Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:53pm:


That's because we're discussing waffleology.

Risk is relevant to ethics though.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 5:58pm:



Surely the basis for 'Ranking Ethics' must be based in the 'real world'.
And be based on, effectively, some form of real world 'feed back loop', which would enable an 'observer', to measure the [actual] consequences of [human] actions?
And which also have a bearing on the motives for particular human actions, choices ?


e.g.
Sorta what like God, is said to be doing, with us [mankind].

I refer you to the parable of Jesus, about the wheat and the tares.

Matthew 13:24
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.



I know that i have introduced a 'religious' aspect to this discussion.
And if some of you see that as a diversion, i'm sorry.

But i am interested in meditating upon what we would term, human motives, and human ethics.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:47pm:



About half the square of the radius x PI + the square root of the circumferance/3.

OR 6 X 9 = 42.

Quote:

(Adolf Hitler)

A good example of harvesting the Tares first. 6 million tares in fact.  

Equal rights to all wheat. Tares don't even warrant mention.  

Impeccable ethics. Jolly good Christian gentleman.

Quote:


Indeed.

Quote:


Quote:

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Wonderful example of ethics and intent.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:


That is your opinion.

+++
IMO, there is probably nothing more unethical in the world today, than the 'humanist' worldview, and those who promote so called liberal 'ethics'.

IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil.

The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned.
Why is that?

Just take a moment, and look at the total moral mess the Western world is in today.
IMO, this is the consequence largely, of the influence of 'academics' and godless social 'theorists'!
IMO, almost all of the 'humanist', and social engineering type areas of academia, are clearly, divorced from reality.
They are living in a la-la-land, and are unethically ignoring the consequences of their own mistaken social experiments.
They are engrossed in a politically correct idiocy, which is a denial of the real world consequences of their own moral 'inadequacy'.
i.e.
These people who promote 'humanist values' are totally, morally corrupt, and they seem to exhibit a hatred for truth.
And why?
Because the truth confronts and exposes the error of their claptrap [<--- that's a technical term] social theories.

Humanist, and liberal ethics seem embrace an idea, and want to teach us, that man is naturally good.

Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and to reject what is evil.
Today, they and we, are taught that, essentially, good and evil do not exist.
And we are taught that all people are equally like us.
Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'.
And we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and 'racist'.

IMO, refusing to condemn the wicked, so as to 'avoid conflict', and so as to promote 'social harmony', is not an ethical position.
It is idiocy.

IMO, 'humanism', teaches mankind, to abandon all spiritual discernment.
IMO, such a position, teaches mankind, to embrace an empty, worldly, 'humanist' 'value' system, a 'religion', a political system, which uses the authority of a false 'righteousness', to rule over a 'blind', worldly directed mankind, imo.

'Humanism' spiritually guts us, imo.

We are taught, to abandon all spiritual discernment, and instead, embrace an 'empty', worldly 'value' system.
And 'humanism' often seeks to puff up our self pride, but leaves us without any discernment, and without a moral compass and without any spiritual hope.
We are spiritually, dumbed down by 'humanist' values.
And it is intentional 'end game', imo.


+++

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann


+++

Above i said;

"And we are taught that all people are equally like us."

That is not a 'racist' statement.
It is simply a determination, that i have come to, that some people make very poor choices in life.
And some people make much better 'ethical' choices in life.
That is all.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:



Yes, i see what you mean muso.
Calling Hilter, a fascist [confronting the truth], in the 1930's would have been a mistake, and ethically wrong, ......and, would have caused WWII to break out, much earlier.
/sarc off



+++

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 10:53pm:


I'll mention the 'tare'.
He is the one called Hitler.


+++
muso,
Can't you see, that you are coming at this Hitler thing all ar$e about?
i.e.
It was the peace movement [post WWI, the 'tolerant' pacifists] who counselled that [pre WWII] England must not confront Hitler and German fascism,
...BECAUSE TO CONFRONT HITLER MAY CAUSE ANOTHER WAR.

That was the argument of the 1930's pacifists.
The peace movement in England argued that to secure peace and 'social harmony' in Europe, that it was worth appeasing Hilters claims on neighbouring states.

Well, guess what!
Hitler, an evil man, was not appeased.

And it could be argued, by some, that it was that spirit pacifism in the face of evil [i.e. a fear of confronting the truth about Hitlers evil, and ultimate intentions], and 'tolerance' towards German aggression, pre WWII, that caused the WWII we had, to be much more extended, and intensive, than what it needed to be.




Neville Chamberlain, now acknowledged by history, as Hitler's stooge




+++
How is peace in the society of man achieved, in the real world?

Is peace achieved through the appeasement of bullies and evil men [e.g. Hitler]?
Today, many people appear to believe that peace comes merely from 'wanting it' [i.e. desire], or from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction], in the face of the violence of evil men.

muso,
Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men.

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.



And the ethics, of appeasement?

Is the argument of the ethical person, that the 'tolerance' of any wickedness, is a path towards peace?
Well i say that such a imaginings, are pure poppycock!

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.
The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.
That path leads only to slavery, and death.

How is peace achieved, in the real world?
Peace comes through sacrifice, and our willingness to fight for truth, and to fight for what is right[eous].
And, as ugly as the words may sound to someone such as yourself; Peace comes through judgement.

Peace among men comes as a consequence of righteous judgement.
Peace among men comes when wicked men are judged, and when their fellows [other wicked men] come to understand that their wicked actions, will bring judgement upon them.


p.s.
To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good?
But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???

Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S.