philosophical answer to hostile postings

[quasimodo1]

A New York Times writer has a webpage called "The Ethicist"; so interest in ethical issues involve many professions. The new ethos in ethics is consciousness of it and interest in using ethics to deal with professional and even personal problems (not issues). Since within this framework you can make judgements both sane and fair; opposing moral judgements with religious connotations. Since being non-judgemental is in my view, an asset, then here is a great system for appraising the judgements or judgement calls every person must make. The word "moral" or "mores" has come to us from the tribes; everything acceptable to a tribe is "moral" and the corollary. In ethics, you can stand among the masses, and as a writer, or as a lawyer or medical person, make a judgement-call based on basic fairness and adherence to the golden rule without resorting to religion, good or evil, right or wrong or other measurements involving only two option thinking. Ethics wants a common good to prevail. If society doesn't have ethical standards then necessarily it divides and cannot stand against itself. How many times has an individual wanted to say..."This is not right" or "How unfair!". there are ethical concepts to save you. quasimodo1

[JJLuke]

Worst part is in America there are many tribes, with different ethical standards.
Right and wrong is very subjective.

[Virgil]

A New York Times writer has a webpage called "The Ethicist"; so interest in ethical issues involve many professions. The new ethos in ethics is consciousness of it and interest in using ethics to deal with professional and even personal problems (not issues). Since within this framework you can make judgements both sane and fair; opposing moral judgements with religious connotations. Since being non-judgemental is in my view, an asset, then here is a great system for appraising the judgements or judgement calls every person must make. The word "moral" or "mores" has come to us from the tribes; everything acceptable to a tribe is "moral" and the corollary. In ethics, you can stand among the masses, and as a writer, or as a lawyer or medical person, make a judgement-call based on basic fairness and adherence to the golden rule without resorting to religion, good or evil, right or wrong or other measurements involving only two option thinking. Ethics wants a common good to prevail. If society doesn't have ethical standards then necessarily it divides and cannot stand against itself. How many times has an individual wanted to say..."This is not right" or "How unfair!". there are ethical concepts to save you. quasimodo1

I don't believe that non-judgemental is an assest. "Ethics wants a common good to prevail." That is a very wise statement. It is imperative that good people judge. Of course we may disagree on what is moral, but that is for debate. Of course you may find a post or two that I give out my judgements. ;)

[jon1jt]

you say the NY Times calls it "the new ethos to consciousness." oh, so i'm to assume that the christian-laden ethic of western civilization for the last 2000 years of human history is old and antiquated and people have been 'unconscious' of it. is that right?

"common good." oh man, here we go again.

"non-judgmental"?? only dead people are non-judgmental. even dogs have an opinion when they bark.

[quote=quasimodo1]"How many times has an individual wanted to say..."This is not right" or "How unfair!". there are ethical concepts to save you. [/quasimodo1]

oh, i get it, so ethics in this sense functions like the police. if i deem something unfair or wrong, then i can simply call the ethics police (i.e. The Ethicist) to put it right. don't we have enough religious dogma in the world all ready???

ethics is an idea, not life itself. ethics as a system acts to chain the will to life and people ought to realize that and stop being afraid to live. there is no boogie man folks.

[quasimodo1]

To jon1jt: Well you certainly didn't get the drift of my message but I think I get your point. Have you seen the movie "Anger Management". quasi

[jon1jt]

i didn't think so either.

yeah i saw that stupid movie. have you seen the movie, "Splendor in the Grass"?

[Midas]

There is a very old saying that - 'He who has the gold makes the rules'. Originally, no doubt this would be wholly based on the literal. Today, much is metaphoric and is related more to 'power'. Power can be either political (I include here military) or economic. When it combines both then it is absolute.

So where does all this come into the argument, you may ask?

It means that it really is not so important what is generally accepted amongst the tribes as being right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or unethical, decent or indecent. That which rules is what the 'absolute power' dictates. If you are in line with that, fine, if not, problems.

When our individual judgements are at variance to that which is imposed upon us by the 'higher authority', it disturbs the conscience and causes resentment. The more serious the concern, the more social conscience is disturbed in the individual which extends as social unrest throughout the group.

From this we get, in the extreme - submission or rebellion.

To avoid the latter, it is therefore necessary for the 'absolute power' to curtail the 'freedoms' by which such can ferment and erupt.

All this we can see taking place at this very time as 'the power', which masquerades as government, becomes more unrestricted.

'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely'

Many writers have pointed this out, and will continue to do so. Writing about it affords some to release their tensions and lessen the condition of helplessness.

Does it really achieve anything? Any recent books (last 50 years) you have read that you feel are helping to create a more 'just' world?