Eric wrote: >Perhaps it all comes down to: >Does the words "right" and "wrong" ever have any useful meaning in the >context of ethical discussions? In any context? >Do they always represent a dichotomy or opposites? >How do we decide what to do? Can't a reasonable solution be considered >"right"? >Given similar enough situations, can two people end up with the same >"right" action? >Are there better words than "right" and "wrong" to describe our choices? Good questions, i think they are going in a useful direction. I find language very frustrating and probably make a nuisance of myself trying to unravel it. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it and the ambiguous ways it is constructed. To make matters even worse language analysis can be confusing and boring. If we are describing real world events (not abstractions) then i don't think opposites or dichotomies fit very well. Most of the decisions in daily life are not "right" or "wrong" choices. Some choices are clearly better and some worse. If we judge the choices of others with the words "right" and "wrong" then this sounds very absolute and much different from the idea of "better choice" and "worse choice". It pushes our thinking towards absolute dichotomies of right and wrong. Once we get into absolutes our reasoning can manipulate the ideas and take them just about anywhere, but if we keep the ideas tied to an event or site then they stay grounded and we can't manipulate them. This limits our normal process of thinking with language groupings. What it does is force us to think holistically (whatever that means). The Native American saying which says "walk a mile in someone moccasins before criticizing" is suggesting the same idea. One can argue that all this makes sense for individuals but governments need rules and it is governments that control our lives. All this is true, and i think it is tied into why our present society isn't sustainable. We need to shift away from international rules and thinking towards bioregions and local community. There will have to be rules, but the idea we can make rules for everything will be gone. We have already arrived at a point where few people know or understand most of the rules. We have lawyers who specialize and even they are not sure what rule fits every situation. This disconnects people from government and confuses ethics. Things got so confusing here in Oregon we just passed a law that says people have to be notified of new laws that impact them. Good luck <grin>. Hummm... how did i get way over here on legal systems... I'd better wrap this up before i fall asleep. I think the question at this point is how do we agree on what needs doing and how? Well, if you are in swamp full of alligators and snakes i think the best response is to stop talking a do something. You don't need to agree on which alligator to fight first and you need to keep looking behind. ---------- Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 7, http://www.teleport.com/~kowens Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
