Morality of Everyday Life
Thomas Fleming, The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2004)
Review by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. held this intriguing thought:
The man who does not fulfill his immediate moral obligations, family first, will eventually create a moral system according to which vice will be portrayed as virtue. That, in fact, is precisely what has happened over the course of the past few centuries as European elites decided to emancipate the Christian idea of the brotherhood of man from the theological context which gave it its meaning the first place.
The views in this book review seem to echo more of man’s own morality: ” doing what seems right in his own sight”.
I now very much want to read this book…here is more from the review:
[Samuel ]Johnson was â€œthe ideal antidote to the poison of sentimental universalismâ€ that has led to the international casino capitalism of George Soros on the one hand and the equally repugnant international socialism which â€œstigmatize[s] every manifestation of patriotism, ethnic pride and local attachment as racistâ€ on the other.
If the enemy on the personal level is the â€œhero,â€ the disconnected individual, who, like Agamemnon is ready to sacrifice his daughter for the success of a business trip, the enemy on the political level is nationalism, which Fleming claims â€œis a false and destructive theory that leads a people to sacrifice what is real and vital in favor of an illusory future.â€ Like George Orwell, Fleming distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism, which Orwell defined as â€œdevotion to a particular place and a particular way of the life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.â€ Nationalism, of course, believes the exact opposite. The nationalist believes that one particular perspective is to be forced on everyone.
Although the conclusion as described by E. Michael Jones is not one I would subscibe to “Instead of telling his readers how to bring about â€œAn End to Evil,â€ Fleming is telling them that â€œEvil is a part of earthly experience, and it is not only unreasonable but unhealthy to think that it might be eradicated.â€…. as I am already fully sold out to the “Messianic” side, but it looks interesting to consider in explaining the modern position.