Me, Too; Not, You. Or, the Exceptional Principle. - Stand for America®

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

Zegarelli’s article walks a methodical line through moral reasoning and principle analysis, ultimately demonstrating how exceptions undermine the strength of a principle. His pedagogical method mirrors the Socratic style: methodically question assumptions to expose inconsistencies, hypocrisies, or superficial reasoning….The Weak vs. Strong Principle framework is one of Zegarelli’s most powerful applied logic tools: Universally usable across ethics, law, leadership, politics. [AI Review]

George Washington was a killer. Thomas Jefferson was a killer. Abraham Lincoln was a killer, and Teddy Roosevelt was a killer. Revered men, yes, but all killers, one way or another. All those men made a conscious choice to kill within the scope of their power.

Now, the common retort to that assertion—often stated with indignance—is that those great men killed for a good reason. So be it as to cause, but that does change the effect. Things and reasons for things are not the same thing. It would be illogically foolish to think that the good reason a bug got into the framework of our house has therefore nullified the fact that a bug has gotten into the framework of our house.

Jesus was a killer, too. And, so was Gandhi a killer. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, [ONE: 526; T5:39; L6:29], but he apparently killed fish to eat. Gandhi apparently did not eat dead animals, but he did apparently kill plants. Therefore, both men killed living things, or at least consciously enjoyed the result. You’re probably a killer, too, and so am I—one way or another.

What we do is a matter of our personal belief system—our mental framework developed over time, by education and experience, also known as our principles. Once we establish a principle, it is a rule of our personal game in life. If we violate the principle, often by a failure of required discipline, we are guilty of cheating in the game, understanding, of course, that only we may know it. Sometimes, we expect others to follow the same principles as we have for ourselves, which may or may not occur, to our frustration.

Some basic principles are required by society; to wit: once a client of mine had an employee who was caught embezzling. When the employee was asked why he embezzled, he responded that he was not paid highly enough. Society said his personal principles were lower than required by society, and the thief was convicted. Indeed, some people’s personal principles are based upon a lower standard than required by society, and some people’s principles are a based upon a higher standard than required by society.

In the above statements about Jesus and Gandhi, we can perhaps write the rules as follows: for Jesus, “Do not kill living things, except non-human beings for sustenance.“ Or, Gandhi’s, “Do not kill living things, except non-animals for sustenance.“ The scope of Gandhi’s principle exceeds the scope of Jesus’s principle, but that fact is not a formulaic consideration.

As to evaluating principles formulaically, we can coin these two principles, as stated, as “Weak Principles,” because the general rule of the principle has at least one exception. The scope of the principle is a different thing. The more exceptions to the general rule of the principle, the weaker the principle. Weak Principles tend to beg for more exceptions, getting weaker.

Now, with principles, it tends to be better to have a principle that does not have exceptions, because the rule framework is not eaten away with weakening holes. To remove the exception, the principle must be “tiered-up” to a more general rule. That is, to try to find a common theme of principle that allows it to be articulated without an exception.

For Jesus’s principle, rather than state it as, “Do not killing living things, except…“ it can be re-framed universally as, “Do not kill human beings.“ Or, for Gandhi, “Do not kill animals“ (which includes human beings). These rules may be coined as “Strong Principles,” because they are articulated without exceptions. In these cases, the Weak Principles are able to be re-framed as Strong Principles, but that’s not always the case.

Let’s say someone who exists in the political arena is a Christian Conservative. Being a Christian, the Strong Principle is, such as Jesus taught, “Do not kill human beings,” but this tends to acquire specie-based implementation exceptions, often stated in the vernacular as, “Do not kill human beings, except if it is a Mexican running across the border.“ Or, “Do not kill human beings, except if the person requires the death penalty.“ Or, “Do not kill human beings, except if the unborn child is the result of rape or incest.“

Some Christians keep Jesus’s Strong Principle strong, but others, in the cases stated, turn the Strong Principle into a Weak Principle by exceptions. Then, for example, on the Liberal side, the Strong Principle might be weakened, again stated in the vernacular as, “Do not kill human beings (or terminate the potentiate of human life), except if the mother decides to do it during a certain period of pregnancy.“ Indeed, sometimes Conservatives and Liberals share the reduction of a Strong Principle into a Weak Principle, such as, “Do not kill human beings, except in self-defense.“ Or, “Do not kill human beings, except if it is a matter of war to protect national interests.“ (I note that we are evaluating the formula of principles, not judging their substance or perceived righteousness, as such.)

Now, the goal is to tier-up the Weak Principle into a Strong Principle, if possible.

However, it may not be possible, because, however re-stated, there is still a condition on the general rule by implication, even if not framed as such. For example, “Do not kill a human being who has not made a choice to act in some unpermitted way.“ This is perhaps more abstract, but is still a Weak Principle with an implied condition. It is just more subtle.

Principles should be consistent in application, or at least harmonized by a greater principle. There is a great scene in the Game of Thrones where Jamie Lannister expounds upon competing principles that have not been harmonized. [MUID64X]

The reason why it is important to assess whether a principle is a Strong Principle or a Weak Principle—or a Weak Principle that can or cannot be re-articulated as a Strong Principle—is because it exposes for us whether or the extent to which there are contradicting exceptions, with each exception exposing a type of hypocrisy.

The greater the number of exceptions, the greater the hypocrisy.

Jesus exposed hypocrisy, and so did, for example, Socrates, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Justice John Harlan. Yes, such as nature often dictates, Jesus killed a fish to sustain a life. Pontius Pilate killed Jesus to sustain a job. Different principles, different exceptions.

Now, let us review principles in the context of one of the American social movements, being, for example, the movement for racial equality before the law.

On the one hand, if being in a minority itself is the principle of causation for protest, it would be generally applied to all rights of minorities, irrespective of the classification of the minority.

However, on the other hand, if the principle of causation for protest is not generally applied as a principle for all minorities of any classification, then it is simply the segregated cause for one racial minority. That is, for example, a man of color who fights for minority rights, but does not fight for the rights of atheists, Muslims or Jews, would not be fighting for minority rights, but rather for particular racial rights that are only incidentally in a minority, which is a significant difference and deprecation of formulaic principle.

A Strong Principle that is wholly American is, “I fight for all minority rights.” A Weak Principle is, “I fight for minority rights, except for atheists, Muslims, Jews…“

In America, the Bill of Rights protects justice for all minorities—all minorities, not some minorities—and any true champion of freedom, liberty and justice for all will not pick and choose.

A hypocrite fights for a particular minority, under the guise of minority rights, with the principle of minority rights only being incidental. A champion of minority rights fights for the principle of minority rights, with the particular minority being incidental.

The Bill of Rights is a Strong Principle and we must be vigilant as to if, when, or ever, it should be made into a Weak Principle.

[MUID86X] – Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Game of Thrones [MUID64X] – So Many Vows

From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. ~ Justice John Harlan

Let them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch…Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You make offerings of mint, rue, dill, cumin, and of every garden herb, and have neglected the more important things of the law: judgment and mercy, fidelity and love for God. But you should have done the offerings without neglecting the others. Blind guides, you strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! ~ Jesus

And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise….And then those who are examined, instead of being angry with themselves, are angry with me!…If you think that by killing men you can prevent someone from censuring your evil lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable. The easiest and the noblest way is not to be disabling others, but to be improving yourselves. ~ Socrates

ChatGPT Review

1. Summary and Core Structure

Zegarelli’s article walks a methodical line through moral reasoning and principle analysis, ultimately demonstrating how exceptions undermine the strength of a principle. His pedagogical method mirrors the Socratic style: methodically question assumptions to expose inconsistencies, hypocrisies, or superficial reasoning.

Opening Thesis: Revered historical figures (Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi, Jesus) were “killers” if measured by absolute standards—pointing out the difficulty of holding pure moral lines.
Framework Introduced:
- Weak Principles — those which have exceptions.
- Strong Principles — those which have no exceptions.
Application: Religious, political, and social doctrines are analyzed through the lens of this framework.
Case Study: Application to minority rights in America: a true commitment to minority rights must be consistent across all minorities.
Conclusion: A call for consistency, honesty, and intellectual humility in holding and applying principles.

2. Ethos: What Ethos Is Conveyed?

Zegarelli’s ethos here is a combination of:

Philosophical Rigor: He places himself alongside Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., and Justice John Harlan—not to claim parity in greatness, but in method: exposing contradictions.
Moral Agnosticism: He abstains from labeling particular exceptions as good or bad, right or wrong. Instead, he focuses on internal coherence of principles, not their outcome or popularity.
Critical Realism: While he acknowledges human beings inevitably kill (whether fish or plants), he demands that the formulation of principles stay intellectually honest and not hide behind comforting exceptions.
Constitutional Patriotism: He weaves the American Bill of Rights into his framework as a Strong Principle—one that guarantees rights to all minorities, without exceptions, presenting it as a civic ideal.

Ethical Posture: Zegarelli is arguing for an uncompromised integrity of thought and principle, not for perfect behavior—which is crucial and subtle.

The Stand for America® Ethos

Zegarelli places the Bill of Rights at the center of American civic virtue:
- Not as a mutable document of selective protections
- But as a Strong Principle requiring vigilance against exception-making (political or cultural).
Stand for America® is fundamentally an ethos of disciplined principle, not partisan allegiance.

Core virtues promoted:

Integrity of thought
Harmonization of principles
Vigilance against hypocrisy
Non-selective application of rights

— Similar to Zegarelli’s teachings on linguistic precision in They Entered the Building, but Only One Went In.

Connection: The Woman Wins, The Fox Without a Tail, Justification: The Facts Don’t Matter.

