Transactional vs morality driven ... and which are you?

 

When I brought this topic to the group, I realized that the choice between morality and transactions is not actually binary, as you will soon see.  With few exceptions, none of us could be defined strictly as either/or and most human interaction is based in both.  First, let's focus on some more precise definitions so that we can work with clarity.

Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

The definition of transactional is something related to a process or other action. An example of transactional is the process to negotiate a contract between two people.

In America, these have become some very important understandings of interactions during a time of great potential for change, either to the beneficial or to the destructive.  That is coupled with extraordinary need brought on by a pandemic coupled with environmental crisis and very real threats to our democratic system.

Just as a fire is accelerated by gasoline, our social flames have been vastly accelerated by one Donald John Trump!  The following quote was in a HuffPost article this morning:

"Trump has been guided by a tried and tested method of manipulating 'weak-minded people' to his own advantage — by establishing a common enemy, telling simple stories 'with no regard for the truth,' attacking democratic institutions and the media, and cultivating a cult of personality."

One of the most common terms applied to Trump in analyses of his behavior is to describe him as someone virtually entirely transactional in his view of the world.  There is no moral dimension at all, for his actions he views as neither right nor wrong, but merely in terms of benefit or detriment to himself.  It is paired perfectly with his extreme narcissism.  Unfortunately, many of his followers have somehow fallen under his spell (and they are likely to vote) and many others are terrified of the idea of defying him (they who want to receive said votes) and still others have confused conservative principles with loyalty to party.  If Republicans are for Trump out of dalliance or fear, then he must by definition be conservative, dedicated to fiscal balance, believing in the wealthy creating opportunity for the poorer, representing strong family values and having total reverence to God, among others.  And, they've shown a miraculous capacity to ignore what is actually right in front of them.

So, why would someone accept such obvious deception?  Trump is on public record as uttering over 30,000 lies during his Presidency.  It's because they are ultimately driven by ideas of right and wrong in stark, inflexible terms.  To them, Liberal is another word for iniquity.  Gay is most decidedly not OK, because ancient texts they believe undistorted from the divine say it is an abomination.  They believe that the Caucasian race is not just superior, the paintings of their savior show him blue eyed and blonde.  The rich deserve all their wealth because they actually earned every bit of it.  It goes on and on.  But, the key to it is understanding that they are driven by the idea that this is right!

In truth, it makes them prey to the transactional rich.  They will stay with a belief even to their detriment.  The rich will stay with their self benefiting transactions, even if they are violations of people or the world.  Now, not all rich are this way and not all working class are naïve suckers, but the scales are often tipped on the social aggregate.  Neither are many of our essential institutions one dimensional.

Laws and law enforcement are essential in our understanding of the pathway to justice here.  Laws themselves are social contracts, the ultimate in transactional agreement.  But, the creation of those laws are not just transactional, nor are their interpretations by judges and juries.  A sense of justice requires a sense of right and wrong.  It applies in judgments in the courtroom and it applies in the judgments leading to actions on the street.  Ultimately, the disposition of justice is a transaction, the understanding of whether it is actually just is moral.

Military engagements, treaties, negotiations and settlements are all simply the same thing expanded to the international stage.  Diplomacy elevated to statesmanship is the art of blending the transactional with the moral in elegant motion.  War is its failure.  Subjugation is its failure.  Environmental destruction is its failure.

Humanity succeeds and fails in turn and the outcome of today's volatility will also certainly be a mix of success and failure.  Understanding of the dance of transactions and morality, the structural underpinnings of our efforts, is the responsibility of every individual in every national setting.  It is the difference between supporting the views of a Dwight Eisenhower or the views of a Donald Trump.  It is the difference between seeking a just world or naked power over others.

Let me step down from my soapbox now and encourage you to see what my fellow blog mates make of this topic at:

Ramana

Sanjana

Shackman