Character Revisted: JFK the Individual American – President

The question of character is brought to my attention again. The first time it was May 2010, of which I stated:

“The question of character is brought to my attention, and I stumble to find significant reference. My stumbling is not due to poor character, rather an affirmation of individualism. As an American, we have been condition to a set of empowering words: Liberty, Individualism, Freedom, Natural Right, Open Society and Freedom of existence. It goes without stating that all of these words detail the American archetype. A closer look at the originators of these terms provides a clearer perspective, of the double sword nature of these terms, hence characteristics.

One of the primary contributors of this self liberating orientation was Thomas Hobbes. Ironically Hobbes expressed the notion of “natural rights”, but advocated total sovereignty control. The absolute control Hobbes advocated was in understanding, that if each individual has a natural right to all of the environment around them, then each has an equal right to protect the possessions which each accumulated, in whatever manner they found fit. The phase “Dog Eat Dog world” is an understatement, referring to Hobbes. In order to have PEACE and CIVILITY among the society, order had to be established. This order is in actuality a waiver of one’s individual rights, to the collective effort. ” For his wit and expressive ideology, Thomas Hobbes was convicted by King Charles II. He was prohibited to any further publishing. His will to pursue happiness was removed from him. It was King Charles II’s active attempt to end all ATHEISM within England, and thus prohibited Hobbes future publishing. And yet his character strength in him and those who peered through the hypocritical judgment of Parliament and King Charles II.

The reason character come into question again; is because I am reading “A Question of Character: A Life Story of John F. Kennedy” by Thomas C. Reeves. From the reading, several individuals (Americans) with the fully right of expression, conclude from their perception of the late president, opinions that seem to lace together a defined character of JFK. Depending on who and what motive of intent, these opinions can be linked with others of a similar nature, by which the late president seems rather non-heroic and manipulative. Reeves provides detailing statements from socialite, Mary Pinchot Meyers, James Angleton and Tom Bradlee, as to the drug usage of John F. Kennedy in the White House. According to these recollections, Kennedy used marijuana, cocaine, hashish and acid. However these recollections can not attest to the great job the late president performed and his commitment to his job as leader of the free word.

Reeves also states that, Victor Lasky (journalist) stated John F. Kennedy as “cold, calculating, vain, superficial, and morally obtuse (pg. 3). Yet what Lasky fails to define, are the circumstances by which those characteristics were ascribed. How could a loving/caring father also be cold and morally obtuse? Well if the father portion of JFK’s total Biopsychosocial-Sprititual essence was removed. And only the Democratic, Civil Rights advocator portions of his political agenda was the circumstance, then perhaps it would be correct to use such words.

The point of this is to empower all individuals as to the complete essences of an individual and not just the critics and opinions of a few, who will by nature of our American existence: have negative factors to contribute to another. A person has a private life, by which the pursuit of it is a right as our American liberty dictates. The public life of a person is sure to be infused with professional ethics, codes of conduct, laws and simple social politeness. However should a person be judged by their private life essences, especially if they go beyond the normal standard to insure that these private passions do not interfere with their public life.

Character is such an integral factor of our self esteem as it is crashed against the Social Constructed Reality. I firmly believe all individuals need to have their FULL Biopsychosocial Spiritual essence review before any one judge can conclude their fate. Because where men create fate, God creates FAITH!

Ethical Duty with Social Professions

This was a class assignment, focusing on ethics and the duty of attending to professional codes of conduct. This is supplement data regarding prior post: Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect.

Author: Paul Goree Posted Date: November 14, 2012 4:05 AM Status: Published

The questions I am responding to for this week’s post are: 1.) What guidelines does your profession give you around this idea of “duty to intervene”?

1.) When considering the duty of intervention within the profession of Social Worker, the NASW provides the guidelines by which accepted conduct is to be performed. In section 6.01 of the NASW provides the core of expected duty: “social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels and the development of people, their communities and their environments.” More importantly in regards to intervention, section 6.03 Public Emergencies, states: “Social workers should provide appropriate profession services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible.” Other aspects of NASW provide the ethical duty of social workers to clients, Section 1: and to the profession itself, in Section 4. (2012, NASW) In general I think the duty of social workers are, positive duties, which are perfect duties, and have a general requirement to them, in that we attend to them on the mere fact that human beings are involved (I would include animals and the environment also).

Merriam-Webster, defines duty as:

something that is done as part of a job. : something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it.

It could be consider that within some professions, a moral obligation is enacted to protect the interest of the profession and prospective clients. However that is hard for me to determine at a total TRUTH, considering unethical decisions of two social services professionals: portrayed in prior post, Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect. Considering a Justice Approach to an ethical circumstance let’s assume possible conditions, whereby a duty can be altered, not attended to or implemented but not enforced or detailed with procedural operational rules.

Off the top of my head, I would state, that there are no condition by which professional code of ethics can be unattended. I want to qualify this to the structure of public institutions, administering public services (mental, health, economical, employment, education, etc.). There may be instances (as history has proven), where by an individual within a society/social setting (macro) avoids, alters, neglects or protest against ethic civil duties or obligations (law). These instances are supported by our American ideology of Liberty, and thus can be subjective as to their occurrence. In these instances coalitions form and ethic civil codes are put to the people for legislations, which is the best thing about Democracy.

However within public institutions, the realm of liberty is limited by the regulations which serve to protect the public. Those regulations become ethical code of conduct by which all professional within that profession accept as part of their career intent. So what would be a fictitious circumstance by which a professional would risk their career by neglecting their professional ethical duty?

Much has been written and expose on corruption and it is a factor by which the minute affects the majority negatively. I honestly would like to believe that within the social service profession, the sincere intent of the endeavor limits the possibility of corruption through the means of neglect. That would be, intentional neglect! Why would a professional social service case manager, intentional neglect a client? Is it a continued instance based upon clients ethnic political factors? Is it sub-interest conflict? Is it politically motivated?

At one time in our history, thoughts and legislation was enacted by which the slaughtering of the American Buffalo resulted. Where those actions ethnically motivated? Some look to the Dawes Act as evidence; while some like, Richard McCormick looked towards civil resolutions (H.R. 157). I could consider professional neglect as being similar to latent motives of the Dawes Act. Or I could consider those professional neglected codes to be motivation, resulting in actions pursued by R.McCormick. So until a motive is established. I will continue to follow through with this blog: Person – Environment: Case Worker Neglect. When individuals protest and break legal civil codes, their intent and actions more likely than not, result in revised legislation ( 18th amendment/ 21st amendment). When professional social service persons violate ethical codes of conduct, their intended actions could result in negative social factors that propel rioting. Example social gentrification.