Archive for ethics

Jimmy Carter & Mr Rogers

Posted in Commercial Corporations, Critical Commentary of Civilization, news, Politics, Recommendations & Tributes, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2020 by Drogo

Jimmy Carter is the closest we got to having Mr Rogers as president.

 

Jimmy Carter was an exception to the typical Neoliberal candidate, he had more humility and kind heartedness than most humans. I would love to listen to a lecture comparing him to other presidents, but he seemed to defy the slimy corruption to a much larger extent than most, even compared to most of the DNC candidates today, but i am not sure how much of that is a facade due to his southern charm similar to Obama’s charisma. Carter seems to have more substantial integrity than JFK or Obama, but i could be delusional about that image. I think Carter was hated by the establishment and republicans so much because he was not as corrupt as other presidents, but i cannot site all the reasons for my opinion on him. Carter was like having Mr Rogers as president, which certainly meant he was not as aggressive on issues whether good or bad.

i like the ‘Pence’ model of VP, where if you are liberal, you pick someone so radically liberal for your VP that no conservative would assassinate you because they are afraid of your VP taking power. So for example JFK could have picked someone more liberal than himself as VP, and he might not have been assassinated. Biden was a gift to republicans, since he was more conservative than Obama. If Obama had not bailed out the banks, the MIC, and wall street they might have taken him out, and Biden would have been quite happy to serve them at the highest level. Bush’s ‘softer and gentler nation’ concept was very interesting coming from a CIA guy.

The corporate parties are trying to divide us and make us vote against our own interests. This has been my life-long research into politics, to unmask why we do not have democracy where the popular vote counts federally, and why we cannot have actual sincere politicians because of how the people in charge of the parties work actively against us.

I am sick of politics as usual, but i focus on the good aspects that i can have some control over, and one is information sharing about how things work the way they do, and the way they don’t, and the way they should or could. The parties do not want most people knowing, but as an architect the structure of politics is important to me.

So i focus on how to make things better by supporting people who would make important changes for us more than the typical players and endless wars. I get attacked by my own family and conventional party people, but i decided i need to be able to support the best candidates for what i believe in with the environment and civil rights. The two party corporate system causes most of the problems from what i have been able to learn about with corporations and the environment.

Trump is the epitome of our capitalist system unfortunately, without serious change in thinking no one will beat him. that is why i wrote about the folk lore of tweedle dum and tweedle dee issue that gave us trump. sometimes making the sausage is ugly, but i think it is important to learn. If peace and environmental activists can get someone like Sanders to win, we can take over the DNC, and then i will join the DNC again. Our plants and animals need us to make important systemic change.

 

The Problem with Taking Religion Seriously

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Religions, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2019 by Drogo

Christianity forced itself on me when i was a boy, and it constantly tries to get me to submit and sacrifice to the authority of its Churches, so I feel that I always have a right to speak out about it. 

Christianity cannot help itself, it is designed to convert others. When I am critical of Christianity I do it not as a native repelling an alien invader, but as a Christian who wants to try to be something more than what tradition and convention dictated. I am constantly reminded of inescapable antiquated social limits that I will always be contained inside by living in current US culture. We can all agree on some basic ethics and habits (like washing and sleeping and cleaning), but needing one book or a god to tell us is a bit juvenile.

Being able to resist and deconstruct Christian authority is important because it is insipid. Christianity by design gets into all aspects of culture, from churches to schools and governments. Based on the rebel family unit, the slave religion was devastating to the Roman Empire because people were peacefully protesting authority by resisting as sacrifices unwilling to function for the Empire. Rome of course solved this by adopting the slave religion as the state religion, and therefore to resist authority became Christian heresy. The Bible has several passages not only of arrogant egocentric God-level pride, but also dictates about spreading the word to the heathens, so it is constantly on a mission of conversion. If one chooses not to be a Christian in society for the past several hundred years, they must constantly be on guard and resist by every means possible, which means not only ignoring conventions, but also at times mocking the insanity of dogma. Although the Bible says that God is too jealous to be denied his power, joking about religion is certainly a good test of its power. 

This same problem of aggressive religious authority also applies to any fundamentalist religion. The problems of power are not confined to religion, but also apply to government in the form of conservative Nationalism. The Nazis did not need Jesus to act like the Popes of the Crusades.

Income Earnings & Rights

Posted in Critical Commentary of Civilization, Ethics & Morals, History, jobs, Legal / Laws, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2019 by Drogo

What is ‘earned’ or a ‘right’ is much more debatable than most people realize. 

