Archive for the Ethics & Morals Category

Medicines Are Drugs

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Medical, news, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2019 by Drogo

Drug possession and health care are so related, drug possession it basically means medicine possession, albeit overdose abuse.often they are exactly the same. heroine is fundamentally linked to morphine in composition and use. pot is much more of a medicine than alcohol, but both are used as medicine by poor people. natives do not see a distinction, for spiritual reasons. ‘drug’ means illegal medicine usually, the health issue is usually about pain treatment and dependence on the substance, whether addicted or prescribed for persistent problems. regarding pill addiction, they really are usually prescribed medicines. medicines always have side effects and toxicity levels that can add up when used frequently.

In AA and medical practices people use one ‘drug’ substance to use as a crutch or addiction, to switch with the one they want to get off of. In the case of heroin and methadone they are almost the same strength from what users and social workers told me. In my college roommates’ case it was coffee in trade of cocaine. 3 homeless people i know were not homeless because they were drug addicts, because they had more serious problems in their lives like family relations and disorders; so i think the law enforcement part of the war on drugs is often not appropriate, and some law enforcement people are speaking out about martial law abuse now. studying the results of the social programs would be interesting for sure, and how much force or legal threat is used to get them to do what is wanted by property owners.some medicines are safer than others for sure, as chemicals with toxic levels can vary.

Advertisements

Heart Matters More Than Mind

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Psychology, Rationality & Logic, relationships, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2019 by Drogo

This theme of ‘love vs intelligence’ probably first became an issue for me from studying the fantasy works about Oz, regarding the Tin Man and the Scarecrow. It also involved arguing with dad about having ‘stupid friends’ who were not very smart. my gentle giant friend Fruity would admit he was not very ‘book smart’; he would do stupid stuff to amuse me to show how strong he was. Dad and i debated about whether i could have friends that were mentally challenged; defined by IQ, or speech, or behavior, or even looks i suppose. humility in a personality makes me sympathetic; what comes to mind for examples are caring for a pet or care-giving for an ‘idiot’ or foolish loved one. So taken to extremes: Heart (Compassion) symbolizes caring for family by wanting them with us; and Mind (Intellect) symbolizes personal or collective function as more important than emotional sentiment that would hinder our egos. Often my mind tries to protect my heart, by distancing emotional triggers; and sometimes family relations are issues.

One time when i was arguing with my father about things in life, i said “heart matters more than mind”; what i meant was caring means more than intelligence to me. As much as my father and i loved knowledge, and we placed value in being smart and getting good grades, I was trying to create a foundation level of compassion between us as i was becoming and adult who had to live up to his expectations. Dad’s understanding of what i meant was a bonding moment between us over the years. I certainly got all kinds of grades in schools, including straight A’s some years, but mainly A’s and B’s. In college i graduated with honors and a Masters Degree in Architecture; and certainly intellectually i knew even when i had that talk with Dad, that what i called ‘heart’ was really emotional and ethical compassion in our minds, and not the anatomical organ (although pumping blood is vital and health is systemic).

In conclusion, regarding passion drives that control how we use rationality or our kinds of logic we integrate in our personality (see SCOD research of types of logic with Rock Wheeler), Heart (or Love) matters more as a motivational drive, because emotions are combined within us as instinctual survival mechanisms to help us at least get the basics and have some satisfaction thriving if we can feel the rewards of success. Brains (Intellect) or our Rational Minds are clearly important for basic functions as well, and vital for higher functions like wisdom that weighs emotion and knowledge (like a super-ego). Humans need both Heart and Mind, of course; but to me Heart (compassionate emotion) matters more as it drives will-power. It should be said that the balance between the two, back and forth, is how we make sure we prioritize care about the correct things, animals, or people in life. So why do I still say ‘Heart matters more than Mind’? I say it because LOVING ‘feels’ more important than the tool of logic (which is very useful too, don’t be jealous logic, I care about you too).

