A little later he adds:
In "What is Freedom?" Hannah Arendt (1956, 151) argues that freedom is acting from principle. . . Only when we give ourselves over to our principles are we free. By the term 'principles' Arendt means an idea or value that inspires us from 'without," from the outside in. We do not make our principles. Our principles make us. (41-42).
What does this mean to you? Do you have an example from your service experience of someone who is "made" by their principles. What about your principles? Where have they come from and have you ever thought about acting on your principles as a freedom?
3 comments:
When Alford wrote "...I'm going to ask you to put aside all your
prejudices against narcissism," what I consider to be the definition of
narcissism immediately popped into my head. I pushed that definition
aside and read on. I had never thought of narcissism as "a deeep and
powerful source of morality leading some narcissists to sacrafice all
their worldy goods for a noble idea." When you think about it like
that, is being a narcissist so bad? I started to wonder if I might be a
narcissist when I read, "The narcissist wants to be whole, good, pure,
and perfect." (p.63, ¶ 2) I want all of those things, but does that
really make me a narcissist? If it does, is it that bad to be one? Or
do I, like the whistleblowers, use narcissism moralized? I am still
trying to figure this out.On page 75, Alford writes, "...we should
consider what kind of world we live in when nobody feels shame for
anything. This seems to be how it works, the capacity to feel shame for
one's own acts inextricably interwoven with the capacity to feel shame
for others'. Instead of being the poor relative of guilt, shame may
better be understood as a sense of being human among humans." I found
this concept very powerful. When you think about it, people don't feel
shame for anything anymore. Mostly, it is all about punishment, but not
so much shame. People don't feel shame for being caught doing something
unethical. As Alford says on the next page, "The whistleblower feels
empathy for others, is ashamed at being associated with unethical acts,
and acts himself so as not to feel the greater shame of failing to
fulfill his own ethical obligations." I guess people don't feel shame
in themselves, but project it onto others.Again, I have to think about
myself. I have always considered myself an ethical being. Am I, though?
According to this chapter, I am a narcissist, and possibly unethical. I
am starting to wonder if I might be just the type of person that these
whistleblowers are. I think I show shame. I think I know when I
don't "fulfill my ethical obligations." Or am I just rationalizing? I
don't know.
In regard to H. Arendt's comments abt. principles effecting us from external influences, not from within, I'm wondering if this is in contradiction to the moral narcissism of some of the whistleblowers. It seemed to me that they were caught up in a type of inner moral drive or "choiceless choice", "the voice that compelled explaining to the voice that acted why it had no choice."So is it a rigid, moralizing personality or temperament that has internalized an unbending, implicit concept of right and wrong- at all costs-or simply a personal interpretation of explicit social norms? "Narcissism becomes moral when the self's commitment to the higher ideals is based on the internalized image of self", so I guess we're back to a narcissistic viewpoint.
"We do not make our principles. Our principles make us." I'm not so sure that I wholly align with the former part of this statement. Sure, our principles define who we are in a moral sense. In that way, our principles do make us. I believe, however, that principles can, at times, be carefully constructed. They are effected by the external, but the ultimate determination of the principle is innate. Why else do different people act differently in the same situation? Of course their experiences in life might differ greatly, but experiences are not everything. There is a conscious decision behind every action--a decision backed by some principle. To say that everything is experience, that everything is external, that everything is perceived is to renounce responsibility for one's own actions.
Anything that can be taken away is, to me, a freedom. The ability to act on one's principles can be easily taken away, and has been to more people in more times and places than anyone could ever dream of counting.
Post a Comment