Ever since Christian faith was ousted from most of western societies as a practical force, reason remained the only one and now it is an unopposed, dictatorial force. That is exactly what John Ralston Saul’s very successful book: “Voltaire’s Bastards” is about.

Since we don’t have faith in anything (I don’t mean religious faith but rather ethical faith) –- remember, everything is relative, there is no absolute ethical ‘wrong’, not even murder -- the only compass we have left is reason. And we know from experience that reason, with the aid of a clever lawyer or politician can prove anything (or its exact opposite).

Here is an example of a ‘faith’ we should have:

“It is unacceptable to take food out of the mouth of a poor hungry child and give it to a rich and well fed one. Absolutely nothing can justify it.”

Since we don’t have this faith, Mike Harris got elected for a second term, after he proved with his first term to anyone’s satisfaction that his policy was exactly that (contrary to the proposed faith).

Why?

Not because most of those who voted for him a second time believed that food should be taken out of hungry mouths. They would have been horrified at the suggestion.

However, they let ‘reason’ convince them that those hungry children were a necessary sacrifice to achieve a higher goal, somewhere in the undefined future.

Guess what, that is exactly the same line we were fed in Communist Hungary where I grew up. We had to sacrifice our present in order to benefit from a bright and glorious future that never came and which receded farther and farther from our grasp.

If we had some absolute faith, like refusing to sacrifice the ‘present’ of our children for any reason whatsoever, then our rulers would have had to find some other ways of assuring our future.

However, we reject ‘absolutes’, so all we have left is the ‘relatives’. Everything is up for grabs, nothing is unthinkable, we are drifting ships without compass or anchor, we are disarmed victims of our own ‘faithlessness’, prey to any clever demagogue who wants to cash in on our lack of deeply held convictions.

Way back when this topic was discussed, Apemantus was trying to concoct a scenario where ‘raping a ten year old girl would be morally right’. I am not kidding (See the "Pragmatism versus Idealism" thread). Some of us are this far gone in not believing in any ethical taboos.

So, as a consequence we have Mike Harrises and GW Bushes and all the other bastards who can convince enough voters that it is right to sacrifice many of our children to hunger, our youth in battle, our lives in fear and frustration and misery for a mythical golden future that will never come. Just remember what happened to the promises of the ‘peace dividend’ after the cold war was won. The previous boogey man (the Russians) was immediately and conveniently replaced by the new one (Arabs and terrorists).

In the olden days they used to hang a carrot just a foot ahead of the donkey’s nose, so it would pull the cart with enthusiasm, toward the carrot it could never reach. And in its desire to reach the carrot, it didn’t even mind the sting of the whip from behind.

Present western society reminds me of that donkey with increasing frequency.

There does not seem to be any limit beyond which our rulers couldn’t push us.

We don’t have the faith in ‘absolutely unthinkable sacrifices’ so we are victims of this lack of conviction. We don’t know how to draw a line and defend it with our lives if necessary.

There is no Voltaire amongst us who would say: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

To be able to say that, and mean it, you need absolute faith in something. Or you wouldn’t be willing to die defending it.

Now we live in the Age of Reason.

We are Voltaire’s Bastards.

........

edited to add link to quote, as Rebecca 'requested'

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

However, they let ‘reason’ convince them that those hungry children were a necessary sacrifice to achieve a higher goal, somewhere in the undefined future.

---

No, they let reason convince them that those children didn't need their help to eat, that those children's parents and guardians were perfectly capable of feeding them and would step in and do so as soon as the public stopped helping, that the only thing stopping them was their own laziness and inertia, that they were using the safety net as a hammock.

They let "reason" convince them that the sacrifice didn't exist.

Only it wasn't reason, really - it was emotion masquerading as reason. Selfish, runaway emotion.

I know quite a few people who believed Harris when he claimed that the welfare rolls were down because of his reforms and that all those people were back to work in the hundreds of thousands of new jobs he created.

I picked the ‘hungry child’ example, because with a ‘hungry adults’ example some would argue that it is their own fault. Nobody can make that excuse with the ‘hungry child’ case.

Most of the arguments I got from people I talked to at the time was “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs”.

If we make things too complicated, any piece of shit can be hidden in it. We need ‘faith’ to counteract this ‘Trojan Horse Policy’ succeeding.

Again, I have to quote John Ralston Saul from “On Equilibrium”: “We exercise it [ethics] with our reason, but equally with our common sense, imagination and memory. These three maintain the daily existential nature of ethics. How? They give us context and the ability to imagine the consequences of an action. Why? Because we know what has happened before and this helps us to consider what might happen in this case.”

I have never read anything more convincing about the need to exercise other human abilities (in equilibrium), besides reason.

quote:

---

Ever since Christian faith was ousted from most of western societies as a practical force

---

To quote JRS again:

“Common sense has never been easy either to explain or to exercise. While reason may be the easiest of our qualities to deform, common sense has always been the easiest quality to turn into nonsense; the easiest to capture for ideological purposes. Why? Because a pretension of simplicity and truth can readily be presented as self-evident, meaning that we can but agree. This is false common sense, a manipulative mechanism to ensure the passivity of others. It is quite different to think of common sense as an expression of shared knowledge, something which links us to the other and acts as the foundation of societies of all sorts – a foundation of undefined commonality which allows us to engage in conversation. You might call this the ongoing debate of human relationships, small or big”

And yet, as social programs are slashed, churches are expected to do more and more of society's and the government's work. We slap them with one hand, while placing yet another burden on them with the other.

One doesn't have to be religious in order to feel responsibility for one's fellows - but it helps.
It helps, because it's simple and doesn't require numerical, statistical, economic or political sophistication. Hurting your brother is evil. If your brother is suffering, you have to help him - no questions, no judgments, no excuses. Because God said so.
Without religion, we have to grow our own sense of fellowship. This means we get to decide whom to include (us) and exclude (them). Each time we exclude somebody on one pretext or another, it gets easier. (Well, they don't deserve our sympathy, because....)

Of course, all religions are flawed. The rules were writen up by people a long time ago, and interpreted by people down the line, and people are imperfect. They did a lot of excluding.
Secular compassion is capable of doing better - including more of us (and maybe other species? maybe the trees and the water?). It's capable of helping more efficiently - oh, say, by making a minimum standard of living every citizen's right. This way, there are no beggars, and nobody gets puffed-up with his own magnanimity.

quote:

---

Moreover, Christianity - indeed, all religion - is often vilified in our culture.

---

Often deservedly so. Many religious organisations have, to one degree or another, turned away from justice and charity to focus on the personal.

