Conventional Ethics & the new paradigm for Ethics

[thinkdr]

Conventional Ethics
The International Association of Conference Interpreters has offered a high-quality explanation of what Ethics is about, what its concerns are, and the kinds of questions which it raises. This may prove helpful as an introduction to the field. Here it is, and I quote:

The advantage of ethical principles is that they are general, they are guidelines, they can adapt to different cultures and situations without losing their essence.

Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term also applies to any system or theory of moral values or principles.

Normative ethics seeks to set norms or standards for conduct. The term is commonly used in reference to the discussion of general theories about what one ought to do, a central part of ethics since ancient times. Normative ethics continued to hold the spotlight during the early years of the 20th century… (its various schools of thought having names like Utilitarianism or Intuitionism.)
How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face us: Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? If conscripted to fight in a war we do not support, should we disobey the law? What are our obligations to the other creatures with whom we share this planet and to the generations of humans who will come after us?

Is it ethically right or wrong to cheat our clients? Or is it right for a language interpreter to misinterpret a speaker, even if not intentionally? Or for an interpreter to leave an interpreting assignment early? … Or to accept an assignment when we know we do not have the necessary knowledge of the subject to do a good job? Or to ignore our team colleagues and not to share with them information that is necessary for the job?

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision-making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.

Although ethics has always been viewed as a branch of philosophy, its all-embracing practical nature links it with many other areas of study, including anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, and sociology.

Ethics in general can be defined as the core universal principles that human beings aspire to adhere to and are found generally in families irrespective of their race, color, creed, education or wealth. These basic core universal values have been incorporated into constitutions of countries throughout the world and promulgated into laws to which peoples should adhere, largely irrespective of the type of government, but their emphasis differing according to the quality of leadership in these countries (Universal Human Rights 1994).

Ethic influences a person’s reasoning, perception and behavior. A good ethic is the inwardly self-chosen act of self-control towards inspired self-betterment without regard of external social standards The scope of ethics can be defined as the investigation into basic concepts and fundamental principles of human conduct - the science or study of moral values and principles. Conscience is not an obscure feeling, but a practical judgment of reason on the moral character of individual acts. It is our sense of right and wrong.

THE NEW PARADIGM

With the aid of the Unified Theory of Ethics we shall now proceed to offer answers to these questions; and then open it up for you to comment as to whether the answers given are in sync with your conscience, your personal sense of right and wrong.

Let’s aim at virtue, knowledge, and the creation of beautiful objects; allow happiness to occur as a byproduct. And that ‘happiness’ we aim for will be the happiness of all, in the sense, that our ultimate goal is a high-quality life for one and all. By “virtue” we mean: having a good character, having integrity, morality, honesty, kindness, inclusivity,responsibility, generosity, authenticity and transparency. That is how we shall live! That is what we shall mean by the phrase “The good life.”

: Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause?
No, it is not right. Except to save a life, or to entertain by performing magical illusions. The means we use to attain an end are to be consistent with the end-in-view. If the cause is good, then the means are to ethical and moral, i.e., good.

Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving?
No. By improved technology, and superior design it is our moral obligation to work on, or strive for, that starvation to end – without depriving anyone of his sense of abundance. Prosperity is to be shared, if we know our Ethics.

….To be continued in future posts.
Please join in with your views and comments upon either what is posted or upon the literature referred to below in the following list.

[obsrvr524]

It seems as though someone is trying to exchange the word "ethics" for the word "philosophy", but leaving out the virtue of wisdom. Is that intentional?

[thinkdr]

None of the conventional "virtues" mentioned in VT [Virtue Theory] are to be left out, as far as the new paradigm is concerned. They are "good-making qualities" which go toward making for a good character. Every person ought aspire to have a good character.

Continuing to provide answers for the questions posed in the original post, we address the next query:
If conscripted to fight a war should we disobey the law?

Yes, unless our country has been invaded and all diplomatic means have definitely been exhausted: so that the war is absolutely the very-last resort. Laws that violate moral principles are immoral, and should be conscientiously disobeyed. See the list of Moral Principles in the essay, The Structure of Ethics, a link to which is offered below. One such concept - the ethical perspective - is the true principle that human life is to be Intrinsically-valued (conceived as infinitely valuable.) The rational argument for it is given in the Structure essay.


What are our obligations to both the other creatures with whom we share this planet and to the future generations of our own human species?

We are obliged to be morally good. What this entails is spelled out in the various papers by M. C. Katz and in the bibliographical material cited at the end of those selections. Start with the references offered in the Signature below.

Is it ethically right or wrong to cheat our clients? or our customers?

It is morally wrong to cheat anyone - by the very meaning of the words. By the definition of "Ethics" in the new paradigm, if someone (or anything) is that valuable, then empirically-speaking one is likely to treasure that value, give it some respect, and thus would not want to harm it. To factually contribute to a person feeling cheated (and having good rational grounds for this feeling) is to inflict some harm on that person. This is to be avoided, if at all possible!

Furthermore, It is wrong to accept an assignment when we know we do not have the necessary knowledge of the subject to do a good job.

In addition the new paradigm for Ethics leads to the conclusion that it is morally right to comply with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposed by The United Nations. This declaration was very-likely inspired by the Constitution of The United States of America, the Constitution of Finland, of Norway, etc. Note that in the paper, Basic Ethics, on p. 37, a new constitution for the world is tentatively proposed.

All your questions and comments are welcome!

[obsrvr524]

In addition the new paradigm for Ethics leads to the conclusion that it is morally right to comply with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposed by The United Nations. This declaration was very-likely inspired by the Constitution of The United States of America, the Constitution of Finland, of Norway, etc. Note that in the paper, Basic Ethics, a new constitution for the world is tentatively proposed.

There is certainly something very seriously wrong with that. The Constitution of the US stands firmly against dictating ethics to the population. The USC is very anti-socialist/communist.

[thinkdr]

The Constitution of the US stands firmly against dictating ethics to the population.

So too do I oppose dictating ethics. And I believe that you agree with me.

We also are both against terrorism.
And we are both against scaring people.

Let's build on that area of agreement, and see if we can reach a wider consensus.

First, though, it would help if - with an open mind - you would read, and study carefully, the literature referenced below - so that we would share the same background for discussion.

Then, for us at least, it will all make sense.

[obsrvr524]

So too do I oppose dictating ethics.

Then how can you promote this:

it is morally right to comply with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposed by The United Nations

If in their self serving endeavors they suggest an ethic that neither you are I would agree to, we are immoral?

[thinkdr]

If in their self serving endeavors they suggest an ethic that neither you are I would agree to, we are immoral?

Thank you for the question.
It is a hypothetical question which need not be, since we can go to the facts. One may actually read the document; and one can see what it proposes. If one is blind one may have it read to him. Even if one is illiterate, one can listen to it as an audio-booklet. The first Bill of Rights is comprised of the first ten Amendments to our Constitution.

The Declaration of universal rights was written in part by an American, who was one of the major advocates for the First Draft of it.
[She based it on the brief, concise "Second Bill of Rights" recommended by her very, very popular husband in one of his Fireside Chats. He was so popular, he was elected for three consecutive 4-year terms as President, although he died before he could complete the last term. When he died he lay in State and then was put on a train to cross the country. People lined the tracks - often three layers thick with people -to pay honor to him. Learn the history. This contributing author of, and fighter for, the Declaration, born on October 11, had a quite-widely-read newspaper column, titled MY DAY.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... man_Rights

.

[obsrvr524]

If in their self serving endeavors they suggest an ethic that neither you are I would agree to, we are immoral?

Thank you for the question.
It is a hypothetical question which need not be, since we can go to the facts. One may actually read the document; and one can see what it proposes. If one is blind one may have it read to him. Even if one is illiterate, one can listen to it as an audio-booklet. The first Bill of Rights is comprised of the first ten Amendments to our Constitution.

Wait, perhaps I misunderstood you.

Are you saying that the U.N. must accept the existing Bill of Rights as its ethical code? Or are you saying that whatever they declare (which will not be the bill of rights as you know it) is what dictates morality?

The U.N. has declared already and long ago that they choose their actions based simply upon, "This is what we want".

In 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called "The Future We Want". Leaders from 180 nations participated.

Of course, predictably, the U.N. being almost entirely socialist and communist countries favor anything that brings them more totalitarian power - their only goal.

China, and most Asian countries, completely ignore the restraints, but strongly encourage everyone ELSE to obey. They well know that whoever obeys the U.N. must become socialist and very economically weak while they prosper in the freedom that they never gave up. They are well aware of the game.

