ETHICS IS: UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLE
UNIVERSAL Every time, Everywhere
MORAL Pertaining to Rules of Right Conduct
PRINCIPLE A Fundamental Truth
Universal Moral Principle – the right thing, anywhere, every time. so, Being Ethical is: Doing the Right Thing, Everywhere, Every Time.
What’s Right is that which acts in the best interests of humanity
Ethics supports the good—ideal—life. It’s that branch of philosophy dealing with what one ought to do. What one ought to do is not determined by any one person, no matter how learned, wise or kind, nor would it be affected by circumstance. Ethics does not evolve—it does not change with the passing of time. It’s a universal given, a first principle. There’s only one path to be followed in any case: that which is in accordance with personal responsibility to humanity. One ought to do what’s in accordance with natural law: in the best interest of humanity. That’s Ethics, Unplugged. And that, in a nutshell, is how to be ethical.
Start by being honest. It’s the right thing to do.
THE POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
“The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is cracking down on states that don’t agree on the supposed impacts of man-made global warming: Embrace the alarm or prepare to have… funding withheld…. [T]he sanctioning will begin in 2016, when FEMA will start denying disaster funding to states that don’t incorporate global warming into their emergency preparedness plans.”
That the global warming issue is political becomes clearer every day. Congressman Raul Grijalva launched an attack on several scientists who publicly dispute the government’s position that atmospheric CO2 caused by man’s burning fossil fuels is rising to critical levels and must be stopped ‘before it’s too late.’ Several Liberal Senators have gone the same route, threatening to curtail funding of any scientific endeavor that would even present evidence against man’s deleterious effects on nature, going so far as to make such efforts a crime.
AlGore, the founder of the original global warming scare, recently spoke at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin, TX calling on attendees to punish climate change deniers, saying that ‘we need to put a price on denial in politics.’ That opposing politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science.’
And John Kerry, falsely claiming to have been part of the original Gore assault on science, recently stated: . “When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that. So when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘Well, I dispute that, or I deny that elementary truth’?”
Simply, John, because they have that right, both scientifically and legally.
Because what Kerry fails to say (because he does not understand) is that it is not ‘science’ making the claim, it is certain SCIENTISTS making the claim, and that it is not an ‘elementary truth.’ It is, in fact, false.
What do all these people have in common? They are politicians, not scientists. They can’t be (or even represent) scientists who would never claim that ‘the issue is settled’ because, in fact, no scientific issue is ever settled. These politicians wish to punish those who would disagree with their political position by political means—even take away their right to disagree.
“Those who would ignore history are condemned to repeat it”
Climate change is not a political phenomenon. Earth’s climate has been changing since its beginning with no input from mankind, and there is plenty of scientific proof demonstrating that fact, not to mention historical. Read on:
The Great Famine of the 14th Century had its beginnings in the three or four preceding Centuries known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), when the Northern Hemisphere was warmer than at any time in the preceding 8,000 years. During that period, “Warming increased the amount of arable land – there were vineyards in northern England – leading to Europe’s first sustained population increase since the fall of the Roman Empire. The need for land on which to grow cereals resulted in extensive deforestation. The MWP population explosion gave rise to towns, textile manufacturing and new wealthy classes.” (William Rosen, “The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century”)
Then came the severe winters of 1309-1312, when polar bears could walk from Greenland to Iceland on solid ice. A few years later extended heavy rains washed away topsoil and more than half the arable land in northern Europe was gone. Ten-percent of the population from the Atlantic to the Urals died, partly because of the effect of climate change on those “few inches of soil that produces the world’s food.”
Human behavior did not cause this change in climate. Instead, a warming climate caused behavioral change. Then climate cooling caused social changes (rebelliousness and bellicosity) that amplified the consequences of climate change, a pattern repeated centuries later…
…during the “Little Ice Age” in the mid- to late 1600s. In “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century,” historian Geoffrey Parker explains how climatological and political factors produced turmoil from Europe to China. What he calls “the placenta of the crisis” of that century included an unusual change in climate, correlated so strongly with political upheavals as to cause flight from abandoned farms to cities producing crises of disease, nutrition, water, sanitation, housing, fire, crime, abortion, infanticide and suicide. Given the ubiquity of desperation, it is not surprising that more wars took place during the 17th-century crisis “than in any other era before the Second World War.”
These changes in climate had nothing to do with man’s activities. Man was victim, not cause, of these catastrophes.
The truth is that climate changes, all by itself, and we don’t have a clue as to how or why. Currently Earth (the Northern Hemisphere at least) is in an interglacial age. The last glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago (necessarily accompanied by natural warming) and we have no idea when or if there will be another glacial age.
Earth warms. Ice melts. Sea levels rise. What else is new?
The political assault on science and reason is promulgated by one group of politicians: Liberals (specifically, Progressive Liberals). The so-called ‘deniers’ tend to be conservatives and reputable scientists who prefer to think for themselves. This is not an accusation. It is a fact. The Global Warmers cannot tolerate disagreement with their agenda and apparently will use any means to denigrate those who disagree with them in spite of having perfectly valid scientific reasons for doing so.
Lots more info. For starters:
THE POLITICS of SCIENCE
The threat of ‘global warming’ has been transmogrified into the earlier established and more acceptable term Climate Change in response to a general inability of its adherents to explain the extreme cold temperatures of the past four winters. Specifically absent from current Warmer arguments are any mention of the beneficial effect of fossil fuels on global progress: The use of coal historically reversed the devastating effects of deforestation of Europe. Oil from wells effectively saved the world’s whales and seals. Fertilizers manufactured using gas doubled the yield of an acre of land, feeding a burgeoning population while at the same time providing more land for natural development. Coal-fired power plants provide power to large parts of Africa [and elsewhere] that previously lived in darkness.
But what anyone thinks about climate change is not the issue. At issue is the credibility of science itself resulting from the politically-motivated ‘global warming’ panic.* Proof that it’s political lies in the obvious split between Global Warmers [liberal] and climate changers [others], and the tactics used by the Warmers [the “It’s final—there’s no reason to investigate further” approach—distinctly unscientific because science is never final.].
Valid Climate Change science has been damaged by relatively recent partisan claims that man’s activities—specifically, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels—is responsible for destructive global warming that will cause irreparable damage to Earth’s natural environment. Their solution to this non-problem? Governmental funding of political ‘solutions’ and halting economic progress by limiting development.
One of the most obvious untruths championed by the Global Warmers is the result of a questionnaire to earth scientists purportedly showing that 97% of them agree that man’s activities are causing damaging global warming by amplifying CO2 levels. A seriously-faulted assumption that water vapor ‘feedback’ somehow amplifies the effects of CO2 remains in nearly every mathematical model in spite of recent work by some of the original 97-percenters who now find that climate sensitivity to these factors to be much lower than originally predicted—specifically, 40% of original predictions. All predictions of warming and rising ocean levels since the last warming episode [1978- 98, the only period IPCC attributes to CO2 emissions] are much higher than has actually occurred. These later observations support a much reduced/essentially harmless climate response to atmospheric CO2.
In the first place, it should be obvious to any rational observer that any claim of 97% agreement must be bogus simply because it implies that 100-percent of the world’s climate scientists were canvassed—an impossible claim on its surface. Additionally, it is virtually impossible to get 97% agreement on any scientific subject.
But more important, IPCC had predicted that Earth’s surface would warm 2-4 degrees Centigrade per Century, or more while, in fact, warming has increased less than 0.2 degrees and has in fact slowed to virtually nil in the past 20-years.]
The fact is that the effects of water [especially in the vapor phase] cannot be accurately modeled because the mechanisms of phase changes and migration [not to mention solar radiation] are less than imperfectly understood. http://www.extremeethics.org/ethical-issues-climate
Political Science? Hardly. We are part and parcel of Earth—as it goes, so do we—and in spite of what we currently believe, we are in fact not responsible for it! EARTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR US! Of course we should treat it with respect as our progenitor and means of life, but Earth and its inhabitants are evolving constantly (and that evolution includes extinction), just as the Universe has been evolving for nearly 14BILLION years. What makes anyone think that we’re responsible just because we’ve recently become aware? Mankind is not in charge. The whole of nature is, and we’re just a miniscule part of it. We are guests—not hosts. Nor will political science change the situation…
If you still have doubts that the Global Warming issue is political, read on… “Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists…who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.” (from the Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2015): Congressman Raul Grijalva launched a hunting expedition into anything said or written by selected objectors to alarmist claims about the climate, sending letters to the universities employing them. While acknowledging absence of any evidence, he demanded all details of their outside funding, communications, consulting and speaking fees, travel expenses, compensation and more while, even accusing some of disagreement with John Holdren [President Obama’s Science Czar], forbidding them to present testimony to Congress. After The American Meteorological Society objected to singling out individuals for their scientific opinions, Congressman Grijalva withdrew his threat, admitting “overreach”. It’s political, folks…
For more information on this subject, GoTo any/all of the following:
http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=1337 [Global Warming—Science Speaks for Itself]
WHAT IS ETHICS? a THUMBNAIL SKETCH
Many people are confused about ethics, and it’s no wonder. It’s been knocked around by the learned for more than the 2500+ years since it was conceived as an answer to politics. It’s true. Politics has been subject to abuse and manipulation since its creation by the Greeks back in the Age of Pericles.
Since the beginning of what we now call history, ethics seems to have been a reaction to politics. Its concept is quite simple—ethics calls for honesty above all. However, since its inception it has been studied, debated, interpreted, misinterpreted and generally beat to a pulp by those both learned and otherwise. Ever since Aristotle wrote his treatise on the subject, innumerable philosophers and others have been interpreting it in their own way. The results are confusing, to say the least.
However, reduced to its essence, ethics turns out to be rather simple: Universal Moral Principle. Universal means it is applicable everywhere and every time in the same way. Moral refers it to proper human behavior. Principles are fundamental truths, truth itself being the principal principle.
That which is ethical is true, right and good. As a First Principle, truth stands alone, but right, good and ‘proper’ may require further elaboration in the moral sense: What is ethical must be right and good for humanity generally—not just for a particular segment of it at the expense of others—and at the very least may not be destructive to humanity as a whole.
Must it be fair? Fairness has been debated since the beginning and does not have a simple answer because it’s a relative term that has been a bugaboo since Aristotle. Being ethical is acting in the best interests of humanity—it should endeavor to do no harm—but there may be factions that consider it harmful to them for their own reasons, which may not apply to humanity generally. The best that can be done is to be as fair as possible while adhering to Universal Moral Principle. This requires honesty on both sides of any debate.
Defining honesty as applied truth makes ethics approachable by and accessible to everyone. Simply be honest and chances are that you’ll be ethical as well. The Golden Rule turns out to be as good a yardstick as any: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a more prolix approach to the same concept.
This is not rocket science, and those who claim that ethics must be complex enough to warrant interpretation by the learned are not being completely honest. Truth has no agenda, and those with an agenda usually compromise truth.
Unfortunately, being ethical at all times is difficult if not impossible because of the very humanity it is supposed to benefit. People are involved, and each person is an individual with unique needs, wants and goals. Some seek power over others for whatever reason and will lie, cheat and steal (all unethical, by the way) to get it. A simple measure of an unethical act is one which deliberately harms or otherwise demeans another individual.
There’s more, of course, but you’ve just read a primer in ethics. Much more information is available on this site and elsewhere, but remember that honesty is the best policy. You won’t go far wrong remaining honest while you go after more information.
THE ETHICS OF DENIAL: NOT
Ethics is about truth and honesty (which is applied truth). Denial includes the refusal to see the truth (honor the facts); therefore it must be unethical.
The Western World is in denial regarding the dangers of extreme Islamism; that denial will kill us.
Our Western culture promulgates the defense of individual rights (including freedom of speech and religion among others), and seeks to apply these freedoms across the board. No problem here, except…
Islam is not merely a religion, but an ideology—an entire culture of its own—and cannot be treated simply as a religion. Islam embraces Sharia Law—conspicuously in opposition to our Constitutional Law–therefore it must be seen as opposed to the basic rights of Western culture. Should there be any doubt regarding these statements, simply refer to the Holy Quran, the Muslim handbook:
The Muslim interpretation of the Old Testament was written 900-years after Muhammad, who lived 500-years after Christ—1400 years after the fact—and differs significantly from the Bible of the Jews and later Christians. Muslims claim that the prophet the Jews expected was Muhammad (among other differences). However, it would appear that the original narrative (Bible) would govern.
Careful reading of the Quran discloses mixed (sometimes conflicting) messages written at different times in history. Invoking fear and dealing in large part with annihilation of falsehood (meaning infidels—all others), and teaches that Islam will triumph in the world. It teaches as well manners and morals, BUT NOT ALWAYS MORALITY (unless stoning women is considered moral…).
From the Quran: Jesus, the prophet anticipating Muhammad, was neither divine nor God’s son (Allah fathered no one), neither performed miracles nor died on the cross, but died instead much later a natural death and, by leaving Israel without a spiritual leader, the spiritual kingdom defaulted to Islam. Jesus would go to hell; his followers perverted his teachings after his death. The Quran defines the Trinity as God, Jesus and Mary and not the Trinity known to everyone else.
More from the Quran, regarding the Jews: Abraham was the first Muslim. The Jews ‘follow evil crafts’ and sought to kill the prophets; the Quran casts them as swine and apes, unfit to possess the Holy Land.
The Quran forbids Muslims from being friendly with other faiths (there is no religious freedom here) because they are victims of the Jews and Arabs, ‘peacemakers’ who cannot be defeated and will either die defending Islam or live and conquer. Muslims…’shall overtake them (the infidels—all others) by degrees, from whence they know not.’
Islam claims to be the only religion of pure monotheism in the world. It deals in large part with the annihilation of falsehood—that is to say, any other belief. Islam is said to be spread ‘in spite of the sword,’ not by the sword, although Muslims are permitted to ‘kill the disbelievers’ (again, all others) and attack and fight them to stop persecution.
In case you think that our reading of Islam is too severe, hear the words of Egypt’s President addressing clerics and scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University (2014): “It is inconceivable that this ideology—I am referring not to ‘religion’ but to ideology—is hostile to the entire world; that 1.6 billion Muslims would kill the world’s population of 7 billion, so that they could live on their own. …You cannot see things clearly when you are locked in this ideology…You must oppose it with resolve…to revolutionize our religion. …(T)he Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.” Strong words indeed, from one who knows, telling Muslims: ‘heal thyself.’
The truth is that the culture expounded in the Quran is incompatible with our own and many of our basic human rights including freedom of religion and equal treatment of citizens, and cannot be justified within the American (or any Western) culture. To do so is unethical. Our Constitution guarantees religious, not ideological, freedom; it must necessarily be compatible with those religions in accord with itself. Laws in conflict with the Constitution (such as Sharia Law) cannot stand here. It must therefore be rejected, not endured.
It is FACT that that every American citizen is governed by our Constitution, and that, try as some might to deny it, our nation was founded on primarily Judeo-Christian principles while not purposely excluding those of other faiths. Reading the founding documents and the considerable literature describing what the founders had in mind when they wrote them makes this quite clear.
It is FACT that Islamists not only practice their religion as put forth in the Quran and promulgated by the prophet Muhammad, but live by the way of life specified by the Quran and Muhammad’s later writings. How can America be expected to honor freedom of a religion that is incompatible and conflicts directly with the principles upon which our Republic was founded? We can’t. It’s unethical. And it’s suicide.