Stuart commented and Jeff wrote:
> Eric, i responded with email because my thoughts are still somewhat
> muddled on this topic. Don't know if this discussion bored others
> but i do find it interesting.
> I appreciate your comments and suspect you are seeking just like
> i am. Each topic tests the path and we are more interested in
> growth than the fear of saying something foolish.
Bingo! Testing, exploring, saying foolish things, and occasional growth : )
Well then... (grin) I will write a 'little' more.
Jeff wrote:
> The point i was trying to make had to do with choosing a way to
> do it. We can't see our actions because we are immersed in
> a culture. Getting past this problem would allow us to compare our
> actions to another reference, but while inside a culture some of
> the comparisons may not even occur to us.
Yes, I understand. Finding good ways to do it is very important. You make
a good point about cultural immersion, and I completely agree. I have very
actively tried to peel away my own cultural learning, but I have taken my
unique situation for granted. I have the advantage of having lived in Asia
for 6 years (Japan mostly, but visiting 14 other countries), my wife is
Japanese, I am fluent in Japanese and well versed in the culture. I have
interests in linguistics, ethnology, geography and cultural anthropology,
so I have learned to see our culture from the outside and inside. These
skills also allowed me to work through (still trying!) the layers of
cultural learning about consumerism, individualism and "the Protestant work
ethic". And I still find this difficult work, so it should not be
surprising that it is very difficult for others. Thanks for helping me see
this : )
I am currently reading a fascinating book by Edward T. Hall (my mother says
he has written many books of this vein) called "The Silent Language" which
talks about the parts of culture (ours and others) that we don't take note
of. For example, it goes into how different cultures use different
concepts of time and how it effects many parts of those societies although
it is never talked about. I'm sure much of his writing would help explore
the blinding of cultural immersion.
I also found the book "Material World" (along with related titles) very
useful for seeing beyond what we take for granted.
Eric wrote:
> >I don't see how a "reference point" fits in here. But,
> >perhaps, you are suggesting role models, or something similar.
>
Jeff wrote:
> I believe the whole would is full of students and blindly mimicking a
> role model is not a good idea. A friend once said: We are all
> ignorant, just in different ways. This does not mean we can't learn
> from others, just that we need to always question and have an open
> mind.
So, your "reference point" is a measuring stick for people who are
exploring more sustainable paths? Can you give some examples? Do you
mean things like statistics on energy use patterns with which to compare
personal patterns, proven sustainable products or methods with which to
compare new (or old) products and methods? I agree that blind mimicking
does not condone growth or learning. I also agree that "we need to always
question and have an open mind."
Eric:
> >Again, I would really like to hear from others reading this about what
> >things, ideas, events, people, actions, etc. have helped you move toward
> >your own ecopath.
Still holding my breath on this one. And I thank Stuart for picking up on
it.
Jeff wrote:
> > Or... ethics are simple rules which express our basic beliefs.
>
Stuart:
> I think that more closely defines morays or even morals.
> Ethics are long term survival concepts with minimal destruction, or
rationality > towards the highest level of survival.
> Values are a personal viewpoint or code , and I don't see how they
> have much to do with ethics if you accept the idea of ethics as
> optimum survival, or the greatest good for the greatest number.
> The reference point is optimum survival for the individual, the
> group, mankind , other life forms, the physical universe, etc.
> Anywhere in this universe , even if cultures are different ,
> the nature of destruction and survival are the same .
Stuart, you seem to be looking at definitions of terms such as "ethics",
"values", "morays", "morals" and seem to be using them differently from me.
I agree that I have not supplied many concrete definitions and that I may
be indiscriminantly using some of these interchangeably. Please give us
your own definitions, and I'll try below (see bottom).
First, I'd like to clarify what I hear you saying. Please correct me if
I'm wrong. I don't understand how you can think that values are not
related to ethics, but again this may depend on definitions (see below).
You seem to feel that "optimum long term survival" is of high (highest?)
value and therefore it is ethical to work toward it. You also mention
"minimal destruction" and "the greatest good for the greatest number." Are
these separately valued concepts from survival, or are you saying that
their value is in there ability to enhance chances for survival? If it is
the latter, then your view seems to be that ones main obligation is to
survive and promote the survival of the species (?) This sounds like the
way things are at present, human needs above all others, and it is getting
us into trouble. Even a more enlightened view, which recognizes that human
survival depends on the heath of the biosphere, still allows for the
destruction of certain things a long as damage is limited or lost items are
replaceable. I still have trouble with this. Just think if the insects
felt this way!
Perhaps you think that the "greatest good for the greatest number" (not
just humans) is the way to go. Therefore enhancing the chances for
survival of as many other species as possible is of high value. I like
this more, personally. It's a good start. It brings up the question of
how do you decide which species is "more important" when there is conflict.
A tough question.
Stuart:
> Can't the tool be statics? Are your stats on working towards the
> survival of people and things going up or going down? Are we
> helping or hurting and are we effective at it or just spinning our
> wheels?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "survival". I guess I'm not clear
on what you mean by "optimum survival". It almost seems like an oxymoron
to me; I think of survival as a minimum level. I don't want to just
survive; I want to flourish. Perhaps I can substitute "health of a
population" or some similar idea.
Love to hear from more of you on this topic. We don't have to agree on
what our ethics and values should be, but together we can learn more about
how to sharpen them.
Eric:
ERIC'S DEFINITIONS:
ethics: basic underlying principles and values used to govern choices
values: estimated value or importance of one thing in relation to others
mores: customs of a given culture
morals: rules of right and wrong
beliefs: current thoughts one holds as true
principles: current understandings used to explain how things work