[thinkdr]

Hi there, obsrvr524

Please don't take this the wrong way. I have respect for your healthy curiosity, and love of wisdom. Since you are focused on certain topics, it would be appropriate for you to start your own thread. You don't want to be a hijacker. This thread was intended to be about Ethics ...viewed as a potential science.
It definitely wants to avoid using words like "socialism,' which has at least 15 different definitions, but which is not defined in your discussions- so that the reader has no idea which meaning you're talking about. So I recommend that in your thread you take the trouble to define your terms.

I agree with you about the regrettable lack of liberty in China; and I know its rulers would rationalize that away, citing the need for discipline, or some such excuse. Restrictions on freedom of thought, and of movement, are unethical. As you may have noted, the Unified Theory of Ethics has chapters devoted to the rise of tyranny. I was hoping you would discuss that treatment, by the late Roger Ebert, of the subject. ...and that you would offer a critique of his explication.

The theme of this thread is how the new paradigm is able to provide answers, and how every answer results in two-or-more new questions. As in any science, these answers (to conventional questions in conventional ethical theories) are all tentative, highly-tentative, subject to upgrading when seen from new, wider perspectives.

Good luck with your new thread. I wish you well. Have a Quality Life!

[obsrvr524]

I'm sorry if a little sunlight stings but it seems to me that someone exploring or promoting ethics should be aware of what is really going on in the world and why, yet you seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is strictly politics that rules governing bodies such as the UN. They are not a church or temple with allegiance to higher ideals, humanitarian or not, yet you suggest that they are to be the ultimate source of moral rectitude.

You raised the issue of the USC being a foundation for ethics yet the USC implicitly separates religion from government, church from state. Your words lead to the notion that the UN is to be raised and ordained as, in effect, the new Vatican III.

I haven't changed the subject matter at all. YOU have brought politics, the sole persuader of governing bodies, into your own thread as the very source of your ethical theory.

Are you now suggesting that we not question the source for your ethics theory, just pass the koolaid and shut up?

[thinkdr]

...Governing bodies such as the UN are not a church or temple with allegiance to higher ideals, humanitarian or not, yet you suggest that they are to be the ultimate source of moral rectitude....You raised the issue of the USC being a foundation for ethics. ... YOU have brought politics in as the very source of your ethical theory.

Are you now suggesting that we not question the source for your ethics theory, just pass the koolaid and shut up?

This shows a total misunderstanding of the new paradigm for ethical theory. I guess I failed to make myself clear, or obsrvr failed to do any homework - or both. By "homework" I meant reading even a single one of the References.

It is completely NOT true that the United Nations or the U.S. Constitution are the foundation of the Unified Theory of Ethics ....as even a glance at the Theory would plainly reveal See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195052&p=2736321#p2736321
and see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195014&p=2732227#p2732227
The frame-of-reference within which this science is a subset is Formal Axiology [a definist approach to value theory which introduces some exactitude into the field.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_value
Once "value" and "good" have been defined with logical precision by that meta-ethics then it became possible to understand more-adequately the concepts "moral value" and "a good character." Dr. Katz attempted to explain R.S. Hartman's legacy in clear, plain English; but his papers need first to be read, n'est pas?

The formal definitions of "Ethics" (the Ethical perspective), and of "morality" are the foundations of this new-yet-very-old theory, along with the Axiom of Ethics. All these are spelled out in The Structure of Ethics booklet. {The current nonfiction best-seller at the top of The New York Times list of books is 600 pages in length! Is it asking too much for a Philosophy student to read a mere 80 pages?!!!! It seems so.}

p.s. I am quite aware that no one has to read anything !

[obsrvr524]

I gave you two opportunities to correct any misunderstanding concerning what you wrote here in this thread. You have refused suggesting that should read your book. If you won't clarify misunderstandings of what you write right here, I can just imagine how much you won't clarify from the book.

As I just explained to someone else here just the other day, unlike most people, before I go read anything of significance, I do a personality dossier on the author to ensure that I misunderstand as little as possible of his intentions. That involves a lot of my time. I'm not seeing sufficient reason to pursue such an endeavor. Have you ever heard a politician, given an opportunity to present his case, say, "If you all will just go read my book, I'm sure that you will vote for me"? And before you declare that you are not a politician, realize that a politician is merely a specific kind of salesman. And you are obviously in the mode of a salesman.

So far the references that you have given have not been impressive. Although you can't seem to defend your work, I still think that you got the message.