The personal used to be political. Now the political, if it even exists, always boils down to the personal. Think of the number of religious organisations that devote huge amounts of time and money to promoting sexual abstinence, or lobbying against gay rights. Think of the members of the Catholic Church who wagged their fingers and frowned at condom distributors while AIDS spread across Africa.

Why should we feel a public responsibility to each other when our churches and politicians tell us that the worst things we can possibly do all happen behind closed doors, in our own homes? If virtue is a simple matter of locking on a chastity belt, why go any further?

There must be a million religious organizations lobbying for social justice, but for some reason, we don't hear about those. We hear about the ones demanding that we keep our children ignorant. We don't hear much about the ones dismantling bombs or demanding justice in the Third World; we hear about the ones bandaging the wounds of the oppressed and destitute, but we so seldom hear them ask why such suffering should be allowed.

I know those stories are out there. I want to hear them. I want to know why there aren't more of those stories out there, and why I don't hear about the ones that are.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]

In fact, an argument could be made about the soft ride religion has been getting in light of a group of fanatics flying jet liner loads of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people on the fanatics journey into their post life paradise.

A good illustration is the bleating from Stockwell Day supporters who wanted to claim that Day was persecuted for his religious beliefs, on top of the fact that Chretien and Trudeau's beliefs were never brought to question.

There's a big difference between the two. When Day thought it was to his advantage, he was more than happy to make his religious beliefs part of the public forum, and having done so, it's not at all unfair, or prejudiced in anyway to subject those beliefs to critical analysis.

Trudeau, and Chretien, as far as I can see, never at anytime made their religious beliefs part of the public forum.

One can't have it both ways; religious beliefs are either private, and not subject to public discourse, or they are part of the public discourse.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

However, they let ‘reason’ convince them that those hungry children were a necessary sacrifice to achieve a higher goal, somewhere in the undefined future

---

quote:

---

Way back when this topic was discussed, Apemantus was trying to concoct a scenario where ‘raping a ten year old girl would be morally right’. I am not kidding (if anyone wants the link, I will dig it out). Some of us are this far gone in not believing in any ethical taboos

---

Now, on the matter of all humans needing faith, I heartily resent the use of the inclusive we in the 'Why We Need Faith'.

quote:

---

Today, first time in my adult life, I realized that human beings need some kind of faith

---

quote:

---

Faith is the art of believing in something you know ain't so.

---

................

I knew, when I chose it, that the word 'faith' might derail the thread and could hide the main point I was trying to make. I tried to call it 'ethical faith', but it didn't help. Oh well...

Ok, I will try to summarize: as long as ethics is marginalized in our culture, relegated to the exclusive domain of idealists, boy scouts and impractical fools, we will be disarmed against unscrupulous wielders of reason.

Ethics is very practical. Without it we will keep reelecting Mike Harrises and GW Bushes and their kind. Ethics helps us to draw a line beyond which we won’t let our rulers pursue us.

But we need an 'Ethics with teeth', based on our shared humanity, not the watered down, apologizing, relativist caricature being promoted by our education system and mainstream media.

PS. Smith and nonesuch are right again -- IF we are talking about religion, let's do it in a balanced way. It helps. But I hope we will talk about Ethics, instead of religion.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

And what you are suggesting *is* related to the concerns of people HERE about your term "faith". Automatically some of us rally against it - as if we are rallying against prayer in school, or G*d in the Constitution. We consider every political/religious comment as if in the context of an Orson Wells novel. Our liberalism has run rampant through our entire society, eating every other ideology in sight, and now has begun to feed on itself. We are anti-ideology to the point of creating (paradoxically) an anti-ideology-ideology - because ideologies are 'unreasonable'.

I find the whole trend a little cliche myself. It is cliche to be against organised religion. It is cliche to be against the military. It is cliche to be against government, brittany spears, and anti-abortionists. Or so I see it. At the most it is typically knee-jerk reactionism; unthought-out, and not really justifiably challenged - it is automatic.

Seriously, you have expressed the essence of the topic beautifully, brilliantly, eloquently. I hope it helps to clerify my points to more of those who weren't sure.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

paxamillion: So, where does one find "the teeth?"

---

Here are a few:

1./ Living up to our own principles
2./ Not tolerating hypocrisy, selective blindness, double standards (in self and others)
3./ Voting with our lifestyles
4./ Throwing out politicians who ‘crossed the line’ by breaking their promises
5./ Standing up proudly for our shared ethical beliefs
6./ Teaching our children history, literature, philosophy, critical thinking
7./ Boycotting corporate media
8./ Supporting all ethical enterprises
9./ Refusing to work for unethical corporations
10./ Clarifying our own beliefs in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and living by them.
11./ Taking our own ethical sense seriously and demanding it from others.
12./ Not letting cynics and 'pragmatists' intimidate us
13./ Standing up for each other when we know we are right

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Not everyone subscribes to a concept of greater good

---

And where does "each one acting for his or her own good" get us?

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

quote:

---

paxamillion: where do we find "the teeth" collectively?

---

Even though social systems and existing institutions effect how people relate to each other, I firmly believe that the driving force is the cumulative effect of individual ethical and social attitudes.

quote:

---

-Living up to our own principles
-Not tolerating hypocrisy, selective blindness, double standards (in self and others)
-Voting with our lifestyles
-Throwing out politicians who ‘crossed the line’ by breaking their promises
-Standing up proudly for our shared ethical beliefs
-Teaching our children history, literature, philosophy, critical thinking
-Boycotting corporate media
-Supporting all ethical enterprises
-Refusing to work for unethical corporations
-Clarifying our own beliefs in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and living by them.
-Taking our own ethical sense seriously and demanding it from others.
-Not letting cynics and ‘pragmatists’ intimidate us
-Standing up for each other when we know we are right

---

Not tolerating hypocrisy, selective blindness, double standards (in self and others) - I largely agree, but confine it to eliminating my own hypocrisies, and trying to be more accepting of the weaknesses of others (something I'm not very good at yet).

-Throwing out politicians who ‘crossed the line’ by breaking their promises - unreservedly agree

-Standing up proudly for our shared ethical beliefs - agree, but would add "standing up proudly for the right to hold ethical beliefs not shared by the majority".

-Boycotting corporate media - I'm not sure what this involves. I believe it is more effective to allow the Emperor to walk around naked so that one may be able to point and say, "look, the Emperor has no clothes". But by and large I don't buy into corporate media because of the poor quality and low standards.

-Refusing to work for unethical corporations - ideally, if at all possible, yes. But most corporations are unethical, to some degree, and most people cannot chose who they work for, especially if they financially support others or live in a region that offers few choices for employment. One often can only hope to inject some ethical standard into the entity one must make a living from.

-Supporting all ethical enterprises - absolutely

-Clarifying our own beliefs in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and living by them - yes. And allowing dissenters to do the same.