Rights and even earnings rarely come free, you have to work and often fight to get them and maintain them. As different as they may seem, RIGHTS and EARNING can be switched in the main statement, and it still works as a philosophical statement to question. Rights and even earnings rarely come free, you have to work and often fight to get them and maintain them. What are rights and earnings is a sophistry question that has been left up to lawyers hired by oligarchs because ‘the common people are too stupid to decide because they are poor. Most people are poor because they are stupid, and stupid because they are poor’. This why democracy and socialism (the idea of how to apply democracy to capitalism) are not desired by leaders, even ones who lied about supporting the movements like dictators and presidents. 

Socrates himself is given by Plato as an example of why Democracy does not work (although this is rarely pointed out as an issue by classical scholars). Not only did Socrates question random people about the limits of their knowledge, and therefore question their democratic right to decide issues outside of their profession; but Socrates was finally killed by the system that he questioned.

For example “I earned everything I have.” is a bold statement that seems clear on its surface, but the opposite can also be seem 100% if they have taken from poor people that despite working harder also have grievances like losing homes or ability to work. Also civil rights must be proven by fighting for them against those who claim they are not rights, but only privileges. Rights and even earnings rarely come free, you have to work and often fight to get them and maintain them. That includes what are called ‘natural rights’ that people associate with being alive, like freedom or liberty. Some people may think that rights should be given, so when they fight for them under authorities it is only to get that which was theirs already. Most people think that the definition of earnings is that you should always have to work to get anything, because nothing is free least of all freedom. It is considered common sense to assume if you have something you do not deserve then you did not really ‘earn it’ even if it is legally part of their earned income, and only other people can determine if you have actually earned anything legitimately, even if they will argue of course that they are purely deserving. All of these logic problems have created massive reasoning issues within the philosophy of civilized ethics.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) economic theory supports the right for adult humans to be able to live, no matter their financial situation within a nation. “Money cannot buy life”; except for food, shelter, and water, medical aid, and sometimes slaves. Like love for Medicare has led us to wanting it expanding into Universal Healthcare, Social Security should be expanding into UBI as a general wellfare dependency within civilization; these should be sustained rather than only used briefly due to our increased standards of living in society. UBI also helps to share national wealth, instead of allowing only the rich to extract and hoard economic resources and use corporations to corrupt our government (as we do now). Other names for UBI include: Guaranteed Living Wage, Adult Right To Life Allowance, Total Social Security.

See also:

My 3 most important political issues:  Income, Peace, Health.

Economics and Corporations

Politics

*

The Problem of Monetary Bias in Science

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

Regarding Corporate Science Corruption

By using the word ‘science’ this articles means ‘professional scientific research and technological testing’. The problem of monetary bias means how we define corruption by funding or bribery to profit over ethics. Bias can affect professional test results.

“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 conveniently they seem to know less about the biased 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, in part due to the immediate need for MONEY to supply specific food, drink, and shelter for individuals and loved ones…. until those things are taken from us. But 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.

Militaries made chemical companies rich during the World Wars, which led to those companies monopolizing commercial agriculture. German companies took some of the most lethal pesticides used in the fields, and developed them to kill humans. Those toxic companies survived, although they may have changed their name or were bought. The US even secretly hired Nazi scientists after WW2, some of which were certainly guilty of crimes against humanity [Annie Jacobsen ‘Operation Paperclip’]. Money, corruption, and abuse of power can be hard to separate as intertwined issues.

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.

For more information on the 2-party corporate monopoly which funds science for war more than for peace or health, please research the 2018 US Military Spending Budget which was passed with almost no debate or media attention. Also please research our corporate bailouts during recent stock market crashes. Government and corporate spending tends to be biased towards harmful war science not helpful social science. By using the word ‘science’ this articles means ‘scientific research and technology’.

 

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.

Immanuel Kant

Posted in History, Philosophy, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 13, 2017 by Drogo

Immanuel Kant was one of the greatest rational philosophers of the Enlightenment, and set a categorical standard for modern reasoning. All of Kant’s years from birth to death (1724-1804), were spent in the small provincial town Konigsberg, in East Prussia. Kant’s grand-father was of Scotch lineage, but if he had kept the original spelling (Cant), the C would have been pronounced as a Z by the citizens of Konigsberg. Also Kant’s original first name was Emanuel, but he changed it to Immanuel after learning Hebrew. Both of Kant’s parents were modest financially and religiously; but spiritually nurtured by a Christian Lutheran sect called the Pietists. Being a Pietist Christian, Kant had a mixed sense of pride in religious rigor, and humility about humble limitations.

