Takin' It To the Street

"You don't know me, but I'm you're brother
I was born here in this living hell
You don't know my kind in your world
Pretty soon the time will tell
You
Telling me the things you're going to do for me
I ain't blind, and I don't like what I think I see"

--- The Doobie Brothers

Released March 17, 1976, as the B Side of "For Someone Special"



With all travel still shut down indefinitely, yesterday I took Lesson 55 in "Great Ideas in Philosophy, 2nd Edition," which in the first edition ended with Four Theories of the Good Life.

Just to be clear, when I write about anything I've learned, my mind drifts to other concepts, usually related in at least a peripheral way, so I'm never simply regurgitating someone else's viewpoint.

What Makes a Problem "Moral" examined concepts of different philosophers throughout history on the subject of what makes something moral from a logical Western philosophical perspective as opposed to divinely-inspired Judeo-Christian perspectives of someone like Saint Thomas Aquinas?

In ancient Athens, where there certainly were brilliant minds contemplating what reality is as well as concepts like truth, justice and beauty, but slavery was nonetheless legal.  Slavery existed throughout the world, so it wasn't that Greece claimed exclusive ownership of this barbaric system.

It took over 2,000 years for Western Civilization to eliminate slavery, which still exists in some parts of Africa and Asia to this day.  Illicit sex trafficking is a form of slavery that still occasionally shows its ugly head in the Western World.

It seems reprehensible to Americans and Westerners in our modern age that such practices were ever considered "mainstream," but they were.  Why?



Regardless of outmoded beliefs of some greater good served by enslaving defeated armies over killing or imprisoning them, we now have an absolute modern ethos damning slavery as morally wrong.

Thinking about the recent case of Jeffrey Epstein, who acted as a pimp for the rich and famous, allegedly including many world leaders, his likely motivation was to elicit favors that made him a multi-millionaire power baron despite having no other discernible talents.  We might say considering our modern ethos, Epstein was morally wrong to a greater degree.

Public tears were not shed for Epstein personally when he mysteriously died while awaiting trial.  Demonstrators didn't take to the streets, although some wondered which rich and famous people might have paid to have Epstein killed before he could reveal all their dirty secrets in open court.

Is it morally wrong that we don't mourn Epstein's death?  He was, after all, a fellow human who died in police custody?

Even when we all agree something is morally wrong, however, it isn't wrong in the same way as saying 2 plus 2 equals 17 is wrong.  Representing that sum to be true in order to gain some form of advantage a la Bernie Madoff, however, would be morally wrong.

Ron Sadler, an old friend from my Golden West College days --- although to be clear I knew him since middle when he strayed from his neighborhood to mine to date Alice Qualls, who lived a couple of houses over from my good friend Chris --- has what I would call a moral belief that man-made global warming must be stopped, regardless of cost.

I enjoy pulling his chain, challenging him to explain the tenets of man-made climate change theory that seem to evade logical scrutiny, such as questionable statistical methodology used to gather data from which to extrapolate the widely cited "hockey stick" model.

As John Stuart Mills said, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

Ron driving an electric car is okay with me, as long as I don't have to pay for his electricity, but some might question the environmental impact of creating car batteries, generating electricity to charge them and long term consequences of disposing of those same batteries required.



He may have a problem with me taking "non-essential" flights to less-essential cruises, but as long as it is just his belief and he doesn't physically prohibit me from taking vacations, then he's entitled to his opinion.  In any case, I feel no moral qualms about taking a cruise, where I may actually come to discover why he feels the way he does.

I certainly encourage Ron and everyone else to do their best to live morally according to our best understanding of what is right, but we can see how "ought" and "is" may not be as clear cut as they appear to one viewpoint or another.

Admittedly, my sharpest memory from our friendship in college would seem to violate the John Stuart Mills principle quoted above.

On a bright, sunny day, Ron and I were driving to Huntington Beach in my Fiat 850 Spyder with the top down.

At the time I purchased that two-seat sports car, I hyped the environmental righteousness of getting over 30 miles to the gallon, but quite frankly my primary reasons to purchase that fun little car that were that it was a cool car and would be affordable to drive on my salary as a night janitor at Kaiser Medical Clinic in Harbor City.

Before leaving home, Sadler and I --- or was it just me? --- filled some Pic-n-Save squirt guns with water on that blazing hot day.