-Not letting cynics and ‘pragmatists’ intimidate us - cheap shot. Cynics and pragmatists are entitled to disagree with you and hold alternative views. Expressing a view that does not resonate with yours, disagreeing even strongly with you, is not, in and of itself, a form of intimidation and it is false to suggest so.

12./ Not letting cynics and 'pragmatists' intimidate us

Intimidation is an internal state. I was referring to what we allow to happen inside us, rather than what others do.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Not tolerating hypocrisy, selective blindness, double standards (in self and others) - I largely agree, but confine it to eliminating my own hypocrisies, and trying to be more accepting of the weaknesses of others (something I'm not very good at yet).

---

Very valuable and worthwhile undertakings. Yes, I find them difficult, too.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

quote:

---

12./ Not letting cynics and 'pragmatists' intimidate us

Intimidation is an internal state. I was referring to what we allow to happen inside us, rather than what others do.

---

quote:

---

-Clarifying our own beliefs in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and living by them
- yes. And allowing dissenters to do the same.

---

... which, I think, means that the most self-focussed individuals would continue on in the same way they are now.

Example: How many of us have sat on our hands while our friends talked about cheating on their spouses/whatevers? Or something similiar.

When was the last time your said to somebody: "What you are doing isn't cool, man - it is, in fact, wrong." ?

Or maybe it's how someone is raising their kid. Or something simple, like taking up two parking spaces. Like it or not, our individual actions have consequences for everyone. A little respect is in order, me thinks.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

Sometimes it is important to call ‘spades’ ‘spades’.

Here are a few spades (from another thread I started last week):

- There are people who knowingly and deliberately exploit/hurt/torture others. They are evil.

- There are people who mean well but are ignorant and confused. They are victims.

- There are people who suspect all the bad things, but they DON’T WANT TO KNOW. It would be inconvenient, it would require ‘sacrifices’, it would rock the boat. These are the moral cowards.

- There are people who see clearly and shrug. These are the cynics.

- There are people who see clearly but accept the status quo because they benefit from it. These are the opportunists.

- There are people who see clearly and would like to help but feel powerless. These are the discouraged.

- There are people who see clearly and make an effort to help. They follow their convictions toward social justice. Some of them make compromises with evil, some don't. These are the social activists.

Zatamon, Your Dogma is interesting, how fitting that you should write it down in point form

Not tolerating hypocrisy, selective blindness, double standards (in self and others):
The sofware consultant who preaches about the evils of "big business" is just asking for it.

Boycotting corporate media: Oh come on what the hell does that mean? Close your eyes as your driving down the highway to avoid staring at the Calvin Klien billboard?

Supporting all ethical enterprises: another lovely but meaningless statement since we have already determined that we do not share the same "ethics"

Refusing to work for unethical corporations: ya I'm sure that the billions of workers that depend on their wages to support their families will be right on board with that one. ... and as a software consultant, how do you see yourself as working for an "ethical" employer?

Clarifying our own beliefs in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and living by them.
Most people do this, they just have a different conception of what's right and wrong.

Taking our own ethical sense seriously and demanding it from others.
I don't think you or anyone else should be the moderators of ethical behaviour (well maybe Audra) who are you or I to demand anything from anyone?

Not letting cynics and 'pragmatists' intimidate us:
Since I'm sure you imagine yourself speaking to me, when dealing with the "pragmatists" I can assure you that I am questioning your ideology ... not trying to intimidate you.

Standing up for each other when we know we are right.
Which I agree with, does it also include standing up when someone is wrong?

PS I suggest you read the "Alternative lifestyle (his and her part)" thread before you embarrass yourself even more.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Yes, you are right. Reason, tolerance, understanding are all still very important virtues. But they mean little without 'faith'. There is no context, no reality to them.

---

It's not faith. There IS 'FAITH' out there right now, but as was pointed out above, it's FAITH in our complicated and incomplete systems.

I think what we need is a common spirituality. A common higher meaning that almost everyone would feel comfortable believing in and working towards.

It would encompass rights and responsibilities, our knowledge of the world and ourselves, and would acknowledge everyone's material and emotional needs.

Unfortunately, though, the current system would have to completely crash and burn before most people would give it up for something better.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Hardner ]

“Ever since Christian faith was ousted from most of western societies as a practical force, reason remained the only one and now it is an unopposed, dictatorial force. That is exactly what John Ralston Saul’s very successful book: “Voltaire’s Bastards” is about.”

What I was trying illustrate how religious faith used to provide some (imperfect) checks and balance on human behaviour and how we don’t have anything like that any more.

In the mainstream Western culture we don’t believe in anything to the point where it would moderate our behaviour.

For better or worse, some religious people feared their god and wanted to live as close as they could to the ten commandments. Some of which we still believe in (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness)

The essence of this thread (as far as my intentions are concerned) is the need for something to believe in beyond personal self interest. We need to believe in this so strongly (I think) that I thought the word ‘faith’ was justified.

“I have faith in myself”, we say, “I have faith in my children”, “I have faith in my people”.

quote:

---

I think what we need is a common spirituality. A common higher meaning that almost everyone would feel comfortable believing in and working towards.

---

And I absolutely agree with Rebecca West when she says that ethics, reason, tolerance, etc can be meaningful outside of a faith-based system. Much of what has been said is trying to impose what one person thinks is right on everyone else. And that's the problem that I have with this idea that "absolutes" are necessary.

I think feeling a little adrift from time to time is good for all of us. It makes us examine our preconceptions of the world around us.

quote:

---

wei-chi, you[r] drivel is appalling, who are you to decide for others what is right and wrong in their lives? Even if it is family or friends. You are in no position to judge! Acting in this way is a sure way to alienate anyone who is important to you.

---

I don't know where this tone comes from, but it sounds like you are juding me! Deciding that this is wrong in my life!

quote:

---

Alix: Much of what has been said is trying to impose what one person thinks is right on everyone else. And that's the problem that I have with this idea that "absolutes" are necessary.

---

The problem, sometimes, is people thinking in terms of diametric opposites. If one questions one part of one opinion, the almost automatic assumption is that ‘he must mean the exact opposite’ of the whole thing. Careful reading and requests for clarification could save a lot of time for all concerned.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

The essence of this thread (as far as my intentions are concerned) is the need for something to believe in beyond personal self interest. We need to believe in this so strongly (I think) that I thought the word ‘faith’ was justified.

---

I am arguing so strongly and so harshly because you keep saying things like "WE NEED FAITH" Why are you speking for me? Why can't you say "I need faith"

I need none of what you speak of, if you do - that's great, I respect and appreciate the choices you make for yourself, however, it really bothers me when some person sits around making sweeping statements about what I need.