Kant was first educated at the local College; then in 1740 Kant went to the University of Konigsburg, where he studied the classics, physics, and philosophy. The master of German Philosophy at the time was Christian von Wolff; who was a dominant secretary of the Enlightenment movement, and stated that “man could be happy and good without the divine grace of revelation”. This atheist statement angered the ‘Soldier King’ of Prussia, King Frederick William I; however his condemnation only enhanced Wolff’s international fame. Immanuel Kant revered Wolff as the “most powerful representative of dogmatic rationalism, from the stand-point of pure unshaken confidence in the strength of Reason.” Kant eventually replaced Wolff as the popular national philosopher.

In Kant’s home town of Konigsburg, the city burghers were said to set their watches when Kant passed by their windows on his precisely-timed daily walks. He did not write his most famous works until he was older. When people that knew him read his work, they often agreed that it was logical and well-ordered, just like Kant himself. Kant applied his logic to a mature reflection on whether or not to marry; he decided finally to remain single. Kant’s travels did not exceed the city boundaries, his life had no remarkable adventures or political power or social connections, yet he was an immensely successful tutor, lecturer, and a charming host.

Immanuel Kant was a man of clear, critical, logical, vigorous, rigorous, and trenchant thought. In his Critique of Pure Reason he methodically divides chapters to explore ‘a priori’ metaphysical issues. ‘A priori’ is the pure form of sensuous general intuitions, that existed prior to our physical existence; archetypal knowledge from before we were born. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was followed by the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the Critique of Judgment (1790).

“Act always in such a way. that you should want your action to become a universal law.” – Immanuel Kant. This categorical imperative is one of the main recommendations of Kant’s writings. Although it centers around action, Kant also said that virtue was in the ‘Will’, and not the ‘Act’. Consciousness involves feeling, thinking, and acting. Feeling regards faith, thinking seeks epistemology, and acting involves ethics.

Ikant 1

*

Democratic Voting Problems

Posted in Legal / Laws, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on December 13, 2017 by Drogo

Paper Ballot Vote Counting

We still can barely hold raffles in America without someone being able to easily rig the counting. With political elections it is easy to forge or lose several to dozens of ballots, and therefore hundreds or thousands more when all stations are added up. I worked counting votes and giving ballots once, it was clear that workers could mess with the counts if they wanted to. The people in charge of the voting stations had authority and understood the system, and therefore could do all kinds of things if they had reason to, as the ballot boxes are transferred at night when the clueless hired help like me goes home and they are alone for an ample amount of time. I cannot speak about digital voting, except to say that hackers know more than I do about breaking into computer systems. Vote counting issues still present a problem for modern democracy.

SCOD Economic Theory

Posted in Economics, Organic Development, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 16, 2016 by Drogo

Imagine for a minute that Capitalism was not ‘the only economic system that works’, as popular opinion believes; but instead that Capitalism is a failed system by humanitarian standards, that greedy people perpetuate so that no government can ever serve its’ citizens democratically. Most conservative capitalists would rather see church morality imposed on the masses, because that is their only response to the failings of Capitalism. When homeless get no government support, the capitalists will say “if they are too lazy to work, then they should find a church to take pity on them.” When a crazy person wants to exercise their amendment rights, rather than recommending they get help or take free medicine, the capitalists will say “they need to commit a crime so that we can put them in prison”. What if instead of trying to cover up for the failings of a selfish individualist economic system, we instead worked hard to practice an economic system that is for the common good, with its own built-in ethical code? SCOD economic theory is a combination of trade-barter and spiritual morality*. SCOD theory uses a sensible code of economic ethics* to foster transactions.

Offer only as much as you can spare, do not gamble all that you have. The higher your price is, the less you want to exchange it. Before finalizing a trade, consider how the transaction will affect the other party; if that trade will hurt them and they are ethical traders, then cut them a bonus break-deal. A bonus break-deal is when you give them MORE than they asked for, because you appreciate them as an ethical individual.

Mutual trade with ethical responsibility and humanitarian benefit.

*morality is more to do with religious dogma of reward and punishment, and ethics is more about common sense and having social respect for the good of the whole community.

Princess and Her Pets

Posted in Book Reports, Dr. Dippie, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on January 15, 2016 by Drogo

princess pets

Princess and Her Pets – a book for pet lovers

Princess loves her pets. They can do no wrong. Her pets only know peace, love, and fear; unlike bad people. Princess keeps her pets well groomed. She loves to pet them, comb them, and bathe them. She gives them treats when they are good, and they are always good. Her pets cause sneaky mischief, stinky stink-stink, and have a silly habit of killing people; but Princess loves them one and all!

