The 1787 framers affirmed the 1776 founders’ humble-integrity

 Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows:  This good citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”  I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

The 1787 framers affirmed the 1776 founders’ humble-integrity

The 1776 representatives of “the good People” appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for affirmation of the founders’ intentions and sacred honor. The 1787 framers of the U.S. Constitution did not lessen the founders’ humble-integrity.

However, the 1791 Congress imposed “freedom of religion” in U.S. civil tradition rather than maintaining the humble-integrity.

Restoring the U.S. to humble-integrity starts with so amending the First Amendment to delete protection of religious institutions, and that responsibility for human independence rests with the year 2020’s We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-can-society-influence-government-policies?

First, each citizen may consider whether or not he or she wants to be a human being or simply exist in whatever state they’re in. Second, if human being, civic citizen or dissident. If civic citizen, in humble integrity or egocentric conflict? If humble integrity, under the U.S. Constitution or personal political science? If under the Constitution, what does the preamble propose?

With successful consideration of the above issues, the civic citizen may develop his or her interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition. Mine, today, is:  This civic citizen practices 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---“in order to” enjoy and promote responsible human independence to living and future fellow citizens under the-ineluctable-truth.

Last week, I learned from Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that while bearing arms for strength is a human right voting is a civic right. In other words, if a citizen is not voluntarily among We the People of the United States per his or her responsible interpretation of the preamble, he or she ought not vote.

Fellow citizens may influence government policies by developing the humble integrity to know how to vote in responsible self-interest.

https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-appropriate-to-not-intentionally-downplay-a-serious-situation?

Harm to or from any person or institution should be resisted, by reporting the harm to first responders if possible, or by direct intervention if necessary.

For example, yesterday, I saw a cane/walker assisted-elder trying to exit his car in the hot sun. I parked my car and approached him and asked if he needed assistance. He said, “Yes. Sir, I cannot stand up.” The next couple minutes were connected by my questions, “May I . . .,” and his responses, as we stood him out of the car, put his wallet and keys in a nearby shopping cart, moved personal items from the car to the cart, closed and locked the car, and watched him proceed into the store after thanking me. It seemed both he and I took the experience for granted.

I wore a covid-mask, but he did not. My only thought was “neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.” When I arrived home, I took my shoes off then my mask and immediately washed my hands and face. I changed clothes.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-beliefs-values-do-you-have-that-aren-t-your-own?

First, I don’t believe in believing: I commit to “I don’t know,” as long as that is so.

I will try to address values.

My first value is to accept that I am a human being. No one taught me this value, so it seems mine. From it, I accepted, about midway in my eighth decade, that a human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or tolerate infidelity to his or her person. Later, I accepted that integrity must be humble to the Supreme Judge of the world (an entity cited in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776) or equal. (I suspect that the actual entity is physics and its progeny including psychology, but do not know.)

These acceptances helped me understand Ralph Waldo Emerson’s suggestion in “Divinity School Address” (1838) that the historical Jesus imagined human beings can each perfect their unique person. However, for all I know, Jesus will judge me when my afterdeath begins.

I write to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-a-need-for-us-to-concur-to-universal-values?

It seems to me only one intention is key to rewarding human life:  Accept that you are a human being and intend to perfect your unique person.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Can-you-solve-any-type-of-issue-if-it-is-major-or-minor?

As a member of the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble, and armed with Agathon’s advice as I interpret it, I am prepared to apply humble-integrity to any issue.

Plato tells us in “Symposium,” that Agathon suggested (in my view):  An ineluctably good citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

https://www.quora.com/What-part-of-the-Constitution-talks-about-freedom?

What part of the Constitution talks about freedom?

You’ve asked a profound question, and my response can only be opinion, since I do not know the-ineluctable-truth.

My opinion is that only posterity’s posterity could answer the question, because the entity “We the People of the United States” as defined by the 1787 U.S. Constitution has not yet accepted the freedom won in the war ending in 1781, admitted in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and ratified in 1884 by 13 free and independent global states. In particular, by tolerating the 1791 First Amendment’s religion clauses, “the good People” referred to in the 1776 Declaration of Independence have not accepted freedom-from British-colonial psychology and 1787 responsible human independence; that is, humble-integrity.