In case you hadn't noticed THAT is usually where the biggest evil arises.

quote:

---

I think human society is more than a ‘sum of its parts’. To function at all, it needs cohesiveness. It needs a basis of shared beliefs, a cross-section, a core, a common denominator.

---

I think I generally agree with this statement. Seems to me that part of our societal problems is the fact that we're all so fiercely protective of our individuality, so entrenched in it, that we sometimes forget or overlook that we are also part of a whole system.

Sitting at home, watching your tv, it's easy to forget that everything you do effects everyone else in some trickle out, ripple effect kind of way. People throw around atomization as a catch phrase these days, but it's a real thing. We all want to be individuals, heard, acknowledged and respected for who we are, our uniqueness and our specialness.

Above all else, we don't want anyone to take any of our individual rights or priveleges away.

I don't mean to sound judgemental, or to assume a position outside of this at all. It's a fact of our reality. But it's also a bit of a tragedy, because this mentality--I me mine, every person for his/her self--eats away at our commonality until there's almost nothing left of it. While each of us has a different set of values and morals, there must be something that ties them all together, makes them work cooperatively, if not seamlessly, and this element, I think, is sorely lacking.

quote:

---

“I have faith in myself”, we say, “I have faith in my children”, “I have faith in my people”.

I still think we need to have ‘faith’ in something.

---

Of course, the interesting question is "In what?"

quote:

---

Your litany of ethical guidlines reveals both a lack of experience in the real world as well as a fundamental and shocking arrogance.

---

Well, at least Zatamon is making an effort to put forward an effort to discuss an issue of meaning to him (and evidently to many of us).

quote:

---

... which, I think, means that the most self-focussed individuals would continue on in the same way they are now

---

The predictable consequences of a self-centred world view.

quote:

---

When was the last time your said to somebody: "What you are doing isn't cool, man - it is, in fact, wrong." ?

---

Personally, I choose to express that I'm feeling concerned. I've found that pointing out where you think someone is going wrong can be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

quote:

---

I think what we need is a common spirituality. A common higher meaning that almost everyone would feel comfortable believing in and working towards.

---

I am perfectly within my rights in expressing an opinion, according to which "humanity needs faith". An opinion about humanity does not mean that I am trying to talk personally for either you or Rebecca. God save me from the task! I briefly considered changing the title to “Why we need faith (except Rebecca and Angela and... ) but I desisted – it would be too long!

Back to Alix:

Absolutism does not mean that one person knows all the answers. It means social, cultural and historical consensus. It means a shared belief we find self evident to such a degree that we are willing to die for it if necessary. Humanity has had such consensus, now and then, here and there, over our history. These were the heroic, idealist eras, when people believed in some things beyond self interest and were willing to die for these beliefs, if necessary.

What I am very angry about is the sad fact that this shared belief is being eroded and destroyed by the educational system, the media and the whole 'spoiled rotten', narcissistic, self-centered western culture. This atomizing and 'amoralizing' effect is a direct consequence of the capitalist system that requires us to be mindless consumers, accepting the total lack of inviolate human values as a given absolute.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

When a set of rules that are supposed to be absolute are imposed on others, that means that anyone who doesn't agree or live in accordance with them is distanced from their community. Deviating from the norm becomes even more fraught with peril.

And that's the point about Faith -- it has value in the face of "irrationality." To have faith in this sense is what I think JRS is talking about in the quotes given previously.

Now, the Faith Campbell and the priest were discussing was Christian Faith, or a belief in God that transcended the need for proof or rational, scientific arguments as to His non-existence. That sort of Faith isn't necessarily tied to God, though -- you can have that sort of faith in anything. Including your own supremacy or your natural right to use others as a means to your own ends.

pax:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When was the last time your said to somebody: "What you are doing isn't cool, man - it is, in fact, wrong." ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I choose to express that I'm feeling concerned. I've found that pointing out where you think someone is going wrong can be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

---

I think this is because no one does do it, nowadays. When someone does, they come off like a prick. Which is understandable.

And it is not about wielding power over someone. It is not about forcing someone to do something. It is just telling them.

Like children in the schoolyard. And some tough kid yells at a little guy, calling him all kinds of racist slurs. Do we teach our children to ignore it? Do we teach them to still hang out with this potential bigot (at least a meanie!).

There is a commercial I've seen where there is a bully all by himself yelling taunts and throwing punches. The message is "How silly would a bully look if we all just walked away?"

And this is what I mean. We have to 'call' people on their poor behaviour. Because if we don't, it just gets worse. For them. For us all.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

quote:

---

:VerbaTim: That's why I don't think "faith" is a correct description of what we "need." I think others have explained it in their posts -- what we need are principles.

---

quote:

---

That would certainly make things tidier, but people are too individualistic, too wonderfully diverse to make that practical, or even desireable. Although, getting people to agree on a common definition of "higher meaning" would be the largest, longest, most rancorous and most incredibly fascinating debate on spirituality that ever was.

---

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think that people generally have enough common good to do certain things:

a) Pitch in and help (in a limited way).
b) Unite against outsiders.

These are good things.

quote:

---

I think it's insane to say that we all need to find a common spirituality or higher purpose. I think everyone needs to be free to find their own spirituality and/or higher purpose. Attempts to bring everyone into line in that way are ultimately divisive, and can cause great pain for those who don't fit the proper mold.

---

I think there's a possibility for spiritual common ground amongst everybody.

For example, each of us has a different story of how we got here. By "here" I mean, here and now - this country, this city, at this time.

All of us share in the fact that our ancestors put themselves through great toil to put us where we are today.

This 'story of us' is a great narrative arc, inclusive and meaningful. This is just one example, I think there are others.

quote:

---

And I absolutely agree with Rebecca West when she says that ethics, reason, tolerance, etc can be meaningful outside of a faith-based system. Much of what has been said is trying to impose what one person thinks is right on everyone else. And that's the problem that I have with this idea that "absolutes" are necessary.

---

Absolutely. Oops.

quote:

---

I agree. I explained why I used the word 'faith'. The word is not important. The meaning is (or should be) clear. I was talking about ethical principles all along.

However, the word 'faith' served one purpose. It created some interest in the topic of Ethics.

---

quote:

---

An opinion about humanity does not mean that I am trying to talk personally for either you or Rebecca. God save me from the task! I briefly considered changing the title to “Why we need faith (except Rebecca and Angela and... ) but I desisted – it would be too long!

---

To me "faith" is more than just religious belief. It means confidence. In my own spiritual journey, having confidence in something greater than me was a "leap" at first. However, my confidence grows with time.

quote:

---

However, most of us are trying to arrive at those principles through a process of rational discourse, which by its very nature undermines our ability to have Faith in them.

---

The use of 'faith' has been discussed.

