Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Ethics... for the good times

Ethics for the good time do not require as many hard decisions. The decisions usually do not hurt much, so as a result, they are easier to make. Problems arise when there are no good choices, as in the case of Saskatchewan Stanley. 

Consider the coming problem of derivative of climate change, the rise in Co2 level. Ultimately the correct answer is that the earth cannot handle more than about 4 billion people, and we are approaching 8 billion. Perhaps that 4 billion can be increased if we start some organic form of carbon capture, shallow unpreserved burial or sky burial, or a mound burial culture, may be one of the many partial solutions. A whole lot less children. Perhaps less active medical care. Perhaps allow the sick to die naturally. Allow natural death, as opposed to do not resuscitate. AND DNR.

So who will have the political will to actively consider such public policy? Consider the Co2 rise problem. We humans and our plants and animals now produce something like 98 percent of all the organic carbon dioxide production, and almost all of the non-organic Co2 production. Our plants also use Co2 some of the time, and that can be increased considerably in some areas. Farm land capture of Co2 may be the most effective means of reducing Co2, but conservation is still required. This will require on land water capture as well.

If equality and justice is taken as the foundation of ethics, then big changes in lifestyle must also occur for the rich, with their big well heated houses with nobody living in it, or one or two people in five or six thousand square feet. This suggests that there should be rationing of carbon products, rationed by need, not our ability to buy.

There is always the possibility of new technology, which must be considered, but that also cannot be counted on.

So when things are going wrong, and we are being violated, what is the right action? Should we shoot in self defense, property defense or let them steal? It is noted that in the original native cultures, it was not wrong to take from others when you were in need.

The philosophers cannot agree on what the foundation of ethics is. It is not the choice of bad verses good, not as MacQuirrie suggests right and wrong, but the shotgun clause. One sets the price, the other chooses buy or sell, usually for share prices of business in dissolution or the value of common assets in divorce. There is nothing better for selecting ethics. It must be agreeable to both sides.

So what am I saying? we must be both willing to do and be done to, and not do and not being done to. The golden law in reverse and in the negative, and all must be enlightened and equal else all is failure.

The Saskatchewan natives are getting uppity, and that will need to be addressed. Europe is being taken over with Muslim hoards, Canada is not far behind. Expect unrest in countries of two diverse cultures. I am glad that I am old, and lived at the peak of civilization. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.


Monday, February 12, 2018

social ethics / social responsiblity

There was a group discussion which this is the proposed topic.
Social Responsibility
  • Secular ethics: personal responsibility for maintaining a healthy society; rational, secure, cooperative, productive educated society; helping the defenseless; volunteering; enrichment; financial support
One of this group tried to write what he planned to be a secular ethics code that the whole earth could adopt. Say ego much.

So now that we know the topic, we need to consider some of the group assertions of the lead person:
there is one that is not obvious to me, that we can tell the difference between right and wrong by rational thought and individual consciences. The problem is that individual conscience is developed mainly from the nurture side, not nature side. It is trained in. That makes right and wrong at the same level as good and bad. Muslims think it is right to remove male temptation by putting a bag over the women. Somewhere in the middle is likely correct; women should dress modestly, without there nipples sticking out, and no cleavage, when working in mixed population. It is "just wrong" to adverse unavailable merchandise, in my opinion. Others do not think so. Oh well, it is not my problem anymore, I am beyond caring.
There is no defined social contract, no definition of what a healthy society is, or what is required.

Rational thinking is not a part of much of society, neither is rational decision making. Most is made at an emotional level.

I worked, and pay and paid taxes. As the taxes include a social safety net, for those who choose to use it, it is my contention that any moral responsible has been met. Our social contract is adequate, if not excessive in many areas. The government chooses to waste money many ways, like support of enviable fetuses, where a 32? weeks would be a more reasonable point to start. The government starts new programs, without consideration of what has been spent on alternatives, without allowing aging out to occur, or gold plating and abandoning, high cost temporary construction, and numerous goofy plans.  

Beyond that I also am an volunteer archery coach, for those who choose to try CRAC, so I  feel that I met my social obligations. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.   

Sunday, February 11, 2018

depends on what we believe

Shape Climate Change Beliefs

by Alicia Capetillo

While scientists and environmentalists scratch their heads at the incredulity of climate change skeptics, it turns out that one's willingness to believe in climate change hinges on that person's world view. According to social scientists, people's beliefs are more strongly shaped and influenced by cultural values than concrete evidence.A story on NPR details the findings of the Cultural Cognition Project, which studies how people's perception of the world affects their beliefs about matters of fact. According to Don Braman, a social scientist and lawyer who works with the project, participants in experiments split into two groups: individualists, who accept new technology, authority, and free enterprise; and communitarians, who are apprehensive of authority or commerce and industry. Braman says that when given the same set of facts for a range of topics, the two groups "start to polarize as soon as you start to describe the potential benefits and harms."In the end, people are more willing to be open-minded if the potential benefits are consistent with their already established point of view. Thus, if you tell an individualist that global warming can be solved by regulating industrial pollution, he or she will reject its existence; but tell that same individualist that the solution is nuclear power and he or she will suddenly see the problem as a real one.Another mitigating factor at play is the "messenger effect," meaning people are more likely to listen and accept facts if they come from people with similar worldviews. When data comes from a mouthpiece people can relate to, the protective walls come down and any perceived threat to their values decreases.In an article in Nature, Dan Kahan, another scholar involved with the project, explains that there are a few potential solutions to combat what they call "protective cognition," but the best technique is simply in the presentation. He writes, "We need to learn more about how to present information in forms that are agreeable to culturally diverse groups, and how to structure debate so that it avoids cultural polarization." Until news networks and scientists manage to somehow expunge people's rooted beliefs, you can continue to share pages of facts and figures, but if the issue proves a threat to social relationships with close peers, you might as well be reading to the wall.Photo via iStockphoto
So we are that easy to be influenced, not by truth but by what we believe,

Saturday, February 3, 2018

how little do we need

The concepts of gods is bullshit, but religions are bullshit and damaging. Religions should be outlawed. It is all these false concepts that cause people to abuse children, to believe false teachings, and support the leaders. I could give examples... of the religious telling there followers that "Jesus will protect you from the flu." Where was your Jesus in 1918? And from floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Bullshit religions. Life includes pain, delusions, disappointment, failures, and in the end death. Buddha was right. Life is unsatisfactory in many ways.

The cause of our suffering is our expectations of how life could be, our delusions. Reality is ugly, but we do not want to accept that, we wish to experience only the good. But we experience all of life, including the unsatisfactory parts. Much of the ugly is brought about by other people, and that is just a fact of life. We all know bigots, and other vial and unpleasant people, hell, we may at times be those people. Much of this behavior is brought about by our beliefs. Oh well, in the end we just die anyway.

So if we let go of the desires, of the delusions, of the things, how little do we need?

Monday, January 29, 2018

Odd Concepts

Now here is a guy who seems to think that only Christians can behave as decent humans.

And then there the is the Muslim concept of controlling women. Like that was even possible. Can you verbally herd cats?

Then there is the christian "free will", which truly is ludicrous. We can chose between the available and known options. If we do not know that that choice even exists, or is possible, it is not a choice. If it is at the onset an obviously bad choice, it is not a real choice. If we are unable to do what look like a choice, but we are unable to do it, how can it be a choice.

This nut thinks religion is the salvation of trouble.   Pythagoras reminds us we can chose the natural way or the supernatural way. The supernatural can give us relief until we die, but the natural way can fix the problem but will hurt more. 

All humans have alturism and social need, is one more piece of bullshit. Abuse can remove altruism, it can even create introverts, hermits, isolationists. Avoiding people is a natural protection method for the abused and harassed people. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway. But what do I know?

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Ethics Important, Religion not so much

So even the Dalai Lama agrees, Ethics are more important than religion. So what about those things that religion can supply, that we give up when we become atheist? Social network? Well, some of us never really had those in religion much anyway.

We do not give up ethics, and in most cases we become more ethical. We become responsible for our own action, our own ethics, and morals. We lose the scrapegoats. We become responsible for all our actions. Ethics is the foundation for the remainder of our lives and by extension our morals. We do give up one source of motivation, but only duty based motivation, to follow the ethics and other behavior, that is the "because god said so" claim. Authority motivation, is what it is, but for some things it is not much good anyway. It is the slave-master relationship.

Many of us who become atheist,did so gradually not over night, it is a gradual growth away from any reliance to total rejection of any god concept. We typically do not get to the clear fork, clear dichotomy, like Pythagoras "live by nature or supernatural" until later. In hindsight, it is a clear choice, and decision.

Along the way we need to realize that there are many different schemes of motivation for ethics. The Stoics used duty to the city state, nation for military service and following of city laws, and virtue ethics for personnel life. Set out the characteristics that you wish to become, and work toward that end. Toward eudaimonia, that word with no English counter, pleasure satisfaction flourishing joy, the result of serotonin mainly. Virtue ethics still leaves the choice of which virtue to follow up to the individual, to a large degree. Following virtue ethics gives us the ability to think that "if there was wrong done, it was not by me."

Cultures utilize the technology that we have and that is limited to that which we can afford or are able to provide. With the great disparity that we have there is tremendous temptation, and in some respects, it is the opulence that creates the greed that drives much theft. It is the lack of sexual release that drives the lust that drives the sexual trial closing that causes the current environment of common male lust. Frequently the females know no boundaries, and this may create some of the problems to start with, aka flirting without any intention of allowing completion, baiting the trap, but it is just a trap that will do us damage. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway. But it is up to our ethics to keep us out of such traps.

Monday, January 15, 2018

A Spade is a Specific type of Shovel

Freedom of Speech, verses Prejudices

So how much freedom of speech do we have in Canada? The US claims freedom of speech, but you cannot call a spade a spade. Germany has a "no hate speech" law, but do as they like, but not in the press, just like here. Here in the blog world, we can get away with more as some of us just delete or never allow the blow back to stick. Spam filters or black comment processes have there purposes. Just like black hole warranty, the product never comes back. 

Canada is trying to be an open culture, not prejudiced against any identifiable group except the obese, homeless, and the bearded. Oh, well, that is the formal position anyway. Individuals have their own views, many of which are far below what the government would like to see. Hiring practices are definitely prejudiced in many companies; others are culturally selective. There are companies that are Punjab run and staffed, Jewish run and staffed, Korean staffed, and many more. There is not much of an employment issue with natives that I have seen, many of them cannot hold a job for long except on the reserves.

So here in Canada, we have formal government standards, informal company standards, and private opinion on many subjects, and these are not the same. It is more about not transgressing any laws that the laws reflecting the true belief of the population. Our cultural superego, ego, and id do not match with reality, producing different results depending on the exposure conditions. We are a nation of great diversity, and opinions differ depending on what we think is or should be the desired objective. We are publicly inclusive and privately exclusive. Not a good mix. This effects what we say, and what we communicate to others, producing a selective truth in the media.

So the government sets out a vision, and laws to support that vision follow. We citizens do what we do, and occasionally the law alters our behavior, after it catches and prosecutes us. Oh well.

I was involved in the investigation of a fatality event of a sewer contractor. As soon as the site was released, the contractor was back in business under a different name, operating the same unsafe way as before. The hoe operator, who was the one man company, was fined a few thousand, and everything carried on as before, unsafely. The name of the trench victim was never made public while the event was in the news. I never did here the name of the fellow, only that he was day labor, and this is Canada, the land of the free, or so the song says.