3. Pedagogical Strategy: How Is the Teaching Delivered?

Zegarelli’s teaching method is:

Analogical: Starts with an unsettling analogy (“everyone is a killer”) to break comfort zones.
Definition-Centric: Introduces precise distinctions (Strong vs. Weak Principles) to give readers new tools to think with.
Progressive Layering: Moves from examples (historical figures), to definition (principles), to application (racial minority rights), to grand political ideals (Bill of Rights).
Neutral Stance: Avoids alienating the reader with moralistic preaching; focuses on logical coherence rather than emotional appeal.
Authority Referencing: Relies on heavyweight references (MLK Jr., Justice Harlan, Jesus, Socrates) to lend weight and demonstrate historical lineage.
Self-Reflective Challenge: Provokes the reader to self-apply the test: Are my principles strong or weak? Where are my hypocrisies?

Pedagogically, this is Socratic-critical: destabilize assumptions → reconstruct on firmer ground. Connects to Zegarelli’s broader theme of discipline of integrity over performative morality.
— Seen in Empathy: Blessing or Curse? and The Master and the Turtle.

Pedagogical aim:
Instill disciplined mental hygiene—consistent with The Reflective Contemplative Dwelling Mind.

4. Deep Analysis: Critical Takeaways

A. Strong vs. Weak Principles: A Formulaic Lens

Zegarelli’s analysis suggests that the more a principle is riddled with exceptions, the less it can be trusted to withstand scrutiny or guide action reliably. In logic, this maps to consistency and universality:

Strong Principle: Universal, no exceptions. (e.g., “Do not kill human beings.”)
Weak Principle: Particular, exception-riddled. (e.g., “Do not kill human beings, except…”)

Observation: The real world often demands exceptions for practical survival (self-defense, war). Zegarelli implicitly shows that practicalities erode purity but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the erosion.

Parallel concept: Doctrine of Possible Potentiality → once exception-based reasoning enters, slippery rationalization follows.

B. Hypocrisy and Self-Deception

Hypocrisy arises when we:

Formulate a Strong Principle.
Allow ad hoc exceptions.
Pretend the principle remains strong.

His method does not attack exceptions per se, but the self-deception involved in pretending the principle hasn’t been weakened.

Observation: This reminds us of MLK’s insistence on integrity of justice—justice for all, not some.

Socratic lineage:

Sorry, Socrates → the very method Socrates used in Athens: asking questions to expose unstated exceptions → hence, false wisdom.

C. Social Application: Minority Rights

The pivot to minority rights is astute:

True principle: Fight for all minority rights.
Fake principle: Fight for some minority rights (racial minorities) but not others (religious minorities).

Zegarelli diagnoses a common moral failing: tribalism disguised as principle. When activism only defends your group, it’s self-interest cloaked in universal rhetoric.

5. Thoughts and Conclusions

A. Intellectual Integrity Over Comfort

Zegarelli demands rigor over convenience. If your principle cannot withstand a no-exceptions rule, acknowledge it. Don’t disguise self-interest or convenience as principle.

Conclusion: Intellectual honesty demands either holding a strong principle or openly acknowledging the exceptions without hiding behind pretense.

B. Realism About Human Nature

The “killer” analogy forces us to admit: we are already flawed actors. Instead of denying our flaws, we should structure our principles in a way that is resilient to them.

Conclusion: Perfection isn’t the goal; coherent self-awareness is.

C. Philosophical Contribution

The Weak vs. Strong Principle framework is one of Zegarelli’s most powerful applied logic tools:
- Universally usable across ethics, law, leadership, politics.

D. Integration into the Broader Zegarelli Corpus

Direct thematic links to:

The Doctrine of the Infant Soldier (training principle-consistent adults)
Holmes and His Imbeciles (testing selective application of rights)
The Pledge (testing allegiance to principle, not exception-driven patriotism)
The Master and the Turtle (discipline over performative appearances)

6. FINAL SUMMARY TAKE-AWAY

“Me Too, Not You” is:
✅ A logic primer on principles and hypocrisy
✅ A civic warning about the erosion of rights by exceptions
✅ A personal ethics exercise for disciplined moral clarity
✅ An applied Socratic method in modern cultural discourse

20250530.4o

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/me-too-you-exceptional-principle-stand-america-gregg-zegarelli-esq-

This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/logic-and-induction/me-too-not-you-or-the-exceptional-principle-stand-for-america/

Related Articles:

Entire Article Index

Stand for America® is a series of publications written by Gregg Zegarelli intersecting philosophy and traditional American values published by Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group. Printed or reprinted with permission.

GRZ83.20250530 GRZUID83

TEV Law Group. Legal services for American entrepreneurs: Stand for America®

We Represent the Entrepreneurial Spirit.®

Me, Too; Not, You. Or, the Exceptional Principle. – Stand for America®