To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I believe there's no
particular problem in proving this/make a good case for it.
1. That the
ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of
moral wrongdoing in it.
2. "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible
for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this
sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral
mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
3. "...ethical
claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and
properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of
making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p.
6)(1).(4)"
4. "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent
with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable
circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion,
that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in
question.
From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions
in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in
the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.
It's
also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004
that the review mentions.
I see the description of an Ethical Objective
system as an (mathematical) intersection of the above 4 points. The Ethical
Objective system should thus satisfy the most strict and strongest requirements
for such a system. It's worth noting that it should be humanly possible to fit
into it with a least one member, one human being, and that it should live up to
general requirements of plausibility and reasonability.
One more thing: I
think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to
separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system
of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different
group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit
the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is
the nature of the current diversity of humanity.
I've made some additions
to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual
instance that I like to address.
The framework for every Ethical
Objective System can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it,
without imposing particular problems.
The further work to the Ethical
Objectivity is this. The obstacle one meets is concerning depth. I think the
human cognition decides the depth of the ethical system's reach, absolutely and
objectively, of the Ethical Objectivity discussed. If the human being can't have
knowledge about a deeper fact of nature then one can't also say that the human
being can commit any mistakes in that relation. It's therefore of no use to
point to a phenomenon that lies outside the normal or possible human cognition
because a sufficient ethically objective system isn't constructed at all to take
care of those phenomena's ethical content. No matter what, the ethically
objective system will therefore relate to our common life-world, the life-world
that one can actually say something objective about. It's therefore the case
that all hypothetical micro- and macro-phenomena are outside the domain that
actually can have some influence on the human being's ethical and moral life.
It's therefore not decisive to have absolute knowledge to have an efficient
ethical objective system as long as one does one's duties for the best in this
actual effective ethical objective system in what concerns information and
possibilities. In that kind of view, one can plausibly say that doctors in
ancient history may have been acting ethically objective in some cases, if not
all, of course, despite a very limited knowledge about the human body. It's
clear that science will form an outer frame for our life-worlds wherein this
Ethical Objective System functions as in the question of preventive measures
concerning Global Climate Changes and also about our limitations in size of
total world population that should or can exist without collapsing into chaos
and extinction of being examples of conscious beings capable of knowledge,
possibly effecting one's own salvation.
Consequently, let's look at
abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply
for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as
well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain
function and emotional function(1) when the procedure is carried out? Thus,
abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric"
decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without
guilt!
Hypothetically speaking, it's plausible to say that being a human
without an ethical system in the 21st century and aligning oneself with the
ancient humans and humanoids like the Cro-Magnons, seems just crazy! It's laying
such a waste to a whole heritage, legacy of philosophical civility! The ancient
humans before civilization can be said to be driven by evolutionary, biological
instincts! Nihilism, relativism or other destructive ethical approaches are
historically insensitive, possibly rationally insensitive, absurd or out of
touch.
As much as Paul Bloomfield makes the argument of having and
maintaining good physical health, I'd like to add the following:
It should be
possible to determine Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health by keeping
one's ethics. People may fool themselves, but I think that the most sensitive
factor of these three, being Integrity, is very much affected by both bad
attitude/mindset and bad actions, altogether being bad morals and possibly bad
ethics.
Through the arsenal of diagnostics like various lie-detectors,
(f)MRI-scans, interviews, somatic examinations and what have you it should be
possible to make good judgment on the status of these 3 factors, Integrity,
Mental Health and Physical Health. Any reasonable doubt can therefore be removed
for what kind of companion one is socialising with. Any person with substantial
deviation in either Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health from the
characteristics that are condoned by exactly this Ethical Objectivity can thus
be excluded from the desirable group of people that comply with Ethical
Objectivity. The days of the Arguments of Companions in Guilt are consequently
numbered!
It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to
respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg.
children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as
intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for
various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of
being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological
views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this
respect, a general starting point.
Rationality in this sense is nothing
mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a
fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working
performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to
speak!
Although I've written about rationality above I like to write the
following to make it perfectly clear. There are (at least) two kinds of
Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to
function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or
intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health,
being well-developed. It should be clear that rationality is the top premise of
this Ethically Objective system that I ascribe and develop from a Neo-Kantian
position.
This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word
Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone.
I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his
"kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that
there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I
think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take
part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of
him and it makes him look better too!
Repugnance and appeal to
emotions/feelings/aestheticism are not any good way to get there even though I
support every argument that makes a good foundation for Ethical
Objectivity.
It should be noted that people of good moral attitude and
behaviour seem better able to create and maintain, by keeping the duties, social
relationships both in symmetric and asymmetric terms.
