Epistemological Fallibility

Does not the uncertainty involved in a fallible mortal's knowing process encourage us to 'cut slack' for our contemporaries and to respect those who 'put up with existential absurdity' and try to 'make a go' of their fallibility without harming others?

Thanking is Affirmation

"We should THANK our President for EVERYTHING he does that is good!  Indeed, we ought to be gracious enough to thank EVERYONE who does good for that is the spirit of affirmation!" - Maynard S. Clark

OK, here's a problem with that: public affirmation is going to wedge some thoughts into the minds of others that will really NOT be 

Ideally, we WOULD be both (a) knowledgeable about what is right, good, just, and true, and (b) in that knowledge we should allow others who also 'do the good' (given all the issues with 'weak-will' or akrasia) to be affirmed in their doing such good.

But ethical propositions aren't that clear to 'the mind' in the many varied members in our species of life.  Other than language itself, our moral diversity (given the 'social setting' and 'social construction' and other explanations for that 'moral diversity') makes some moral claims more controversial than others.

Further, many of our species really are NOT "knowledgeable about what is right, good, just, and true" and may merely copy what they think they see happening without any deeper appreciation of the complex ethical issues involved in a person's giving praise.

Some claims that are less controversial than others (humans are harmed with higher-than-threshold levels of toxins in their water, air, and food; mercury is a poison, Barack Obama recently announced historic rules limiting toxic mercury and other air toxics from coal-fired power plants, a long-delayed requirement of the 1990 Clean Air Act legislation.

Read about this from BlogRunner and ThinkProgress.

In that sense, given that the growing bodies of evidence point us to the high levels of population health hazards from air toxics like mercury, the US President has acted wisely, and the US public can reasonably THANK him for THIS action without taking or needing to take any other positions on things he has done publicly - or failed to do.  Affirmation CAN be nonpartisan - or bipartisan or tripartisan or multipartisan, and we can understand how this effort and understanding was built by a large number of other persons with the President.

Affirmation is good when it's done wisely and judiciously.  Because our folly of 'writing blank checks' more often than not complicates our public voice, maybe we ought to remain very cautious about doing endorsements or giving blanket praise.  We can allow also that wise praise in some efforts is not an endorsement of anything or everything a public person does or has done.

I would think that everyone who is praised ought to be praised judiciously, not in the way we often praise for affection, as we do the family dog or cat.  "Good boy" sometimes means "I like you" and not "You are morally praiseworthy and without blame."  Indeed, I recall in a previous decade feeling some great remorse about actually saying "Good boy" to a cat when I really only meant "I love you" at some level.

For morally sensitive ethical vegetarians, calling another "good" may be morally problematic.  I think it is; I'm prepared to use even stronger language, such as, "calling another 'good' IS morally problematic."  I think we can affirm deeds and even some ideas, but millennia of human reflection (I think) point us away from blanket approvals, even in our voting behaviors.  Reservations about public affirmation are really important.  We cannot AFFIRM any special group, even if such a group's past behaviors have been more exemplary in some target areas than the observable 'average' (such as 'academics' or kindness or charity or beneficence or public spiritedness, etc.).

Yet, we KNOW that some groups HAVE made more than typical contributions to some very important resources and values.  The phrase 'credit to whom credit is due' is worthy of our study, perhaps even our careful analysis by the standard of reasonable caution and prudence.

I think of the 19th century inventors of 'fake meats' and the 20th century inventors of 'fake furs'.  Even if these innovations contributed greatly to some political direction we have later affirmed as viable in the pursuit of human objectives, does the SOCIAL SOURCE of those contributions deserve blanket affirmation (e.g. Seventh Day Adventist, liberal progressively-minded Jews)?  

By my principles outlined here in a rudimentary way, (a) the desirable (?) energies or intentions preceding (b) the likable actions with (c) affirmed historical possibilities come SPECIALLY from some individual subsets (persons and social groupings) within broader historical and ethnic and national and religious configurations.

Yet, we often AFFIRM whole groups in a somewhat salutatory way, such as "Thanks to our friends, the Chinese, we have vegan restaurants" (and some make special use of these during some seasons), or "Thanks to our friends, the Canadians" we have x, y, and z, or "Thanks to our friends, the Chinese, who are bailing out our economy."

Similarly, we hear TV and radio journalists talk about whole national groups as doing bad things, like torturing their own people or hating the Americans, etc.  Is that really how things occur in this world?  I think not, yet the semantic behavior continues.

Indeed, I thank our President - against a background where some talk as if he could do no good under any circumstances - deserves selective praise for this noteworthy action that most likely will benefit all the American people AND the world.  

What a gift to both - the American people and the world!

Being cautious in praise is a virtue, in my book.  I think I'm showing due diligence in my cautious affirmation of what I deem a praiseworthy deed, for which I am very grateful.  Thank you, Mr. President, for doing what I think I can reasonably call 'the right thing' in announcing these historic rules limiting toxic mercury and other air toxics from coal-fired power plants.