Love you Dad, Drogo

Requiem of a Dreamer

Posted in dreams, Economics, Ethics & Morals, Futurist, Military, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 13, 2019 by Drogo

I have been exploring “fairness” in journalism (Fairness Doctrine) and “justice” in politics (Just War Doctrine) ever since i was in the military working on my ‘Conscientious Objector’ theory. It is not until i made time to study the things i wanted to, that i was able to learn things that no one was going to teach me; and perhaps that is the most important lesson as an adult …. that we must pursue our best interests or give up free will, if freedom scares us too much.

People think that if they are allowed to dream or be seen to do ‘nothing’, then they will grow more and more lazy and be losers entirely. I have always had ambition to dream, create, and share with fellow dreamers. As AOC pointed out recently in Congress, ambition is not always bad or just for greedy people; and apathy can be used contemptuously by greedy people that had ambition to gain power, but now that they have power they selfishly cling on to their bribes so that they can make no changes to help the masses (who become apathetic too), rather than ambitious to make the world a better place for all. Watching the film “Saving Mr Banks” about Mary Poppins’ author and Walt Disney was very inspirational today regarding creating using stream-of-consciousness imagination; and so I am writing this poetic essay on a few idealistic subjects, including judging books by their covers and adult rights to life.

I had some understanding when we visited Italy as a child, that Rome represented ‘law and order’ (the good guys), and barbarians represented ‘tribal chaos’ (the bad guys). I began to wonder, were all those who looked or acted ‘barbarian’ evil? Were all those who looked or acted ‘Roman’ good? Should we judge good and evil by the uniforms we wear, or the languages we speak? Both sides seemed to fight each-other, back and forth equally; but for some reason the Romans were considered better as winners. This is part of why I choose to look a bit different as an artist, to get people to think beyond stereo-typing.

As a young adult massively in debt out of college, barely able to earn a living working 5 jobs during every month, I was miserable trying to provide a living for myself and others (parents and partners), at the cost of our environment and future as a civilization. The two goals (income and sustainability) are not mutually exclusive, but we all must find our own balance. If we cannot make money pay for our dreams, we can let our dreams pay for our money.

 

– Drogo the Dreamer

We Dub Thee Undeserving

Posted in Cooperative collaboration, Ethics & Morals, Poems, Psychology, relationships, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 10, 2019 by Drogo

Those we deem undeserving of compassion due to their inability to care about our feelings, have probably not learned enough about compassion to know they need it the most, even if they do not want it from us. These are people that do not know how to give love enough for people to want to give it back to them; or they place too many limits on their love it counter-acts the little they give to most relations; or they expect love without having to give the same in return. The statement was inspired by a reformed neo-Nazi, after he described changing his life focus from hate to compassion. i added “we deem” because who is to judge? We are. People do. Sometimes for self-defense and good reasons. Limited love and reasonable compassion are realistic to be able to give to even some of the worst people; ie some mercy… While being able to defend our own lives. writing about types of sustained love is writing about desire for emotional balance often. When we call people whores or sluts just because they will not only be with us, ironically it is us who is less affectionate than the person we are accusing of being too affectionate with too many people. They might be disloyal to us, or may have hurt us; but we become undeserving of love if we try to ruin their lives more than they hurt us.

That kind of emotional vengeance no matter how justified, makes us into monsters as much as any of the thousands of liars in history.

Whores can be affectionate to those they like, so it has less to do with careers and more to do with ability to be compassionate. Loyal people can abuse the frickin hell out of people, and loyalty is not necessary for being nice to strangers for example, or letting someone go that feels abused.

The Problem of Real Science and the Bias of Money

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Ethics & Morals, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2018 by Drogo

Regarding Corporate Science Corruption

 

“How do we find out about the real science behind corporate chemicals?” is a great question. There are major court cases that are on-going and are finally exposing how scientists (not just politicians) are affected by where they get their funding, as other historic cases have shown before. Activists are attacked by people claiming to be the voice of scientific reason who defend corporate science, although they seem to know less about the corporate details involved with how the business world affects science and our environment (not just politics). It is very difficult to get people interested in large scale safe environments above immediate MONEY to supply specific food, drink, and shelter for individuals and loved ones…. until those things are taken from us; but then without money we lack much power within the system, and we are accused of emotional bias, as though corporate lackeys are objective. ‘Ring of Fire’ on Youtube has lawyers involved so they are covering the news about these issues, with a bias that is dedicated to exposing how corporations function by using science for their profit as the structure of their power. It is not true that companies use science for purely objective reasons, or that they would allow themselves to be subjected to ‘objective’ science if it did not benefit them, and in fact they do everything within their power to make sure that they can control studies in their favor.

Is there any way to know if the ‘peer-reviewed’ information has filtered out any bias towards the company? This is the best way to ask the question about our most ‘objective science’ regarding company neurotoxins and carcinogens. No offense to scientists, but it happens like with the Oil and Tobacco companies, pay-checks often come first for families. It does not benefit employed scientists to admit to bias, it just simply affects their way of interpreting data and conducting tests. Nuclear scientists are more prone to be in favor of things that cause nuclear radiation by down playing the risks which are acceptable costs for them in favor of ‘advancing science’ and getting their funding. Every profession is subject to this problem of economics, so i am not picking on scientists, i am an architect and many of us are rational and brilliant too, but profit influence happens in our field as well because it is the system that hires us that is on trial when it comes to environmental science ethics. Environmental peer review for Climate Change seems to be large enough to have not been as corrupted in the favor of companies as much as specific chemicals that companies produce to sell.

With so many billions of dollars at stake for corporations like Monsanto (GMO and Glyphosphate Science), our courts and scientists may not even be aware of how to be objective when their own family members have bought into the propaganda that allows them to pay their bills and provide and protect their loved ones. As with Oil Companies and Tobacco Companies, we should assume that toxins can affect us and our environment, and those that produce them should perhaps be more responsible by being held accountable. Few people will not be biased in one way or another, but real science should be the goal, not corporate greed. If it sounds like I am describing a fictional dystopia, perhaps the reader should be more realistic about how Capitalism actually works in reality (our EPA is in ruins in 2018). The larger problem of real science and the bias of money that affects us all will continue to exist so long as we allow our government to be influenced by corporate money at the highest levels, more than they are influenced by environmental ethics and a desire for more ethical science which means being more objective than the influence of money (which is asking a lot). People are innocent until proven guilty, but if a provable crime needs to be investigated we need to let the evidence decide if people are using corporations as tools to corrupt politics and science, and harm humanity in favor of profits for the few.

As an architect i take rationality and logic about designs very seriously, so i do not believe scientists are alone in wanting to take credit for knowing how we interact with our environment and how we can make technological innovations for improving humanity by using ‘facts’. “Peer reviewed” does not mean scientists do not all have their own human biases regarding how data is interpreted; that is part of my point. “Purely objective” as a philosophical ideal is worth talking about for the sake of science and law enforcement and ethics etc… This issue of the influence of money on science (and every profession and field of study) will not go away, but it is one we should deal with honestly in studying the sustainability of civilization. Peer reviews are not exempt from being reviewed over decades, with new conclusions drawn.

 

 

 

Essay on Ethical Bias In Reasoning

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2018 by Drogo

Personal Bias and Reasoning

We can have personal biases for and against various things, based on our conscious or subconscious emotional attitude towards personal involvement with associated issues. Having a bias does not mean our opinion or the facts we have about it are invalid, no matter how much the opposition might declare we are too biased to be taken seriously. In matters of voting we can recuse ourselves if want to admit that we are not impartial due to personal private involvement creating a prejudice (like in public offices). This essay is about the times when bias can be considered fair. Emotional involvement should actually be treated logically separate from the validity of arguments. I think most of the problems with logic have to do with what the terms are, and if people can agree on what the terms are; and the second problem is the values of the logic equations.

It may not be the fault of the product if they have been unethically created or used, and yet a poison is a poison; in bio-genetics issues of augments and mutants directly links ethics with science, much as money and art are connected in an unholy alliance.

Working for a company and having a particular maybe scientific mindset does have a type of bias. People involved with Healthcare have a bias towards voting for people that are going to say that they will support healthcare. Jews will be biased against Nazis, it does not mean that the biased prejudice is unjust.

