Rose-Colored Americans

Honor Code
Is the honor code an American phenomenon?  I had assumed it was the commonly understood standard by which all people expect themselves and others to live up to; however, a friend from France/Belgium/Angola told me the idea of an honor code is an American concept.  She tells me for the rest of the world if you can get away with it while advancing yourself, the ends justify the means.  A crude definition of the honor code: honestly taking credit for your own work (giving credit where credit's due).  Friends from India corroborate the lack of this "American" code by pointing out the rampant cheating that occurs in schools, particularly note passing during exams.  My Indian friends somewhat rationalized it by saying how difficult tests are in India; everyone there is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it yourself.  Another way to look at this is the opposite of honor: what is shameful?  According to the honor code, dishonest gain is intrinsically shameful.  In a society where such a code is not commonplace, the only shame is getting caught in the dishonest act.  So my Indian friends tell me if you choose to not advance yourself for the sake of honesty, you are considered a fool.

Why is this is so important?  Society cannot be sustained by perceptions.  We need concrete, usable production and real results.  Without the honor code people will try to and have cut corners.  An example of this is the melanin-milk scandal in China:  Use watered-down milk mixed with melanin to give the impression of "normal" protein content.  Sell this pseudo-milk to families which feed it to their babies, whom then suffer permanent kidney injury and death.  Whatever happened to taking pride in the quality of the work you do?  Is this how things devolve when there is no one to answer to?

Perhaps it is not American per se as reflected by past European discourse on virtue.  Instead it looks "American" because the erosion of the West's Judeo-Christian ethic ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") has not penetrated the U.S. as deeply.  A universal outcry still arises when we catch someone taking credit for another's work.  So in may places there remains an expectation of honor in others but not of yourself because you want to keep your vices.  This is also is hypocrisy.  "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." (Francois de la Rochefoucauld)


Win-Win
Is the concept of win-win also an American phenomenon?  At least in the West, it is an understood bargaining position.  A manager in manufacturing went to Korea to help set up a plant.  In his efforts to bargain he found they never heard of win-win.  He tried to provide a "win-win" compromise however the Korean negotiators said they didn't understand win-win.  So he explained it meant both his company and their company benefited from this setup.  Their response was, "We don't care whether your company wins. I want to win. I want to win."  I want to think this is an issue of something loss in translation; otherwise, how could negotiations proceed?

These two ideas of honor code and win-win make me think there is a sort of naivety that American's have of the world around them.  People do not play by the same rules.  This isn't a call for cynicism but a look at our assumptions.  The U.S. is not above greed nor selfishness but our cross-cultural discourse need such awareness.

Hitchens Lennox Debate

The debate on "Is God Great" between atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pure mathematics professor John Lennox at University of Alabama Birmingham was an event where two individuals not only appealed to reason but also to emotion. I found Lennox more capable of grasping philosophical and logical angles. Hitchens' arguments hinge not on debating creation vs. evolution but on two main posits:

1. God is cruel for creating all things while allowing suffering and designating individuals for Hell; and,
2. Individuals claiming to follow or represent God commit atrocities.

Responding to the first posit, Lennox also plays the "cruelty" card. Atheism permits only the impersonal forces of material interactions. For Lennox, the random forces of chance are cruel in rendering all things meaningless and worthless: you are just a combination of programmed responses to physical stimuli and chemical reactions.  As for the second, Lennox points out that, logically, a purely atheistic system precludes any objective morality, thus the system is permissive of atrocities. He keenly points out that, yes, people identifying as Christians have committed atrocities but this is in violation of Christianity; whereas, atheists commit atrocities without violating atheism.  The amoral atheistic system results in an endgame where Might does make Right; the fittest do survive; and Nietzsche's Übermensch–a superior race–should dominate.  The fallacy in Hitchens' worldview then, is the absence of objective goodness, which if Hitchens is to remain consistent, he could not deign something or someone as "not great"–as his book title proposes.  In this debate Hitchens partially concedes this lack of objective morality in Atheism, but he still admits that he still thinks morality does exist.

What is considered cruel then? For both individuals, cruelty takes on forms of determinism.  Hitchens essentially asks: If God is [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, good and loving], does He orchestrate the entire composition and circumstances of an individual, knowing full well that this very person is thus fated to commit evil, reject God, and be sentenced to Hell?  Is one unavoidably faced with harm and folly?  Does God orchestrate the suffering of millions over time?  Such questions address the problem of evil and destiny that any worldviews should attempt to answer.

Lennox counters by portraying the cruel determinism of atheism.  Under such a system we are irrevocably compelled to act and behave because we as electrochemical-soup-sacks are all "dancing to our DNA" (quoting Richard Dawkins).  No matter how terrible our actions or their consequences, everything and everyone is just moving, colliding, and drifting for no reason at all.  Disaster strikes, suffering happens without any explanation.  Life is meaningless.  Atheism doesn't allow you to "make your own meaning" because you're just fooling yourself.

Coming from a Christian background, I propose the overlooked characteristic in [blue list] is that God is also just.  If God's measure of goodness is perfection then His measure far exceeding human standards.  Bring justice in and everyone is left guilty and at fault with God.  Does this then remove choice and free will?  Not necessarily, a choice is to be had but the reward and consequence are in stark contrast: eternity with God or eternity separated from God.  Is such an opportunity to choose even offered?  According to the Christian worldview, the Book of Acts shows that, "Yes," this is the offer:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. -Acts 17:26-27

Such questions seem much more critical than the question of origin (creation-evolution debate). It is ironic then that Hitchens claims solace only in science but directs his efforts at philosophical issues removed from science. My minor gripe for Lennox is that he states that God bestowed on humans "infinite value."  Yes, we cannot put a price on human life, but are humans of infinite value?  Wouldn't that warrant redeeming everyone?  By Lennox not providing further justification, I believe he actually meant intrinsic value.