Obviously you babblers are a select group, probably steadfast in your principles. I think me and Zatamon we waxing about hypothetical individuals (but nonetheless real) in our society who 'pass the buck'.

I think it is great if babblers *are* calling people on their behaviour, according to their principles. I think that is an element of activism, and I guess I'd be shocked if babblers didn't possess this trait.

But as we talk abstractly about ethics and principles, it is easy to retrench into a position of "there is no right or wrong, and thus I can't be judged."

quote:

---

Does it have to be common? Why can't it be of each person's choosing?

---

And yet, when somebody breaks into your house, you pretty much expect the police to catch him and the law-courts to convict him: you don't expect them to shrug and say, "The burglar has a right to his own ethics - who are we to judge?"

We all judge, all the time, both individually and collectively; casually and formally. And we generally do it from the very same perspective, the very same basic set of rules.
And then we get all upset if somebody spells out those rules, or even suggests that we ought to believe in, and act on, them more consistently.

This is a funny society. If someone doesn't express enough emotion, we send them to a shrink. If someone expresses more emotion than we're comfortable with, we send them to a shrink.
If someone takes a stand on common humanity, we accuse him of telling us what to do, and tell him not to do it. If someone doesn't take a stand, we accuse him of apathy.
No forest here, just a whole bunch of trees.

quote:

---

A friend of mine likes to say that one can't think one's way to better living, but one can live one's way to better thinking. Perhaps principles need to be lived as part of the exercise of coming to understand them. There's that initial "leap," eh?

---

Whoah, pax, just made a lot of sense to me.

It is like: how can you hold 'good' principles, if you frequently don't act 'good.'

Or: how can you value monogamy and honest, if you frequently cheat on your spouse?

quote:

---

And yet, when somebody breaks into your house, you pretty much expect the police to catch him and the law-courts to convict him: you don't expect them to shrug and say, "The burglar has a right to his own ethics - who are we to judge?"

---

quote:

---

Lima Bean: But it's also a bit of a tragedy, because this mentality--I me mine, every person for his/her self--eats away at our commonality until there's almost nothing left of it. While each of us has a different set of values and morals, there must be something that ties them all together, makes them work cooperatively, if not seamlessly, and this element, I think, is sorely lacking.

---

quote:

---

Nonesuch: We all judge, all the time, both individually and collectively; casually and formally. And we generally do it from the very same perspective, the very same basic set of rules. And then we get all upset if somebody spells out those rules, or even suggests that we ought to believe in, and act on, them more consistently.

---

quote:

---

I believe I questioned why a common spirituality might be needed. I don't think I said anything about the law.

---

As in, Liberty Equality Fraternity.

quote:

---

But as we talk abstractly about ethics and principles, it is easy to retrench into a position of "there is no right or wrong, and thus I can't be judged."

---

Perhaps you're inventing a concern where none exists in order to support an insupportable argument. Like the one that claims all viable ethics must be faith-based. Hmmmmmm?

Anyway, regardless of whether you "believe" or "have faith in" a higher moral code, or you have a rational, individual understanding of mutual self-interest in supporting what is best for the individual and the community, yeah, we all have a basic set of values. Where we are differing is how we arrive at those basic values, how they are generated, etc. And that's fine, so long as everyone understands and respects those differences.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Rebecca. I guess I got that impression from getting dog-piled on by Angela N

quote:

---

wei-chi, you drivel is appalling, who are you to decide for others what is right and wrong in their lives? Even if it is family or friends. You are in no position to judge!

---

I think I realise now that she misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Who am I to judge? Well, I am ME dammit! What am I supposed to do, just sit back and say "I'm too ignorant/blonde to be fit to judge! Let someone else do it for me!"

Of course each of us judges - as has been said. When I made the post you are referring to, I still thought that Angela N was taking the position that no one can judge others. But I realise now that she was thinking that I was judging FROM AHIGH, or something moreso than just me, the little guy from Quneitra writing this.

So I guess i came off a bit reactionary.

Anyway. I completely believe you can have a ethical system not-based on G*d, if that's what you mean by faith-based. I think simply basing ethics and morality on our common pysiological attributes is a good system (We are all mortal, so no killing. We need food, water, so no stealing it, etc...)

But I think all of these non-faith-based ethical systems are completely compatible with faith-based ones.

There are still disagreements. And we need disagreements - arguments - not ambivalence.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

quote:

---

(nonesuch: I should probably spell check my posts)

---

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

There are organizations that are quite capable of promoting fraternity etc. without requiring a common spirituality. However, a common set of spiritual principles helps.

---

Random House: 'faith' n. 1. "confidence or trust in a person or thing."

Can we lay the 'faith' issue to rest?

Let's talk about Ethics.

What is it? How is it formed? How much of it is individual and how much of it is shared?

What role does it play in our individual and collective lives?

Can we live without a shared set of beliefs?

Should we stand up to Mike Harrises even to the extent of great personal inconvenience and/or financial loss?

Should we put our money to where our professed ethical principles lie?

Should we practice what we preach? If yes, to what extent?

Are we prepared to defend our deeply held beliefs as the Voltair quote suggested in the first post?

Where do we draw the line in 'going along'?

quote:

---

Anyway. I completely believe you can have a ethical system not-based on G*d, if that's what you mean by faith-based.

---

Our society (not you - other people!) has relegated Ethics to an ivory (all right, cement-block) tower, where six old guys (two of them female) write boring books that only their students have to read.
Meanwhile, the word is bandied about and dragged through filth by ad-execs who wouldn't recognize an ethic if it bit them on the nose.

That's why it's so difficult to talk seriously about. That's why many of us (not you!) lack the confidence - that faith in our own sense of right and wrong - to stand up for it. Most of us (not you!) have not really thought about where that internal moral compass comes from or how it works. For non-intellectual, inarticulate people (obviously not anyone here!), it's easier and more reassuring to refer some authority than to own their personal ethical stand.
In fact, atheists probably need to behave more ethically than religious persons, because they have no external source of forgiveness.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

What is it? How is it formed? How much of it is individual and how much of it is shared?
What role does it play in our individual and collective lives?

---

I think ethics are formed daily, through our experiences. This is why I've been saying we need to point out the ethical flaws as we see it. Think of it this way, if I want to develop good ethics, which I think is a fair thing to say, wouldn't I want people to correct me when I error. Like if I want to learn multiplication, if someone points out what they think is a mistake it really helps to learn. Of course, there are those times when you actually HAD the answer right and the 'teacher' was wrong. Then you go back to them and show them your process and your answer and discuss. Ethics is a learning process.

