something of far less worth. Namely, the mere m