Key to these dates is 1784, when the 13 states began their global independence initiated by the founders, and 1787, when the framers drafted the laws and institutions for the constitutional republic for the United States of America. Freedom-from British oppression to establish U.S. responsible human independence suspended at that moment, because the First Congress re-established the tradition of Protestant-church-state partnership made constitutional for England by their 1689 Bill of Rights. That’s my premise, and now I will present supporting facts I know.

The founders, in the 1776 Declaration, established global authority in Deist terms so as to establish spiritual independence from the Church of England’s constitutional partnership with Parliament (26 assigned church-seats in the upper house). Perhaps the Continental Congress was expressing piety on par with Parliament’s claim to divinity. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they were expressing humble integrity toward whatever-God-is. Of four Deist phrases they used, “the Supreme Judge of the world” would uphold the reliability of “the good People” as represented by the founders. When the continental army seemed too small for the task, they called on France’s providence and received it in the deciding battle at Yorktown, VA, 1781.

While the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s framers considered every global evidence of legislative, administrative, or judicial error known to the them, their draft makes no claims that lessen the humble-integrity of the founders’ 1776 Declaration. Key 1787 features include: no religious oaths as a test to serve the U.S., the preamble’s proposition to the people and their posterity to behave for public discipline “in order to” establish responsible human independence, and amendment when statutory injustice is discovered and remedy is legislated.

We the People of the United States in the year 2020 have experienced that “liberty” is often taken as license to harm fellow citizens and their property, so when our crowd starts chaos/disruption, we want the independence to leave and report them to first responders. Also, just as we can accept Albert Einstein’s 1941 argument against lying so as to avoid the misery and losses infidelity causes more than to follow 1787 spiritual-rules against lying, we expect our children to develop the humble-integrity to manage a future we cannot imagine. In other words, we can develop humble-integrity for our lifetimes but not for our posterity’s future. (Likewise, we have no obligation to maintain our forefather’s mistakes/precedents and especially no obligation to re-consider British tyranny.)

It seems freedom-from the liberty-to maintain infidelity to the Supreme Judge of the world is abstractly proposed in the 1787 U.S. Constitution, clarified by the 1776 Declaration, and betrayed by the 1791 First Amendment. We the People of the United States have the freedom-to remedy this tyranny by revising the First Amendment so as to promote humble-integrity rather than religious hubris. Many freedoms to develop humble-integrity would follow.

Without your question, I would never have written this version of my dream, which I hope is shared by most citizens who read it. I write to learn, so please comment.

 

quora.com/Are-there-examples-of-ideas-that-rationally-trained-persons-agree-on-logic-epistemology-philosophy-of-science-philosophy-of-mind-philosophy-of-language-philosophy?

Are there examples of ideas that rationally-trained persons agree on (logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy)?

Yes.

Here are 3 comments on ancient ideas by Greek thinkers in 400 BC, in my 2020 AD view. First, a good person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. Second, good people aid development of equity under statutory justice. Third, good people pursue humble integrity rather that divine correctness.

The authors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence from England claimed to represent “the good People” appealing to “the Supreme Justice of the world.” They cited authority under “Nature’s God.” As their war transpired they solicited and accepted France’s providence.

The authors of the preamble and the 1787 U.S. Constitution wrote nothing that lessened the claims of the 1776 Declaration.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in “Divinity School Address,” 1838, affirmed a historical Jesus’ suggestion that the human being has the power, energy, and authority to develop humble integrity unto perfection of his or her unique person.

Albert Einstein in 1941 suggested that physics and its progeny such as psychology follow the same laws. Thus, good people never lie so as to lessen the human misery and loss that comes from infidelity to humble integrity.

Marriage codifies spouses in family-monogamy for life:  The spousal bond includes any progeny they originate.

If someone opines that my ideas are unreasonable/not, I have written to learn, so please share.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-our-educational-system-perpetuate-social-injustice?

How does our educational system perpetuate social injustice?

The primary vehicle is inculcation of civically untrue words and phrases so effectively that they become apparent civil truths.