In the end, I think the mechanics of our morality is less important than the quality of the product. "How often do we stray from our ethical standards?" Is a far more important question than "From whence do you derive your ethics?"

quote:

---

Wei-chi:So I call bullshit. If we can't expect ethical behaviour of our friends and family especially - then what good are they? Who knows when a betrayal of one form or another will occur. The way to end up in an alienated family is to let people do unscrupulous things to each other and other people: Let your brother rob a liquor store, go ahead. Let your mother screw around on your dad. Fine. The world isn't out there somewhere - it is right here. Think Globally, *ACT* locally. Start with yourself. Call yourself on your indecencies. Then look around, who is being a prick to his girlfriend? Who's pissing on some homeless guy in an alley? Ignore or Act? Inaction or Action? There is a reason Hamlet is a tragedy.

---

OK, I understand what you are saying here, but the language you use is misleading, you said, we SHOULD be more judgmental, we should call things as we see them, the problem is what if my idea of being an asshole to my partner is not your idea of being an asshole? Then you are essentially getting yourself involved with an issue not based on ethics but on self-righteous indignation, what if you are wrong wei-chi? what if the person that you’re trying to set straight is already straight but from another point of view. If your Mom screws around on your Dad, would you really try to do something about it? Other peoples personal lives are just that, personal. You can’t possibly know what is right for everyone. Maybe mom hasn’t been laid properly for 25 years, you would take that from her based on your opinion of what matrimony should be? What about providing support and comfort, rather than judgment and opinion in a time of need?

quote:

---

Absolutism means social, cultural and historical consensus. It means a shared belief we find self evident to such a degree that we are willing to die for it if necessary. Humanity has had such consensus, now and then, here and there, over our history. These were the heroic, idealist eras, when people believed in some things beyond self interest and were willing to die for these beliefs, if necessary.

---

Ya they called themselves Nazi’s and Christian Crusaders. Are there other groups of people you had in mind when you wrote this - cuz I would honestly like to know who they were and when they existed.

quote:

---

What I am very angry about is the sad fact that this shared belief is being eroded and destroyed by the educational system, the media and the whole 'spoiled rotten', narcissistic, self-centered western culture. This atomizing and 'amoralizing' effect is a direct consequence of the capitalist system that requires us to be mindless consumers, accepting the total lack of inviolate human values as a given absolute.

---

And you probably agree, but we are coming at it from two different angles.

quote:

---

wei-chi: I think ethics are formed daily, through our experiences.

---

"No other quality is almost unanimously recognized as being of great importance and yet equally thought to be inapplicable in the real world. This is the conundrum of ethics.

Received wisdom has it that only an idealist or a romantic could think otherwise. We are expected to grow up and get a job, as if there were an implied precedence of employment over ethics.

…

But ethics is not romantic. It is perhaps the least romantic of all human qualities. It has a steely edge which makes its existential nature impossible to ignore. The steely edge is there precisely because ethics is down-to-earth and practical, a matter of daily habit. Of course the heroic sort exists -- the ethics of crisis. It and the great heroes it produces exist as a reminder of the ultimate cost of honest consciousness.

But the citizen’s ethics has to wake up every morning. There is an element of drudgery to it. This is something that must be present everywhere in tiny details. There is a need for constant effort, constant evaluation. Ethics is like a muscle which must be exercised daily in order to be used in a normal manner. "

I thought these quotes were relevant to the questions I asked at the end of the first page of this thread.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Rebecca: Anyway, regardless of whether you "believe" or "have faith in" a higher moral code, or you have a rational, individual understanding of mutual self-interest in supporting what is best for the individual and the community, yeah, we all have a basic set of values. Where we are differing is how we arrive at those basic values, how they are generated, etc.

---

More or less all of us believe in, or at least 'pay lip service to', the same lofty principles. Have not met too many people who claim to disapprove of love, cooperation, compassion, freedom, respect, tolerance, etc., etc. Or those who would openly support murder, theft, lying, cheating, ripping off others, etc.

Many will have somewhat different definitions of these terms, but the biggest difference lies in how truly we practice what we preach.

This is where the question of Ethics becomes interesting (and sometime uncomfortable).

The JRS quote in my previous post addresses exactly this aspect of Ethics.

As I stated many times before: I am agnostic, I don't believe in any specific gods or 'higher' (than human) existence. My morality is based on rational recognition of our interdependence and a very strong desire of fairness, which is embodied by my highest personal principle: "do unto others as you would others do unto you".

However, besides a very strong desire for being fair, I also have a very strong desire to practice what I say I believe in. I don't always succeed, but I try very hard. And that is what bothers me most in our culture: most people I talk to seem to live by the question: “What price honour?”…

PS. before I cause another explosion, I wish to state that I am not accusing anyone here personally. I am talking about my wider cultural experience in North America.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

It all goes back to "tit for tat". We keep score. We do "nice" things because we want to live in a society where "nice" things happen to US, or other carriers of our genetic material.

Of course, varying from individual to individual, the amount of "nice" stuff done compared to "nice" stuff recieved is a matter of constant contention.

We keep score, all the time.

The act of rationalizing, of putting as much value on "nice" things done as comparred to the "nice" things received, getting as much "wiggle room" as possible in the great game of "tit for tat" is........ (drum roll please)

quote:

---

Tommy: Of course, varying from individual to individual, the amount of "nice" stuff done compared to "nice" stuff received is a matter of constant contention

---

To prove her wrong, RR offers her one million dollars for one night. She accepts.

Obviously, the price was right (she says she is doing it for her husband and he does know about it)

I know, it is a movie, but I have watched a talk show program where this came up. Most of the women in the audience either agreed with Demi, or hesitated about what they would do.

I find the example highly symbolic.

A long time ago I had a business partner who (talking about a very lucrative business offer I received) flatly refused to believe that I would not walk out on him, even if I was offered a million dollars. He said he would.

As I said: "what price, honour"?

PS. I know, some of you might be tempted to say that my business partner was more honest than I was, but I know I wouldn't have. You have to take my word for it (or not).

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

…the citizen’s ethics has to wake up every morning. There is an element of drudgery to it. This is something that must be present everywhere in tiny details. There is a need for constant effort, constant evaluation. Ethics is like a muscle which must be exercised daily in order to be used in a normal manner. "

---

This also resembles existential thought in a number of ways. Camus's essay, the myth of sisyphus, is very much about how we derive meaning and value from the process of existence itself, and not some abstract concept of god, eternal reward, higher morality, or universal ethic. Where JRS departs from the zen and the existential is his assessment of the "element of drudgery" in living your ethics in every conscious moment of your life.

However, I'd also like to point out that living ethically is an important component to living mindfully. The Buddha taught that a certain amount of ethical behaviour is necessary for mindfulness and other aspects of the meditative approach to life to take hold.