As we drove toward the beach, we would occasionally stop at a traffic signal or stop sign next to some nubile young ladies in swim suits, also doing what came naturally to Orange County kids on summer days.  Then, we would squirt them through their open windows or as they stood completely vulnerable next to the curb.

With today's cultural ethos, we would probably be widely condemned for such audacity in violating personal space, but as the saying goes, "You had to be there."  These California girls all laughed at our immature flirting, and some gave alluring winks as reward for our high jinks, but we just drove on to the seashore.

Had we gone after people with suits or used something to stain their clothes like paint, of course, that would have been wrong, but we looked for college girls ready for summer fun.  I don't recall anything in particular that happened once we arrived at the beach on that day, but every summer day at the beach was a blast.



On an entirely different topic of "ought" versus "is," was it wrong for music consumers to reject The Doobie Brothers' A side written and sung by Tiran Porter, a "black" American, in favor of the B side written and sung by "white" Brother, Michael McDonald?

Their singing and musical styles are so similar that on vinyl, I certainly had no idea what color either of them might be.  I doubt it mattered for anyone who bought that 45 because of the B side and made "Takin' It to the Streets" into a hit that has remained popular for over 44 years.

Beyond that, a philosophical argument might be made that just as we all perceive colors or tastes from unique perspectives and in a far greater spectrum of possibilities than just black or white, which in terms of actual skin color are never accurate, there are different shades of morality.

"For Someone Special" deals with the sad loss of a friend to drugs, or at least that's how I interpret it, so it certainly is a morality tale worthy of social consideration, one that might save a young person from poor life choices.  White Canadian Neil Young's whiny-voiced "Needle and the Damage Done," a song on the same topic, remains a favorite for many of us.  Is that wrong?

Perhaps the public chose "Takin' It to the Streets" over Porter's A side because people heard an anthem for social change to do the right thing as more powerful than Porter's individual struggle, which Young had compellingly written about earlier.

I personally like McDonald's song better because it's energizing to hear while I'm driving.  For the average listener, I'd venture that it's simply a catchier tune.  Plus, that saxophone solo blazes!

Whether you're socially conscious or not, it is a better song, right?



Looking at the news decades later, the relevance of the lyrics in that anthem jumps to the forefront.

Peaceful protesters "takin' it to the streets" believe themselves to be doing what they ought to do to bring about change that ought to happen.  Most see eliminating all death at the hands of police as highly moral.  They demand an end to police mistreatment of minority groups, which they perceive to be exclusively based on prejudice of officers.

Some want to eliminate cops altogether.  At a minimum, they want police budgets slashed.

As a national ethos, however, Democrats and Republicans both stand for equal justice regardless of race or creed.  Further, we almost universally concur that that this white cop who killed an unarmed black man is guilty of murder based on the video we have seen, and we reached that decision immediately, long before there were any demonstrations.

A cynic might say we reached this consensus before knowing the whole story, which from the defendant's perspective will make a fair trial impossible.  If he was black and not a cop, that type of prejudgment would be wrong, right? Are different standards based on skin color or occupation moral, or is that double-standard the definition of prejudice?

It seems the November elections will now be a referendum on whether Americans support police or believe as a nation we have evolved almost overnight into a country that no longer requires law enforcement to do what is right.

President Trump and Republicans in government continue to voice belief in law and order.

Just as conservatives say the crises of 2020 have shown the left to be who they are, Democrats will point to Trump telling Democrat governors to "dominate" the streets or look like "jerks" and say the he has proven to be the fascist they always knew he was.

Of course, the cities where both police killings tend to occur (including Mr. Floyd's death) and where riots have broken out are under Democrat control.  Those Democrat mayors were the ones who either called in the National Guard for assistance or, in the case of New York City, turned down federal policing assistance.

Washington, D.C., is a unique situation at the center of that tug of war, with a Democrat mayor but home of the President.  How we each view that particular drama depends on our own political if not moral views.

Democrats in office have chosen to make their stand...or kneels....with the protesters demanding diminished police powers.



I guess we'll see what the future holds together.

"Take this message to my brother
You will find him everywhere
Wherever people live together
Tied in poverty's despair
Oh, you
Telling me the things you're gonna do for me
I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see"