For example, the Church presents the edict that human life begins at conception and therefore abortion is immoral. Both the Church and the Supreme Court overlook the equity and dignity of the human oocyte, which is owed a woman who is aware of and accepts her obligation to take care of her body so that the viable ova she produces have well-being. Same responsibility to the man and his spermatozoa.

In reality, the Supreme Judge of the world (I think that’s physics and its progeny) assigned to the woman the responsibility to remain pregnant if her embryo is appreciated, well, and will receive equity and dignity during gestation, birth, rearing, and family-fidelity unto death. If the woman is convinced the embryo is doomed, she has the responsibility to consider not remaining pregnant. No human or human institution can speak for the Supreme Judge of the world to oppose her decision.

Yet, the U.S. Congress is embroiled in billions is not trillions of dollars in legal fees and other expenses over abortion “rights.” It’s not a right: it’s a responsibility that is assigned the pregnant woman.

Similarly, civic citizens do not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss due to infidelity rather than to obey some rule.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-deal-with-people-who-criticize-but-cant-take-criticism?

Plato wrote about Agathon’s speech in “Symposium.” As I interpret it: In the life worth living, the good person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association.

With that as a guide, I respond to an aggressor, “I am not going to stay in the room for this,” or with some other resistance, and leave them with their expressions and my opposition, to be revisited when they want to collaborate. (If never, that’s OK with me.) Among the things I do not know, is how to take charge of another person’s aggression.

It seems to-continue-a-conflict would initiate harm, and not-responding-at-all would maintain harm.

https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-losing-its-academic-importance-in-a-similar-way-that-theology-has?

Is philosophy losing its academic importance in a similar way that theology has? By Graham C Lindsay

I don’t think so. Religion is private, and philosophy is civic.

Religion observes physics and its progeny and imagines an explanation of a perceived unknown, then develops doctrine based on the speculation, never discovering that what was imagined seems not the-ineluctable-truth. For example, the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? springs from the imagination that there is a why.

Philosophy, in humble-integrity, examines recorded thought about a concern, with fidelity to the interconnections, but draws no conclusion beyond the-ineluctable-evidence. In other words, philosophers present diverse human-integrity without bias or hubris. See for example, a philosophical authority on truth at Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

In this way, philosophy does not negate a unique human being’s inspiration and motivation to pursue responsible happiness with humble-integrity, whether religion is involved or not. Religion/none is a private practice, and academic speculations have no standing.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-critics-regard-ethical-egoism-as-an-inadequate-moral-theory-Are-the-critics-right-Why-or-why-not?

Why do critics regard ethical egoism as an inadequate moral theory? Are the critics right? Why or why not?

I imagine critics consider it egocentric. That is the, person chooses his or her ethics rather than including other persons. I found “Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Wikipedia”

Also, “Viewed from this perspective, the concept of human integrity can be perceived as a person's wholeness of character. And the inner wisdom of wholeness (totality) of character stems from virtues such as honesty and truthfulness and consistency of actions. In a very simple term, it means to be true to self.” "Human Integrity" - Payvand Iran News www.payvand.com › news › ju

That’s closer to what humans need:  I think humble integrity is a preferred self-interest. See my latest post at cipbr.blogspot.com.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-human-freedom-a-fundamental-value?

Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to his or her person. A government that tries to prevent the opportunity for humans to choose humble-integrity face the consequences.

So far, the U.S. tries to impose “freedom of religion” when both the 1776 Declaration of Independence from England and the 1787 U.S. Constitution propose humble-integrity, in only 233 years Congress has sunk to the Democratic Party’s pretenses in the today’s Supreme-Court Justice hearings.

Once Senator was confused by the phrase “virtuous people” when the 1776 Declaration represents “the good People.”

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-principles-of-justice-in-ethics?

Ethics is a journal of rules relative to a society, association, or doctrine. A particular ethic may or may not conform to humankind’s pursuit of humble-integrity. The record of the journey to humble-integrity is human ethics. Not all humans participate.

The fourth century BC Greeks suggested some behaviors for developing humble-integrity. I share my interpretations of the principles.

First, accept that ineluctable-good constitutes civic behavior.

Second, ineluctably good citizens neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or civic institution.

Third, civic citizens develop human equity under statutory justice. Dissidents are encouraged to reform.

