Eric wrote:
>I don't understand "ethics needing to be built into
>our objectives" and "ethics being handled by design." Aren't ethics always
>built into objectives? And aren't designs a subset of objectives and
>objectives a subset of ethics, in that our objectives and actions always
>illustrate our ethics?
Yes, possibly ethics are the same as our objective. This would explain
why some Pc literature does not mention ethics and discusses the
objectives instead. At first this idea seems wrong, but when i look
closely it seems to fit. For example, i believe the basic objective
of Pc is sustainability. To achieve this we have to care for the
earth. We have to care for people. We also need to share the surplus
so all the diverse life forms and people survive.
The dictionary says "ethic" means guiding philosophy. If we apply
this to my model of a path then the only guide present is our vision
of the future. This vision is the same as an objective.
>I don't usually find Pc lacking for ethical future vision. Many
>practitioners are very idealistic and foward looking. However, the problem
>seems to be that the ethics are not always consistently applied, not all
>actions lead toward the vision held. So, there may be a disconnect between
>ones stated ethics and visions and actually held ethics and beliefs.
If we replace the term "ethics" with "future vision" then the
inconsistencies between differ Pc practitioners becomes differences
in future vision. This gets into cultural immersion and how that
impacts our future vision. We can only see so far beyond our
cultural boundaries and each person has a slightly different viewpoint.
This substitution of "ethics" and "future vision" does not seem
exactly right, but i think it is very close. It explains
why ethics get applied differently and how ethics fits into the
process. For example, care of the earth is translated into a
vision of what "care" looks like. This becomes our future vision
and guides our steps down the path.
>I suppose competition always exists from one point of view. But somehow I
>feel competition assumes greed or lack of abundance. When there is plenty
>for all things, is there still competition?
My bias is that few absolutes exist in nature, so there would always
be some competition. Although, in times of abundance i would expect
the competition to be about something scare. Maybe power over others
or status would cause competitive struggles.
>Is it possible to have plenty for all?
Plenty of what? We can each decide we need to rule an empire
or control the banana supply. The ethics or future-vision is
a constant on going struggle to interpret and apply. Lets see,
the question we were discussing was whether "balance" needs
to be applied to ethics. I guess, my point is that ethics
are an ongoing part of defining our future vision and this
is a balancing act between what we know, what we project forward,
and what we think is possible at this point in time.
>In conculsion I think the world would be a better place if we recoginzed
>that our ethics are shown by what we do, not by what we think or say, and
>then live accordingly.
Yes! Any small act has value. Thought and good intentions don't
have value until someone acts.
----------
Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 7
Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