Analysis of Apostles of Success

Posted in Book Reports, Critical Commentary of Civilization, Economics, History with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 15, 2013 by Drogo

Apostles of the Self-Made Man: Changing Concepts of Success in America

1965 book by John G. Cawelti – University of Chicago Phoenix Press – 280 pages

 Success

SUMMARY

This is a book about the popular culture of success in America. It discusses natural qualities of character, education, values, and needs of individuals and society. It is a decent American history of changing concepts of success; with a focus on three main sources: historic individuals, fictional figures, and manual guides. It uses literature as a source to reference social history.

In spite of their persistent devotion to the idea of success, Americans have differed greatly in the way they defined it. That is the subject of this book. – p.3

Though the self-made man wasn’t an American invention, Americans have cherished the notion of someone rising out of poverty and, through hard work and dedication, achieving at least a moderate amount of wealth and respect. Purely American icons such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson each wrote about the opportunity for anyone in a fluid American class system to grow through their own power towards a particular position in society. Yet, much like Abraham Lincoln in the tumultuous ante-bellum period and the Gilded Age’s robber barons, the self-made man appeared most notably in times of rapid change and transition . – C.1

Three Strands of American Success

  1. Religious – Protestant Work Ethic and pious morality

  2. Economic – wealth = success

  3. Complex Individual and Social Ethics and Dreams, often combining the first 2 stands

American society saw three main versions of the self-made man emerge in epitomizing the ideal of success. The first focused on a Protestant notion of “piety, frugality, and diligence” in fulfilling the duties of one’s occupation. This version suggested that a static, stable social order existed in which success was the attainment of respectability in this world and led to the assurance of salvation in the world to come. As strict Protestantism gave way to other, secular notions of success, this ideal began to fade away.

The second tradition placed a premium on a more economic emphasis of success. While the first focused on religious notions of grace and propriety, the second enlisted the purely lay qualities of aggressiveness, competitiveness, and forcefulness. As industrialization swept over the United States in the Gilded Age and beyond, people prescribed to this ideal of success beyond the scope of religion. The hierarchical structure of many new corporations demanded such qualities from their employees if they hoped to “climb the ladder of success.” The third type of success, was a combination of the former two; taking ethics and humility from religious loyalty, in an existential industrial work environment.

**

For more of the report, click on the link here for SCOD Gallery Report with Chapter Links!

*

5 Rule Theory on Gaming

Posted in Cooperatives / Communities / Networks / Travels, Psychology with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 4, 2011 by Drogo

Drogo’s Gaming Theory

Five Rules for Roleplaying, Rollplaying, and related playing of strategy and character based games…


Playing games for fun is not a phase for me. I don’t only play the latest and coolest, most trendy games. Nor have I even been in a regular group of gamers in years. However I do consider myself a Master of several games, at least in one or two capacities. One of those games I played for years with other people was Dungeons & Dragons. After 10 years of playing I was a Master Dungeon Master, proficient at a few styles of control. It was during my apprenticeship to older Dungeon Masters that I acquired my philosophy of game play.

My favorite Dungeon Masters had similar traits, although they did not know each other. Their ways of controlling was compatible with their ways of playing. Their dominant traits tended to avoid or deny gain by intentional selfishness, rudeness, greed, or cruelty. If spite bias was ever used, it was for conflict resolution. Here I will attempt to list the guidelines of my theory for running games:

1. Prepare ahead of time, so that game play will run smoothly. Preparation can minimize lost time searching through notes or the rule book. Have a few conclusions in mind, and what the psychological results might be.

2. Roll alot of dice to maintain a continuous element of Neutrality, while guiding the story.

3. Guide the story with subtle bias in favor of the characters because you care about the individual people playing.

4. Foster morality and ethics by rewarding ‘goodness’ and punishing ‘badness’. This concept is relative to Character Alignment. Good characters will be guided or controlled by Good Deities, and Bad characters will be guided or controlled by Evil Deities. The result of this is that if the player acts ‘out-of-alignment’ and refuses to correct their behavior, the DM can step in and guide or control their character by using a ‘higher power’ (like a Deity) in the game.

For example if a player wants to play a ‘good’ character, but acts ‘bad’ then an Evil Deity can take control of their character. Whether the player gets control back, depends on whether or not the player modifies the alignment to fit their behavior, or changes their actions to fit the alignment better. If a player wants to play an evil character, and they are being awful to other players or the DM, the DM may retain control of their character through the Evil Deity indefinitely. This is one way to attempt to have good game play, rather than ban players or quit the game.

5. Help everyone to have fun!!!

* not included: tips on game writing or character creating