[promethean75]

the doc ain't trying to sell nothing, 524. lighten up man. not everyone here is part of the socialist gestapo.

he's just psyched about something he's read, and very enthusiastic about sharing it. i mean that's what you're supposed to do at a philosophy forum, right? plus the doc knew skinner personally, which gives him some street cred.

[thinkdr]

Thank you, promethean. You understand me. Your basis for your ethics, though, is a little shaky.

I have a question for you.

Is a criminal to be held responsible for his hurtful action? Or is everyone innocent of everything that they do, no matter how conscious they are at the time of committing the crime that it is illegal, and that there were good reasons for passing that law?

[Example:] When a second-story thief snatches a diamond necklace off a dresser in the dead of night, and he is later caught, should he be penalized?

Rather than getting hung up in the example, I would prefer an answer to the general question.

[promethean75]

When a second-story thief snatches a diamond necklace off a dresser in the dead of night

how many carats are we talkin about here, and does the thief have a buyer?

i jest.

yes, in theory it would be great if we lived in a society that not only had reasonable laws everyone agreed on which were properly enforced, but also consisted of people who never had the desire to break those laws (for whatever reasons). in practice, however, this has proven to be a very unrealistic expectation.

on the matter of being held 'responsible', if you qualify this term pragmatically to mean something like 'complying with consequences for criminal action', i would say 'well yes, criminals are expected to comply with the consequences of their actions'... and this essentially only means 'you are about to be punished. do you understand the punishment you are about to recieve?' but note that this condition does not require the criminal to agree on whether or not the punishment is reasonable. the criminal's 'compliance' only means he'll go quietly into the night on this one, rather than resist.

but if you mean something metaphysically along the lines of - 'you are 'responsible' in that you had the freewill to choose what you did, as well being knowledgeable of some intelligeable, objective imperatives like 'right' and 'wrong' - i'd say you've lost your marbles.

the peculiar nature of the law is that it has to utilize a specific falsehood in order to avoid having to commit a greater tyranny that is considered worse than the lie it tells; it has to pretend that freewill exists so that it can put the burden on the offender and relieve itself of its own responsibility for controlling the conditions that generate crime.

the state gives a degree freedom to its citizens in the form of not exhibiting control over the circumstances that engender criminal behavior... and then relieves itself of its own responsibility by pretending the criminal is something more than a consequence of his environment. for this it needs the idea of 'freewill'. so for example, a homeless fellow steals a loaf of bread because he's hungrier than a mawfucka... and then the state punishes him. a better question would be; why is this fellow homeless and hungrier than a mawfucka. ah, but this question inconveniently interrogates the state and puts into question its authority in enforcing law where it doesn't exhibit absolute control over the circumstances that contribute to criminal behavior. the state has its cake and wants to eat it too, see. but if the homeless dude has his loaf and wants to eat it too, the states's like 'nah fuck that'.

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime." - stirner

some will interpret this as a plea to the state to become some kind of monolithic father figure and hold everybody's hand. i know of one already warming his fingers up to go on another tangent of nonsense. biggs knows who i'm talkin 'bout, doncha biggs?

no sir. as an anarchist, i have no preference either way, and simply offer a disinterested analysis of some of the more concealed aspects of the problem. what i speak of is inherent to this kind of liberal democracy, and no amount of philosophizing will excuse it. the decision one is faced with is this; if you prefer to keep this kind of society, you should expect this problem to continue. there is no getting out of it. it comes with the package.

[obsrvr524]

the doc ain't trying to sell nothing, 524.

Really? Did you do your research on Wade Harvey, Marvin Katz, and Robert Hartman?

As we turn to the field of Ethics, which is concerned with the good life for the good person, as well as with those principles that have value for us to live by, let us begin by defining the terms “value” and “good” so that the reader will understand what this author means when he uses these words.

a thing is good insofar as it exemplifies its concept.

My theory postulates that we each have a self-concept. It has three components, so to speak. They are: first, the actual, bodily self that is observable to others and to you (the tangible part). Next, the Self, i.e., the Self-image: the self-identity, beliefs, and values the individual may hold -- perhaps in her/his state of
delusion -- perhaps realistically if s/he has self-awareness. And thirdly,, the relationship between the two -- which the author, in constructing the theory, has - for many good reasons - labeled: (the degree of) Morality.

Who said which? Which ones got their education and thus their opinions from where?


He is most definitely *selling something*.

i mean that's what you're supposed to do at a philosophy forum, right? plus the doc knew skinner personally, which gives him some street cred.

