E.G.

The new Pope.

A lot of people are criticizing the new Pope for having been a member of the Hitler Youth.  I think there is very good evidence that his membership in that organization was non-blameworthy.  First of all, he was very young when he was a member; younger people are not to be held responsible for their actions in the same way that older people are.  Second, the evidence seems to show that he was not an especially enthusiastic member.  Third, he was probably, in some sense, "forced to" join; if he had refused to join, he or his family would probably have faced quite severe negative consequences.  And finally, my impression is that the routine activities of the Hitler Youth were not, on the whole, all that morally troubling.  Hitler Youths were, I think, indoctrinated into the Nazi worldview, which is bad; but I do not think they were ordinarily involved in doing wrong actions.  My understanding is that they were more likely to be found exercising or chanting slogans than (say) persecuting Jews or what-have-you.  None of this means, however, that having been a Hitler Youth cannot hurt one's ability to soundly arrive at correct moral judgments. 

Suppose a child is strapped to a chair and forced to listen to Jeffrey Dahmer argue that serial killing is permissible.  The child is not permitted to argue back.  In fact, the child is forced to pretend to agree with everything that is being said.  After a very long time -- say, 1000 hours -- the child is set free to go about his business.  We would not blame the child for what has just happened to him.  Indeed, we would feel overwhelming pity for the child.  Nevertheless, it's probable that by undergoing such an experience, the child's moral sensibilities will have been damaged.  If you wanted to get advice on how to resolve a tricky moral problem, for instance, you would prefer to get advice from someone who has not been subjected to this experience, than to get advice from someone who has been subjected to it, all else equal.

I'm guessing that a typical member of the Hitler Youth spent many hours listening to people argue that domination is a virtue, that the weak should be crushed by the strong, that anyone who was born Jewish is one of the "weak", etc.  And, like the child in the above example, a typical member of the Hitler Youth was probably expected to pretend to agree.  Probably, most of the people who were subjected to this experience are not to blame for having been subjected to it.  Nevertheless, this sort of experience is not the best way to prepare to give advice to people who are dealing with tricky moral problems.  But this is precisely what the new Pope will be doing.

I'm not saying that having been a member of the Hitler Youth should automatically disqualify you from dispensing moral advice.  I am quite sure that someone could be subjected to the experience of being a Hitler Youth and, in the end, become a morally exemplary person.  For all I know, the new Pope has done exactly that.

Governed by stars.

From CT:

Backword Dave notes, cogently:

I hate those in power. I look up, and others see the stars; I see the shit up our leader’s arses.

I actually think the star-metaphor is more apt.  A star is remote and gigantic.  It can affect you (as when, for instance, the sun gives you a sunburn), but you cannot affect it.  On the other hand, very few "arses" are remote or gigantic; you can easily affect someone's arse, e.g. by kicking it.  Looked at this way, Backword Dave's statement is actually kind of hopeful.  It expresses the sentiment that government is something bad, and corrupt; but it also expresses the sentiment that its corruption is something personal, local, and changeable by ordinary people.  Changing the government, the metaphor seems to suggest, is nothing more profound or impossible than wiping after a bowel movement.  Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.  The government is remote and gigantic; no one of us can affect its course.  One may as well try to stop the stars from twinkling.

Monasticism.

From this page:

Monasticism (from the Greek monos, meaning "single" or "alone") usually refers to the way of life--communitarian or solitary--adopted by those individuals, male or female, who have elected to pursue an ideal of perfection or a higher level of religious experience through leaving the world. Monastic orders historically have been organized around a rule or a teacher, the activities of the members being closely regulated in accordance with the rule adopted. The practice is ancient, having existed in India almost 10 centuries before Christ. It can be found in some form among most developed religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, the Sufi branch of Islam, and Christianity.

Apparently, almost all the world's religions have developed some sort of monastic institution.  Why is this?  Here's a simple theory: Perhaps these religions were meeting a felt need.  Maybe a certain percentage of people, within any given society, are simply best-suited to a life of poverty, chastity, and retreat from society.  Such people make good monks, but probably turn out to be rotten coworkers, rotten parents, rotten drinking buddies, and/or rotten spouses.  If so, then monasteries perform a very simple function in society: Monasteries provide these monastically-inclined people with a place to live the sort of life to which they are best-suited.

If every society contains some such people, then our own society must contain some of them.  But unlike most societies throughout history, our society no longer provides any sort of monastic institution to accommodate their needs.  Catholics, of course, can join the priesthood, but my understanding is that nowadays, being a Catholic priest almost invariably means being assigned to a parish, and thereby being "immersed in the world": Shaking hands after Mass on Sundays, going to church socials, organizing charity raffles, etc.  Protestants, I would guess, provide their clergy even fewer opportunities for monasticism than Catholics do.  And of course, if you are not religious, then your chances of living a monastic life are dimmer still.

Some people go off to live by themselves as hermits in some place like Montana.  Every now and then, one of these people blows a gasket and does something weird or horrible, like sending bombs through the mail.  I suspect that had they been born 500 years ago, the Montanan hermits of the world would probably have become monks instead.  They might have been happier that way.