“What is a good life?
…
What should I do? What shall I do? How should I live? In each of these questions the “good’ of the good life is unstated but understood. The full questions is: How should I live, given the context of the larger good? The larger good assumes the existence of the other, of the family, of the community. Of the public good.

Ideologues and cynics aside, most of us are perfectly capable of asking ourselves the ethical questions. Once asked, they demand not so much replies as continual, sustained questioning. To ask is to admit that we have both a need and an obligation to ask, to go on asking and, along the way, to act in accordance. To ask and not go on is to admit personal failure as an ethical being. And not to act is to embrace self-loathing. Better not to ask in the first place.”

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

Ethics are not just about what is good and what is evil. They are about how best to live with yourself and among others. Living mindfully means that every act is performed with awareness, with presence of mind. Not muddling around in the remembered past or the imagined future. Of course, unless you are a buddhist monk, it's not very practical to live every moment of you life this way, but mindfulness is, I find, a very practical tool for understanding the relationship between what you think and what you do, and how you can live more productively and joyfully even while performing tasks that seems like mindless drudgery. It's helpful in being less goal-oriented and more process-oriented, less focused on "success" and more inclined towards what is "best". Very challenging, very rewarding, don't you find Pax?

quote:

---

although it's hardly unique to Zen -- it occurs often in the Pali canon and is an essential element of Theravadin insight practice

---

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

JRS again (from "On Equilibrium")
“What is a good life?
…
What should I do? What shall I do? How should I live? In each of these questions the “good’ of the good life is unstated but understood. The full questions is: How should I live, given the context of the larger good? The larger good assumes the existence of the other, of the family, of the community. Of the public good.

---

Since old JRS has come up so frequently on a board about ethics, its instructive to note that he and his lovely wife tried (and I think succeded) in preventing their elderly, disabled, next-door neighbour in Yorkville from renovating her home to make it accessible, thus allowing her to continue to live there. They were concerned about property values and how it would affect the appearance of the street.

quote:

---

Living mindfully means that every act is performed with awareness, with presence of mind. Not muddling around in the remembered past or the imagined future. Of course, unless you are a buddhist monk, it's not very practical to live every moment of you life this way, but mindfulness is, I find, a very practical tool for understanding the relationship between what you think and what you do, and how you can live more productively and joyfully even while performing tasks that seems like mindless drudgery. It's helpful in being less goal-oriented and more process-oriented, less focused on "success" and more inclined towards what is "best". Very challenging, very rewarding, don't you find Pax?

---

Mindfulness can have many purposes. The Buddha taught it as a way to see the relative world correctly, and break the bondage of suffering. Modern therapists sometimes suggest clients use it to understand their own destructive patterns of behaviour.

Should we stand up to Mike Harrises even to the extent of great personal inconvenience and/or financial loss?

Should we put our money to where our professed ethical principles lie?

Should we practice what we preach? If yes, to what extent?

Are we prepared to defend our deeply held beliefs as the Voltair quote suggested in the first post?

quote:

---

I'm wondering if Tommy's comments about JRS and his wife consititutes an ad hominum attack. Do we expect everyone to be perfectly ethical all the time?

---

Of course not. However if someone portrays themselves as the voice of the common good, societial mores, and ethics, they sure as hell better act that way.

Incidentally, JRS never once mentioned himself as an example, in the book, as far as I can remember.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

I'm wondering if Tommy's comments about JRS and his wife consititutes an ad hominum attack. Do we expect everyone to be perfectly ethical all the time?

---

But your question about being ethical all the time is a good one. If it is impossible to be entirely ethical all the time, do we judge an individual "more ethical" if they are only mildly unethical on a regular basis, or if they are ethical most of the time but in rare instances are extremely unethical? Sort of like:

Person A - cheats on taxes, cheats on spouse, lies casually, never volunteers or gives to charity.

Person B - never cheats, never lies, solid community member, volunteers, donates to worthy causes, owns a sweatshot that employs children who work in appalling conditions.

"Should we stand up to Mike Harrises even to the extent of great personal inconvenience and/or financial loss?"

I believe that we need to find leveraged ways to fight the Tories -- ways that will have most effect for the amount of effort. I sometimes wonder if we've saturated the citizens of Ontario with so much anti-Harris stuff that they are desensitized to it.

Sometimes this means being part of alternative solutions. Right now, a group of us are at work on a couple. I'll be happy to share more details when we reach a state of readiness.

"Should we put our money to where our professed ethical principles lie?" "Should we practice what we preach? If yes, to what extent?"

Money *and* time. I believe that first one has to be clear about one's roles and goals. For example, I have things that need to be done to keep me well, I am a husband and father, I am an employee, and I am a concerned citizen.

I'll never have enough time and money to do everything for which I feel the urge. So, I have to think carefully through what's important.

Sometimes these things are quite basic. For example, I profess to wanting to be a good father to my son (who lives with his mother most of the time in another town). So, I do my best to focus my attention on him during my legal periods of access, talk with him often at other times, and *always* get that support cheque into the mail -- no matter what I might think of my ex-wife.

"Are we prepared to defend our deeply held beliefs as the Voltair quote suggested in the first post?"

I believe that how I live my beliefs says much more than any words I can offer.

"Where do we draw the line in 'going along'?"

If I knew the answer to that, I'd have my own infomercial. However, some things that come to mind....

- I don't go along with things that cause me or those I love harm.
- I do try to let people make their own choices and inherit the consequences of them. However, my son is not going to get to explore the inside of a cage with a live bear.

quote:

---

Rebecca: Who is more ethical? I would judge the person who causes more damage, on a human level, to the the least ethical. That, to me, would be Person B. What do you all think?

---

quote:

---

Pax: Can I be granted absolution now, Father Zatamon? Wait a minute, I'm a Lutheran.

---

quote:

---

I do try to let people make their own choices and inherit the consequences of them. However, my son is not going to get to explore the inside of a cage with a live bear.

---

quote:

---

Pax: I have things that need to be done to keep me well

---

The key word in the quote is “well”.

How do we define this “well”?

Does it mean not starving and having some kind of roof over our head?

Does it mean owning a house in Rosedale and a Porche to go with it?

Or somewhere in between, where we are comfortable?

What level does suffering of others have to reach before it makes me willing to adjust my comfort level? How close do those others have to be to me?

My family – obviously.

My friends – most likely.

My neighbor – probably.

Homeless kids in Toronto – maybe to a small degree.

Starving kids in India – whenever I have a spare dime.

Does the known fact that my comfort level is heavily subsidized by the parents of that starving kid in India effect where I peg my comfort level?

How are all these questions related to Ethics?

These are all real and important questions. I am not offering (not even implying) answers. I am only curious about your opinions.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

I've heard this story about JRS and his wife, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. As far as I know, it's completely unsubstantiated rumour. Unless TS can produce a viable source for the info, it's an ad hominem attack.