Oh there you go with the reputation ad hom again. BF Skinner, seriously? A whole lot of people were not favorably impressed with him. Noam Chomsky argued that Skinner's attempt to use behaviorism to explain human language amounted to little more than word games. Isn't Chomsky one of your heroes? And Staddon (The New Behaviorism) has argued that Skinner's determinism is not in any way contradictory to traditional notions of reward and punishment, as he believed.

Promethean75, you disagree with me on just about everything and yet remain admirably diplomatic. I complete you. But reputation appeal - ethos over logos is the way of group-think, sheeple, smugness, and pomposity. Hardly the demeanor of a deep thinking philosopher.

You support Wittgenstein, who appears to have had problems with rational thinking. You support Silhouette, who apparently has problems with 3rd grade maths. And you support thinkdr, who has problems even mildly defending his pet theories. Is this an underdog thing?

In this thread, thinkdr proposed two grave concerns to me. Issues that I associate with evil: the fear mongering, terrorism protection scheme known as the Climate Change hoax and that the U.N., a strictly political institute, in any way is to be regarded as an authority on morality.

He seems to make no attempt to defend his stance, rather he merely says, "go read my book".

That isn't philosophy, is it?

[promethean75]

Did you do your research on Wade Harvey, Marvin Katz, and Robert Hartman?

alas, i did not. i completed the ethics triathlon course years ago so i don't do much 'reading' in/or it, anymore.

so you don't think the doc is even a little cool because he knew big skin? how often do you meet someone who knew a great thinker? the only great thinker i ever knew was richard simmons, and that's because we had a slight altercation once at a mall where he was doing a seminar for fat people. you don't wanna know. (true story)

[obsrvr524]

so you don't think the doc is even a little cool because he knew big skin? how often do you meet someone who knew a great thinker?

Actually I do a bit. Actually, I am a bit of a Skinnerian myself. I was just bustnya for using reputation again.

But then Skinner died like 30 years ago at age 86.

[thinkdr]

so you don't think the doc is even a little cool because he knew big skin? how often do you meet someone who knew a great thinker?

Actually I do a bit.

But then Skinner died like 30 years ago at age 86.

I reprinted one of his lesser-known papers as Chapter 8 in a book that was published in 1969: M. C. Katz - SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS. Fred gladly gave me permission to reprint it.

The title of his paper is "Contingencies of Reinforcement in the Design of a Culture." In that paper he deals with the issues of smoking, over-eating that leads to obesity and other health problems, sex without consent, and aggressive behavior. He proposes changes in the environment, and in the cultural practices, as a better solution than conventional ones that are tried but that don't work.

The world ought to be grateful to him, for his work and research contributes to the Science of Psychology, indicating one way that it can be systematic.

The practice of Behavioral Engineering, though, which followed from Skinner's work, has had mixed results, and has been misused from an ethical perspective:It has led to some ethically-questionable conduct on the part of some practitioners; a few of which were his former students.

In contrast with Dr, Skinner's views, and with regard to the moral issue of akrasia (weakness of the will) commented upon by Socrates; and on the issue of how to achieve what you may aspire to as a goal for yourself; see what this prestigious and recognizedd philosopher says.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuZTk1hdpMs
Agnes Callard is here interviewed by Robert Wright (who himself is the author of an important book on Ethics, entitled Non-zero.) She teaches at The University of Chicago. She postulates “self-creation.” Introducing agency as against environmental shaping of a person.

Questions? Comments?

[thinkdr]

so you don't think the doc is even a little cool
?

Actually I do a bit.
But then Skinner died like 30 years ago at age 86.

When you have lived as long as I have, 30 years will seem like 5 years.

In contrast with Dr, Skinner's views, and with regard to the moral issue of akrasia (weakness of the will) commented upon by Socrates; and on the issue of how to achieve what you may aspire to as a goal for yourself; see what this prestigious and recognized philosopher says.

(With apologies, at this point in the last post I gave the wrong link. Ignore it please. Here is the correct one):

See: https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/42205?in=00:01

Agnes Callard is here interviewed by Robert Wright (who himself is the author of an important book on Ethics, entitled Non-zero.) She teaches at The University of Chicago. She postulates “self-creation.” Introducing agency as against environmental shaping of a person.

Questions? Comments?

[thinkdr]

In the new paradigm for Ethics one special assumption is made. It asks you to assume that human life is valuable.

