IGM The Perception of Reality

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: The Perception of Reality

6-18-10




I've been thinking about a statement one of my responders made, concerning the recent series of guest blogger contributions, and how some of us reacted. The statement was;

"The problem isn't corporate America, it is corrupt government."

Some of us took umbrage with that. But could it be possible that it isn’t either-or, but that they are both right? That the problem is corporate America, and corrupt government? At which point, the next question should be; "which fosters which?" Is one responsible for the other? If we look at a family metaphor, in which the behavior of the parent is modeled by the child, we could argue that the private sector takes its cues from the government. On the other hand, if a government is weak enough, it will kowtow to the pressure and demands of corporations. It isn't difficult to find examples of either. We need look no further than Mexico to see what can happen when powerful companies (in this case an Oligarchy) run roughshod over the government. Now, with drug cartels, it is even worse.
But what if government and corporate America are the same thing? Can a case be made for such a cabal? We may be assuming that one entity maintains a higher level of ethics that the other. Some of us think big business is more moral, and some of us think government is more moral. But what if neither can be considered moral? What if our situation is on a par with the Book of Mormon, where the Gadianton robbers become more powerful than the government, and have infiltrated the government at all levels? What if criminals sit in the "judgment seat," and we have essentially become them? And how do we know?
On the other hand, is it possible, in any kind of practical way, to assign concepts of morality to non-corporeal, non-sentient entities, which exist only in a legal sense? Can a government be moral or immoral? Can a corporation? Or can such considerations only be assigned to human beings, who work in and for these organizations? Is there a tipping point at which too many amoral or immoral people render the organizations behavior immoral?
Could a case be made for sufficient corruption, greed, and ineptitude on the part of both systems? For example, the entire country is divided as to where to place the blame for the BP oil spill. Is it a corporate or government responsibility? How would each of us answer this question: would the oil spill be more likely to not have happened if BP were more ethical, or if the government were bigger--exercised greater control and oversight?
Can presumed authority overcome dedicated greed?
Can corporate ethics overcome governmental corruption? I repeat my question from an earlier IGM; why did BP have no reliable and effective contingency plan in place for such an event? And, conversely, why did the government not require such a plan and/or technology? And if government did require it, why did they not know it was not in place and functioning?
We could chose from far too many examples besides the oil spill, but why bother?
How do our mind-sets gravitate to one set of assumptions or another? What is the process?
And if everything happens more or less in a causative vacuum, how would we ever arrive at any kind of explanation? Of course, perhaps it doesn't work that way. Maybe the world isn't ruled by coincidence and randomness. Maybe there is no such thing as a coincidence. But if that is true, how do we trace the inevitable pattern of necessary events which lead to all other events? Is all that really just a matter of opinion?
It might be interesting to take some kind of poll, find out where we agree and disagree on specific issues, and basic principles. And remember, issues and principles are not the same thing. Issues have no principles; but principles define and control issues. The oil spill is a perfect example. Was the explosion and resultant spill the result of a failure of issues or of misapplied principles? Does that even make sense?
And we need to remember that it appears as if the application of principles to specific issues can be wildly divergent, even when we adhere to the same basic principles. For example, we all believe in the necessity of laws, and protecting the public interest, and the necessity of incarceration for people who violate said laws and interests. But how we deal with the specific issues involved is often varied. Some of us accept the concept of the death penalty, some do not. Some insist on rehabilitation, and others insist that rehabilitation is ineffective and largely useless. Look at how we argue over such fundamental things like the Bill of Rights. There is no disagreement on their importance and desirability, but get more than three people together and how we interpret those Rights, and apply them, is all over the map. Why is that?
To quote Steve Stills, “there’s something happening here . . .” But do any of us agree as to what is happening, and why it’s happening?

And for those of you who have no idea what a Gadianton Robber is, I guess you’re just going to have to read the Book of Mormon. How sly is that?

--
You don't use science to show that you're right; you use science to become right.
XKCD