---

Hey, you asked for it you've got it. Does this now mean Rebecca its not an ad hominem attack, rather just a case of point out some rather nasty behaviour?

quote:

---

And already the couple should have ample evidence that life in the public eye will not always prove easy. In recent months, the Globe and Mail, following up on a story first published in Frank magazine, has run a series of articles about the future governor-general's bid to stop an aged neighbour from adding an addition to her Yorkville home.

---

http://www.fruvous.com/news/990909n2.html

Evidently the woman in question, 82-year old Catherine MacKay Stewart, had been moved to a nursing home and was, along with her son, planning the changes so the she could come home for the weekends.

This created quite a buzz here in the big smoke, needlesss to say.

Edit I agree with Jimmy, both A & B are shits. However the second person, by virtue of his general good character would be the last guy to own a sweatshop. The question would then become what is he planning to do with it? Sell it to A?. Finally a clear case of good and evil.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

quote:

---

Should we stand up to Mike Harrises even to the extent of great personal inconvenience and/or financial loss?

Should we put our money to where our professed ethical principles lie?

Should we practice what we preach? If yes, to what extent?

Are we prepared to defend our deeply held beliefs as the Voltair quote suggested in the first post?

Where do we draw the line in 'going along'?

---

Zatamon, you seem to keep coming back to Harris yet your solutions don't sound like they would at all resonate with the people who voted for him. If people were interested in pure living, self discipline, and retrospection to the Nth degree then I doubt they would vote for Harris anyway.

quote:

---

Michael Hardner: Doesn't that make this dialogue into a futile exercise ?

---

Apart from that, as I said, I am only asking questions here. My own personal choices (some of them known on Babble) is not debated here and now. But you are right, I like my own choices for myself (otherwise I would have chosen differently).

quote:

---

But you are right, I like my own choices for myself

---

quote:

---

Edit I agree with Jimmy, both A & B are shits. However the second person, by virtue of his general good character would be the last guy to own a sweatshop

---

I don't mean to pick at you. But when you start a thread like this, be prepared to take a few shots.

Here goes.

quote:

---

Should we stand up to Mike Harrises even to the extent of great personal inconvenience and/or financial loss?

---

I disliked Mike Harris and I thought he was incompetent. But I'm not sure what my best approach would be to opposing him.

I marched against the cuts, and I voted against him. I answered political polls with the most anti-Harris responses I could.

Again, you keep mentioning Harris. For somebody else, it might be Chretien or Bob Rae. I think if you start out assuming somebody is evil or inhuman, you're already behind the 8 ball.

quote:

---

Should we put our money to where our professed ethical principles lie?

---

Sure.

There are constraints of course. Even the Unabomber had to go into town once in awhile.

quote:

---

Should we practice what we preach? If yes, to what extent?

---

Yes, obviously. This is the basis of ethical behavior. One should strive to follow a universal code.

quote:

---

Are we prepared to defend our deeply held beliefs as the Voltair quote suggested in the first post?

---

I can defend mine to the nth degree, even the little hyopcrisies that are a necessary part of living.

quote:

---

Where do we draw the line in 'going along'?

---

I don't like boycotting things, because it's a negative response. If something is so bad that I shouldn't be buying it, then it should be illegal.

Positive action is a good thing. Building is always better than tearing down or criticizing, but it's a lot harder.

I think one should know the reasons they have for doing anything, and one should have a feeling for how much selfishness and selflessness is involved in their actions.

Thanks for answering the first set of questions. They were good an honest answers and I don't have any problem with them (of course I don't always agree, but that's not the point here).

How about answering the second set of questions, the ones I asked posted on November 26, 2002 01:54 PM. They are more specific questions, trying to gauge attitudes of where the comnfort level is established by different people, in view of the state of the world, locally and globally.

Again, please leave my psychology out of it, because it is totally irrelevant as far as the questions are concerned. Pretend that the questions were computer generated! (another joke)

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Even the Unabomber had to go into town once in awhile.

---

quote:

---

Does this now mean Rebecca its not an ad hominem attack, rather just a case of point out some rather nasty behaviour?

---

I'd say it's still an ad hominem attack. However, this is a tough crowd, as was pointed out above.

George Who?

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

quote:

---

Regarding the Saul/Clarkson debacle, thank you for verifying the rumour. While I'm not a fan of either half of this illustrious couple, I'm not a fan of unsubstantiated attacks either.

---

quote:

---

What level does suffering of others have to reach before it makes me willing to adjust my comfort level? How close do those others have to be to me?

My family – obviously.

My friends – most likely.

My neighbor – probably.

Homeless kids in Toronto – maybe to a small degree.

Starving kids in India – whenever I have a spare dime.

Does the known fact that my comfort level is heavily subsidized by the parents of that starving kid in India effect where I peg my comfort level?

How are all these questions related to Ethics?

---

I don't want anything I do to hurt anyone, period. Most people don't.

There is poverty in India but my comfort level isn't subsidized it, as far as I can see.

quote:

---

Though clearly it wasn't to see his stylist.

---

Hmmm.

quote:

---

As I said: "what price, honour"?

---

What is honour but currency in "tit for tat"?

We all have things we wouldn't do. At one point, a plant president confided to my plant chairperson that a piece of equipment at our plant would be capable of making nose cones for nukes. I suspect he was winding my chairperson up, but I decided that if the company was actually going to do this, they'd do it without me. I'd quit.

Last week, when the news broke about the GST scam, I was angry and miffed. Angry that once again, a tax loophole was created for those in the know.

And quite miffed I wasn't one of those in the know.

I often wonder if the real division between rich and the rest in this society is that the we remain poor because of our quiant attachment to our consciences.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

i often wonder if the real division between rich and the rest in this society is that the we remain poor because of our quiant attachment to our consciences.

---

I don't doubt this for a second. I could be a real A-one sleazebag with a pile of dough if I wanted to (and no, I don't want to, because I have a slight attachment to the idea that I am basically a good person ). All I would have had to do would be to have absolutely no compunction about making someone else look bad at their expense, and to be a good corporate lap-dog, or a right-wing lap-dog at any rate.

On a related note, have you ever noticed how scams just keep coming up in mutated forms? They wouldn't keep coming up if the scammers knew that nobody in their target audience was a sucker.

Right now, the rats are forcing me to.
See, i rather like rats. The little buggers are just trying to make the best possible life for themselves and their children. And they're so damn clever that i can't help admiring them. I don't very much mind if they steal bird-seed and dog kibble. But they're munching on the electric cables and threatening to set my house on fire. Obviously, they don't know; don't will me any harm; are not at all evil - just dangerous.