We are all biased in some way, as our perspective is relative to our experience and subjective human mind-sets. Bias seems to be okay as long as we can recognize it, and admit to it so people can try to be more objectively fair towards more people, and disregard unwelcome emotions if they can. Emotion can be used as persuasion for some, but emotion can equally turn against the user when turning others off. A slave could be biased against slavery because they were abused and neglected. Despite their hateful bias they might be excused their mental prejudice; and we do not use their harsh attitude against slavery to discount the abolition movement.  

So the issue of bias becomes whether the bias is clouding our judgment or not ; which is highly debatable. I don’t think that just having a bias should dismiss somebody from an argument; for example hiring a lawyer does not ban them from the court-room just because they are biased by their pay to act on behalf of their client. Is passion always irrational? Or are there cases where allowing emotion makes sense? So a bias on a particular subject could in fact actually help to bring facts to light involved with it in , and actually be the opposite of discounting the Merit of the argument.

We see Capt Kirk doing this for example when he says something like “I know its against the Prime Directive, but dammit im doing it because im human.” and Spock goes “highly illogical”. and of course later it would be argued that it is not illogical knowing that a human might care about specific emotional issues of ethics more than rules. It is logical that Kirk would save people he cares about, because he is prone to that biased reasoning that is not logical to people who value general ethical orders more than personal particular life-saving ethics.

Sluts & Whores Can Be Nice

Posted in Ethics & Morals, relationships, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on November 25, 2018 by Drogo

Yes the terms are loaded, but it is time to disarm.

People that like having sex with multiple partners (sluts aka nympho-maniacs) or people that have sex with multiple partners as work (whores aka prostitutes), can be very nice people and actually go out of their way not to hurt others. It is ironic therefore that when people use those terms to insult people they do not like, often the person labeling them is revealing them-self to be mean. There is nothing about being a slut or a whore that means they also have to be a mean bitch.

Sluts and whores can consider themselves polyamorous depending on how they define love or sex. Polyamorous people can have sex with other partners mutually without making promises and then either keeping them or breaking promises as is the convention for courtship dating and monogamous marriage relationships. These terms all are very loaded with connotations and often people have expectations about different people and relationships based on what they think is normal and what is hypocritical. They often assume that people have made promises or that people should not be allowed to change their minds about promises regarding their own lives and bodies, and with all that comes the negative results of unbridled jealousy, hatred, and anger that seeks punishment for not possessing the object of their desires in all the ways they want.

Does this mean that everyone should be a slut or a whore?? No of course not, but it is time to end bigotry against sexual people, many of which are very nice people who just want to be affectionate and enjoy life, or make money. Some whores for example have only one customer with a contract, some call it marriage. Some sluts are more social butterflies than anything else. If people are asexual or like dating to marry fine, do your thing; just please do not attack those who do not fit within the ‘norm’.

Humans are not the only animals that tend to be naturally polyamorous, despite that some are monogamous or abstinent for various reasons; the point being that humans can be both, and sometimes within the same life. Nothing against anyone who does not want to be identified by these terms, but I still hear these words used as insults regardless of how true the labels might be. Probably most people are referring to broken promises or ambitious expectations when they use the words as insults, the purpose being slander based on assumptions and gossip. People can be loyal in many ways to people they love in many different ways, sex is just one issue that gets attention. As far as personalities and relationships go, sex is over-rated in defining those, and under-rated in its potential to increase health for all who enjoy it.

Here are some good articles that help to break the tradition of abuse that comes with slut-shaming and whore-hating:

https://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/slut-shaming-life-lessons-how-sex-positivity-helps-mental-health

https://www.elitedaily.com/life/culture/5-reasons-time-end-shaming/905860

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn5vwq/being-a-slag-is-a-virtue-not-a-vice-paris-lees

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-bejeezus-out-me/201406/whats-really-behind-slut-shaming

“This debate about promiscuity is about judging and shaming people—thinking that you know what’s best for them. ” – Vice article

“As for the term “slut,” sometimes its use had no connection to sexual activity—it was a way to say “I don’t like that person,”” – Psychology Today

“Sex isn’t a bad thing. IT’S NONE OF ANYONE’S DAMN BUSINESS…Sex should be between the two or three or however many people are involved in the intercourse and no one else. ” – Elite Daily