Assume that human life is valuable. Then that is why murder is wrong. And that is why slavery, exploitation, manipulation, defrauding, deception, cheating and conning are wrong: they do harm to human beings. They desecrate value instead of enhancing value. They thus are to be avoided.

As we discuss human relations, human development, and ethics, let us make one more assumption: ethical individuals want to make things morally better. This suggests an imperative: Make things better!

The above two assumptions are the axioms for Ethics -- just as transformations of energy are axioms for Physics. It is imperative to regard each conscious individual's life as highly valuable and to make things better. Ethics teaches us to create value in our human interactions.

Hence something else to be avoided is having a double standard, one for yourself and another for others. Also it is wrong to use any means, take any steps, to get to your end-in-view -- even if those means are immoral.

To be moral is to live by adherence to moral principles, and over time to be adding more of them to those that you live by. In this new paradigm for Ethics the concept "morality" implies moral development; you are to be making yourself better.

And transparency is a high value in this system for ethics. Have nothing to hide! Be transparent. A person of good character would want that for his government too. The barest minimum of government data is to be stamped "confidential." Aim to maximize transparency!!! That is true Democracy.

To get further details about the system being proposed for consideration, feel free to consult the essays and papers linked to below.

Comments? Questions? Bright ideas?

[obsrvr524]

Do the ends justify the means?

[thinkdr]

Do the ends justify the means?

Sometimes they do.

If you are tired, that could provide a good reason for lying down in bed.

If your land has been invaded and occupied, you have good reasons for making the life of the occupying soldiers uncomfortable; but no amount of rationalization "justifies" shooting to kill. ...say, as a member of the Irish Republican Army ready to commit violence on a British soldier. Instead, use nonviolent means to drive out the occupying forces. Keep in mind the Principle that conscious human life is highly valuable

Liberty, for example, is a noble end ...a moral end. Employ only moral means to attain it. Else you will not get it -- or if you do seem to get it, it won't be worth it. For in such case, immorality will become the state of affairs, the new cultural standard.

[obsrvr524]

Do the ends justify the means?

Sometimes they do.

no amount of rationalization "justifies" shooting to kill.

So killing is verboten. What about lying to a large population? And let me categorize lying as "wittingly deceiving or spreading deception" and "unwittingly deceiving or spreading deception", both in regards merely to large populations (else the minutia could get overwhelming).

Please briefly enumerate for us in what situations it is ethical to lie to a large population in accord with your ethics theory (perhaps one paragraph). And if you could even more briefly explain why each of those situations are ethically sanctioned but not others.

I have a third related question but I'll hold.

[thinkdr]

Do the ends justify the means?

Sometimes they do.

no amount of rationalization "justifies" shooting to kill.

So killing is verboten. What about lying to a large population?

Murder to any degree is ill-advised; it is not likely that you would destroy what you value as a treasure, and according to the very definition of the ethical perspective, a conscious individual is to be regarded as a treasure ...as uncountably-valuable.

A love for, and commitment to, the truth is a feature of a good character. Thus, deception, which violates truth-telling, is immoral. It matters not whether it is done to one or to many. I thought I had already made that plain. {I gave two exceptions, a magician's patter, as s/he entertains to amuse, and I said lying to save a life may be permissible. Now I will add a third exception: bluffing, as in a game, like poker, is also permissible. One is not necessarily immoral if one does that.}

Those who deny the climate crisis are lying to themselves unfortunately for human-kind. Take a look at Glacier National Park in Northwest Montana, for example: when it was founded it had over 100 glaciers. Today it has about 20. Where did those glaciers go? How did they disappear? Does the "Greenhouse Effect" due to man's discharge of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere have anything to do with it? You bet it does! The crisis is man-made. If we continue to attack Mother Nature she will have her say.

Don't these severe hurricanes, such as in Long Island and in Puerto Rico, have a cost? ...A rather high cost. And don't run-away forest fires burn down some very-expensive homes? Is leveling the Amazon jungle a good idea ...considering that those trees absorb CO2 and breathe out Oxygen. And isn't all this record-breaking unprecedented flooding costly?

Does the cost exceed the benefit?

Shouldn't we have policies now that lessen the amount of Carbon we spew into the atmosphere ...policies such as a carbon tax; or such as setting up lots of recharging stations everywhere to encourage people to buy inexpensive electric cars and/or other electric vehicles?


Answer for yourself these questions, folks.....