NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 4:20pm:


Must be all the travel of late. Heading off for some more after the new year. But no... not world weary... just disillusioned... seriously disillusioned and a little angry at myself for being so naive.

It's already changed my attitude to work. When I return, rather than do the hard yards which has served me and my staff extremely well... I'm going to play the show pony, more so than ever before and delegate the hard yards to others, which serves me even better. And if it's a half job that's done... who cares (who cares about the welfare customers or the tax payers that cop the bill)... heaps of leaders get praised and raised for their half jobs.

Disturbingly, I am actually looking forward to it. All gloss and floss without the hard work and a juicy pay packet as a reward. I worked too hard before I went on long service leave and leave without pay and cared too much. It'll be nice to have more fun for a change.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:


So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens.

People stop caring.  

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:54pm:


Meh... The lowest form of existence for a human in this world is to be female and black. That was true then and that is still true now.

I also note that the bulk of the American gaol population is black.

I also not that apartheid is still operating in America even tho it is illegal.

The only thing MLK improved was the opportunities for high yella blacks. The rest have to work twice as hard than whites to achieve the same... in the main.  

So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens.

"Be good, for goodness sake." <--- once a very common saying in the English speaking world.


It still is .. because the phrase is entrenched in some famous song lyrics.

Does this song ring a (Christmas) bell or two ?


You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town

He see you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

.
"Be good, for goodness sake."

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


Independence is not exclusively aligned with an ethical behaviour. In fact independence can be seen as going against the flow or the order of things, and in some cases it can disrupt the status quo.

You mention the word lazy. It's a vague concept. In some cases it is better to do nothing than do something, because doing nothing results in the lowest achievable risk.  (can ethics be defined in terms of risk?)



I prefer to think in terms of risk to society and to oneself.  In some cases it's clear cut, but in other cases, doing what you intent to be good can end up doing a considerable amount of harm to others.  For that reason, no action can be defined as more ethical than another. It depends on the observer.  

This is where Western philosophy is totally at odds with Eastern philosophy. Taoists propose that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts their will against the world, they disrupt that harmony. Taoism does not identify one's will or independence as the root problem. Instead, it asserts that one must place ones will in harmony with the natural universe.

If you think about all examples of grossly unethical behaviour, it usually comes down to a misguided individual who thinks he is doing something beneficial for humanity by sticking to his rigid principles of courage, strength, determination, and independence. In most cases, he is severely disrupting the natural order of things - rocking the boat if you will.  Of course, if the boat is already rocking, rocking it in the opposite direction may help.

Intent is irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So I'm going to disagree with you  

Allow me to substitute - the optimum application of accurate contextual knowledge. Let's throw out independence and go for a broadly consultative approach that minimises harm to all involved.

The key is knowledge - and mutual understanding/ agreement.

Quote:


I agree. We need to adapt to the circumstances. To go with the natural flow of things rather than continually being disruptive.

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.