Jeff wrote:
> The world we have today has never existed before and successful role models
> or proven choices do not exist.
> confident that their way is best. In all these cases truth and ethics
become
> assumed and critical minds are focused in other areas.
> If we assume our words have common meanings and are anchors that do not
> shift, we are missing the truth.
> Some possible places to look for answers about ethics might be:
> ZEN thought.
> diversity of information.
> Seeking motivations of information sources.
> Understanding of disinformation techniques (recognize the enemy).
> Actually think and talk about ethics.
> Create plans/goals and visions of the future. (reference points)
> Review goals/plans periodically.
> Never assume a topic has been explored completely, learning never ends.
> Conclusion: Life does not have conclusions it is ongoing. Ethics
> questions do not have simple answers, they are an ongoing process.
> These words may be worthless also, they are crude attempts to share
> ideas which are imperfect.
All good points, Jeff. This is why I have been stressing the ability to
think and talk about ethics, not any particular examples of them. There is
an inherent weakness in thinking and talking, but it's all we have with
which to work together. We should learn to do it as well as we can. And,
as you said, in the end, we will never reach the truth and need to always
continue looking. I just read something in TIME magazine (earth day stuff?
I don't have the magazine so, sorry, no details.) where someone said
something like: "The cavemen understood about 1, and we now understand
about 5. But people don't realize that the scale goes to 1 million."
It kind of depressed my to think that all we had to count on was that we
don't think clearly, especially about the long term future; we don't like
to change quickly; and we don't like too much challenge. Because I believe
the problems are growing faster, this suggests that humans will only deal
with sustainability as a reaction to crisis. This may also suggest that
individual solutions to individual problems, while important, are
insufficient. Without growth in our ability to be open minded and
willingness to change, everything else may be too little, too late. Please
don't take this as someone giving up. It actually helps me focus on
prioritizing. Giving up or avoiding the issues are not options I consider;
the question is what do we (I?) do now?
This makes me think again about some of the ideas brought up around Deep
Ecology. Helping people feel their deep connection to Nature and helping
to break down the walls that separate us from other people, other species
and other natural objects and phenomenon is a good first step. Once this
connection is begun, the motivation for change is established. You are no
longer fighting selfish instincts.
Stuart wrote:
> The above are my definition of ethics. Applying ethics to life
> optimizes survival for all (me , us, all people , other life forms , the
> physical universe, spiritual existance, and the infinit or God), not
> just for the individual
> > ethics: basic underlying principles and values used to govern choices
>
> Yes but choices that lead to the happiest, healthiest (optimum )
> survival for all things
> The answer for me is which species enhances the survival of the
> greatest number of other species, as opposed to , which species is
> the most destructive to all of the above listed arias through which
> all things survive.
You seem to be confusing a definition of the word "ethics" (Ethics are
basic underlying principles and values used to govern choices.) with an
example of an ethical principle (Enhancing the survival of the greatest
number of other species is good.) But, I think I understand your point.
We seem to agree on the definition part. And you seem to be saying that
you believe that, based on your ethical principle, humans have a moral
obligation to help promote the survival of other species, especially those
that are good at promoting the survival of many other species.
When you said:
> The answer for me is which species enhances the survival of the
> greatest number of other species, as opposed to , which species is
> the most destructive to all of the above listed arias through which
> all things survive.
I couldn't help but think that humans are the most destructive species on
the planet. Does this mean that we have the moral obligation to sacrifice
some (many?) of our desires in order to reduce our destructiveness? Or
even help to restore the damage we have done? I think I like where you are
going. Any ideas on how this kind of ethic can be spread to others?
(Again, thoughts of Deep Ecology as a place to look for suggestions) Are
we, individually, ready to make the "sacrifices" necessary to live as a
positive member of the planet? How do we learn to think of these
"sacrifices" as a positive thing that helps all around us? This is a good
place to switch to the more positive thinking that goes with what Jeff
likes to talk about: what can we, as individuals, do on a daily basis to
align ourselves with a more sustainable lifestyle?
Live, Learn, Love & Laugh!
Eric:
