ETHICS and CONSERVATISM

ETHICAL ISSUES:  CONSERVATISM

Conservatism is not a political issue, nor is what follows intended to be a political statement.  It’s more basic than that.  The foundation for conservatism is history and original intent—a return to the basics, ethics being the most basic.  Anyone can do it.

There’s nothing mysterious about it…

Any society needs a system of rules within which its members can operate to the general benefit. These rules are founded in its values and articulated in its privileges.  The rules of all successful societies including our own begin in ethics and are adapted to the society’s needs and wishes.

Our own rules trace their origin to a paramount need for freedom.  Our laws are founded in a Declaration of Independence from our mother country and empowered by a Constitution written by individuals with a strong ethical and moral base “in order to form a more perfect union.”

NO FREE WILL? Sorry, Sam…

ETHICS, FREE WILL and ATHEISM

Sam Harris says there’s no such thing as free will and very cleverly makes his case.  Sam Harris may be clever, but he is wrong.

Every human being who ever was, is or will be has unique fingerprints.  Every one of us is as different as a snowflake from every other one in spite of being cut from the same cloth as water vapor, the planets, constellations, black holes, you name it.  All of it is a direct result of the Big Bang, whereby all of this started from…nothing? (Sounds remarkably like creation to me…)

Science cannot and will not ever explain everything—especially itself—because science is a tool that relies on assumptions for its very being, a product of philosophy that requires philosophy to offer whatever explanation can be provided.  Physics is superseded by metaphysics after all.

The Big Bang

ETHICS ISSUES: RISK MANAGEMENT

ETHICS and RISK MANAGEMENT:  Truth, Trust and Honesty

Risk management is like walking a tightrope.  You can play it safe by walking the low rope.  Or you can walk the high rope with more risk of damage but a chance at bigger gains.  Nobody ever said that walking a tightrope, or making decisions, was easy.

Risk is real, and taking risk is a fact of life.  But taking foolish risks is, in a word, senseless.

An awful lot of risk is being sold by an awful lot of ethicists(?) these days.  Some of them, at very prestigious institutes of higher learning, are teaching their students that it’s OK to lie.  And/or cheat.  Don’t believe it?  Check out www.extremeethics.org/business-ethics.  An example from an issue of the Harvard Business Review:  “There is no compelling economic reason to tell the truth

ETHICS in GOVERNMENT

IS OUR GOVERNMENT ETHICAL? TRUSTWORTHY?

You decide…

Barack Obama came out of nowhere to campaign for (and win) the Presidency on the strength of promises made and a talent for rhetoric.  His qualifications for the position were minimal, (a matter of record), but apparently America was ready for a black President and gave him a pass on that basis.  About 90% of blacks voted for him.  So did many whites—racial discrimination was not a factor (remember, only about 13-percent of the population is black).  It was noted that “…47 percent of the people…will vote for (him), no matter what …(They) pay no income tax,  are dependent upon government…(and) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…(and) that they are entitled to health care, food, and housing.”  Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always get the enthusiastic support of Paul.

The President was

ETHICS and the CONSTITUTION

ETHICAL ISSUES: THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence comprise the foundation upon which our nation is built.  It’s the law of the land and can be changed only by amendment (as it has twenty-seven times in our history, most recently in 1992).

The Constitution does not grant rights; rather it provides limits to government.  Our rights are assumed by the document to have been born with us.  It is the role of government to secure and protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property.  It is not the function of government to provide for our material needs and/or wishes.  Quite simply, it can’t and may not do both at the same time.

It is the work of the Supreme Court to clear up any constitutional misunderstanding (of which there should be few because the Founding Fathers made their intentions quite clear