Fourth, fellow citizens who reject humility invite woe and may suffer statutory law, even though justice has not been established.

Civic citizens develop and encourage humble-integrity under statutory justice.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-can-freedom-and-equality-be-reconciled?

Exercise the freedom of acceptance.

Accept that you are a human being and that every person is unique.

Accept that uniqueness invites equity under statutory justice rather than equality.

Accept that no higher power---neither government nor personal God---can provide life, liberty, property, and happiness.

Accept an ancient thinker’s suggestion that physics and its progeny such as psychology charges humankind with constraint of chaos on earth.

Accept the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence from England’s appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliable intentions.

Accept that each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to his or her person.

Accept that with humble-integrity practice a human can perfect his or her person before afterdeath begins; that vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning.

A culture like this has never existed, because the 1776 Declaration’s “the good People” never tried, even though the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution abstractly proposes such a culture. We the People of the United States can undertake the responsible pursuit of individual happiness with humble-integrity.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-society-history-be-different-if-we-lived-in-a-bi-normative-society?

We live in the society of humankind which is divided in two factions: persons who accept the humble-integrity of being human and those who don’t. An achievable better future is available with more acceptance of responsible human independence to discover and responsibly use the-ineluctable-evidence of physics and its progeny, including psychology. 

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-can-you-say-about-the-role-of-ethics-in-conducting-research?

Humble

https://www.quora.com/Aside-from-intelligence-or-wisdom-what-s-more-important-for-a-better-world/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Humble integrity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-you-explain-the-ethical-use-of-information?

Behave so as to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person/association.

https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-the-necessary-or-logical-consequence-of-moral-pluralism-3?

Is "atheism" the necessary or logical consequence of moral pluralism?

No. Humans can connect for humble-integrity.

Physics and its progeny inform humankind how to control chaos on earth. Genesis 1:28 illustrates how long ago thinkers commented on this principle. Humans can connect to constrain chaos so that each unique person may choose to responsibly pursue the happiness they perceive rather than subjugate to someone else’s vision for them.

Those who want to pursue theism can do so, and some theists may choose atheism. Some will practice human integrity and attempt to impose their beliefs on humankind. However, most humans may retain sufficient humility toward “the Supreme Judge of the world” (see the 1776 USA Declaration of Independence from England) or a more humble expression in order to to practice humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/In-which-stage-of-our-life-is-crucial-for-moral-learning?

In which stage of our life is crucial for moral learning?

From age 2, parents and the community owe it to the dignity and equity of each, unique child to encourage and coach them in a nest of acceptances that lead to humble-integrity*:

I accept and appreciate being a human being.

Some of my peers accept that they are human, but not everyone does. Some will not reform.

I accept that no one will usurp my opportunity to transition from my un-informed status to the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life, both chronologically and psychologically.

I accept that humble human beings behave to aid equity under statutory justice.

I accept that the human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than to tolerate infidelity during his or her lifetime.

I accept that HIPEA empowers a human to nourish infidelity and some persons will be drawn to carnal satisfactions rather than to the self-interest of humble-integrity.

I accept the-ineluctable-evidence that persons are served better by physics and its progeny rather than science or doctrine. For example, monogamy for life is for families more than for spouses.

 

Since no humble-integrity culture exists, for now the principle discussion of this reform should be among adults, especially those in education and in elected and nominated office. If you recognize an issue I should/not address, please comment. If you like the idea of promoting humble-integrity, please share this post.

 

“* Humble-integrity differs from human-integrity in that the person appreciates other humans who appreciate physics and its progeny for life while nurturing any humble belief for afterdeath.

 

Notable writers I won’t read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran (deciding not to buy “The Trouble with Being Born”

John Polkinghorne opinion: “Chance doesn't mean meaningless randomness, but historical contingency. This happens rather than that, and that's the way that novelty, new things, come about.” Nonsensical writing produces nonsensical reading.

In https://www.pbs.org/video/religion-and-ethics-newsweekly-sir-john-polkinghorne-science-and-theology/ the journalist concludes that Polkinghorne’s message is that science v. religion can be a conversation rather than a battle. However, religion has no useful objects of “I believe . . . “

Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work.

Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.