On Principles

Posted Mon Dec 31, 2001 in

I remember dropping in on my favorite professors for a talk. Sometimes I needed help with a project or problem. Sometimes I needed counsel. (My policy is to seek the counsel of the wise). Sometimes I just wanted to talk about technical things or philosophical things or just talk.

Now, I’m a faculty member. One of the pleasures (and frustrations) of my job is working with students. Although I often have 15 things to do, and probably should do, I usually take time to talk about whatever is on their mind. Maybe it’s avoidance behavior (on my part) because I really don’t want to tackle my To Do list. Anyway, one Friday afternoon last semester, a student walked into my office. Although I still had a ton of things To Do, I’d gotten some things off the list, and I just felt like visiting. Can I preach a bit? If not, don’t read any more.

The conversation drifted along many paths and all of them were interesting. But, the one that really got me to thinking was a discussion about principles.

Principle: 1) A source or origin; primordial substance; ultimate basis or cause. 2) An original faculty or endowment. 3) A fundamental truth; a primary or basic law, doctrine, or the like. (Source: Webster’s New Collegiate Dicitionary. There’s more but that will do.)

A simple example would be do to others as you would have others do to you.

The student’s position was that we either have principles or we don’t. People with principles are principled, others are unprincipled. He went on to relate an interaction between himself and another student.

That got me to thinking about my principles. First of all, I’ve got them. I have a pretty good idea of what they are. Second, I live by them. I’d like to take the moral high ground here, but I’m not perfect. Fortunately, perfection is not required to be principled. Third, I know the source of my principles.

An important point is that principles are not relativistic. They are fundamental truths. That means that I cannot say “What’s right for me may not be what’s right for her” when it comes to principles. Application of those fundamental principles may take place through multiple paths, but the principles themselves remain inviolate. The commonality of principles is the foundation of society. (Another simple example that results in a far different form of society is might makes right.)

Aside: I have other basic operating rules that are “right for me” but may not be generally applicable to others—in otherwords, they aren’t principles. An example would be that I get up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, and sit down to read my email and plan my day.

Being principled does not make my principles a weapon for hammering another individual over the head. (We’ve seen far too much of that over the last few months!) Indeed, such an attitude can lead to all sorts of hurt (and has). It does mean, however, that I have the freedom and responsibility to espouse my principles and to be an example for others around me. Unfortunately, some of our leaders don’t understand their responsibility to be principled and that they should be the best examples to those under their authority.

Here’s an example of a set of principles:

  1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

  2. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

  3. You shall not misue the name of the Lord your God.

  4. Remember the sabbath day by keeping it set apart.

  5. Honor your father and your mother.

  6. You shall not murder.

  7. You shall not commit adultery.

  8. You shall not steal.

  9. You shall not give false testimony.

  10. You shall not desire something that belongs to another.

These form the basis of the Mosaic law. I’m Christian, not Jewish, and I do not live under the law. (Now there’s a topic for another essay! ;) However, whatever you believe about the Bible, these are still good principles.

  1. They're all good principles; regrettably, many of them are followed more in the abstract than in the fact. I notice that you quote a slightly different locution for #6; the generally accepted one is "Thou shalt not kill". That's often a fig leaf offered by folks convinced of their own righteousness and the justice of pursuing action which could not be acceptable if following the more general rule.

    I don't want to start an argument, here...I just find that one a tad disingenuous in practice. (phew--such thoughts on the last day of a year?)

    — Linkmeister    31 December 2001, 04:16    #

  2. No argument, but permit me to elaborate. I looked these up in the New American Standard Bible, which is generally considered the best transliteration of the original sources (Ex 20). In the cultural context, it is clear that loss of life was to be expected in defense of self, family, and in a military context. These actions were not considered murder. In Ex 21:12ff, Moses elaborates on the original commandment in the sense of …laying in wait… or …kill him craftily… which I think makes the case. I think attitude here is important.

    Of course, others will interpret this differently and apply their interpretation consistently.

    — ruminator    31 December 2001, 04:44    #

  3. In other words, whose ox is being gored? Grins...

    Oh, Happy New Year, btw!

    — Linkmeister    31 December 2001, 10:20    #

  4. Makes sense to me… and Happy New Year to you, too. :)

    — ruminator    31 December 2001, 11:09    #