I'm with Dr. Sam
Harris when he argue by objectivity of flourishing and happiness, potentially by
and in everyone, on TED Talks that some/all moral questions or some/all outside
spectrums of some/all moral spectrums can be answered by science. Now, I don't
know if this is consensus within a group of scientists and philosophers alike
and if this is documented by scientific articles. He does mention psychology and
neuro-science as two (obvious) angles to answer this scientifically. It must be
admitted by myself, whether or not Dr. Sam Harris agrees, however, that
flourishing and happiness are still normative, unscientific, ethical objectives.
One can indeed be relatively poor and still be generally happy and one can work
too much and thus flourish beyond one's happiness. It's also a question to what
ends we are supposed to be flourishing and happy. Where does this flourishing
and happiness lead to if there's no destination in sight? Isn't then life only a
matter of taste and artistry in life? What about doing extreme sports and other
activities where one does risk one's own life? The question is not so much a
matter of this risk-taking person's life, but this person's social connections,
possibly causing grief in these people by the risk-taking. Thus, it's yet to see
to what extent one can fully argue that the objectives of flourishing and
happiness can be scientific. Indeed, this scientific notion has implicitly some
kind of normative destiny to it that Dr. Sam Harris is in debt to
answer.
It's admirable of Dr. Sam Harris of denoting this "scientific",
given the normative objectives, and at the same time quenching the lunatics who
promote death and destruction. It's certainly worth a thorough scientific study
of what underlying causes there are for people's misfortunes when it's so
commonly known that most or all people like to be happy, flourishing or
both.
(1)Remark concerning abortion by The Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists (RCOG):
By The Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists (RCOG),
"Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and
Recommendations for Practice".
From this
link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
Fetal
Awareness
* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the
connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by
the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of
the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working
Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it
feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed
into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24
weeks.
The full report:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
Article,
this particular webpage, is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and
more).
Game over! You lose, relativists and subjectivists! I'd say there
is no objection by the subjectivists and relativists that can overcome Ethical
Objectivity (now)! I've been meditating this for quite a while and I'm now at
peace by the preceding sentences. There is simply no chance to refute Ethical
Objectivity anymore.
The argument is not finished by these words and
remains to be made a paper of academic quality, if not a book.
By Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea, 2009 - 2010, 2012 - and still ongoing.
By Terje
Lea, 11th November, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 11th December, 2009, 6th March,
2010, 24th March, 2010, 26th March, 2010, 12th April, 2010, 22nd April, 2010,
25th April, 2010, 26th April, 2010, 4th May, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 9th June,
2010, 28th June, 2010 and 24th October, 2010. Minor change of title,
18.11.2010. Now controlled under my new name, Leonardo F.
Olsnes-Lea.
Over Animal Ethics and to PETA Too - This time it is the pigs...
ReplyDeleteOver PETA again and domestic animals, being a part of the animal ethics and applied ethics
This time it is over the pigs. The suggestion is one of multi-modal-approach, that the covers/shelters to wind and rain out on the grass fields must be in place, or at least is in place normatively as by recommendation and that one arranges for the animals to have special birth-bins with half-concrete (but enough still) and half-grass mat as with the cows and oxes formerly explained. Ordinary bins as with the cows and oxes (although they are called "stalls") should also be arranged for, but pigs are less complicated because they are not milked! Then the rest is up to you. Some even play music for the animals. This also concerns food and so on. Cleanliness level should be as high as vet standards demand and general animal standards outside this is also (largely/sufficiently) described by vet standards! Good luck to you, the farmers, the agronomists!
Note: For whatever the shelters, the bins, the stalls, animals do not walk about sharp edges very well and get easily cut up! This is also a notice, but probably already well into the vet's recommendations!
Note2: Just published to Facebook as message under profile and note also. Today, 2012-09-21 CEST.
(Time stamp: Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 20:45:00)
Labels: agronomist, animal ethics, animals, applied ethics, domestic animals, Ethics, farming, PETA, pigs
7 comments:
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 20:53
I have formerly written about the cows and oxes mostly for replacing the concrete flooring for grass mats that can have some kind of standard and standardly grown so as to be handled by a tractor (agricultural machine) with a special "lance device" or something for transporting the grass mat and putting it into place effectively! Let me try to identify it! (The concrete flooring has been known to be hurtful to cows and oxes knees and other leg bones, what do I know!)
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 20:55
Indeed, as far as the vets' knowledge go, their recommendations on animal handling is usually the part of animal ethicists' theory too, as much as I've mentioned the frameworks of law as part of Objective Ethics where they are known to be based on Christianity up through history and other religions elsewhere. As you then know, the whole thing is fairly obvious!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:10
Let there be no doubt also that there will not be any holes in an Objective Ethical System and that this remains my goal in working with both ethics and applied ethics, ALL issues are to be covered insofar as they represent (ethical/moral) significance!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:28
Over animal ethics, I've also formerly written about electrocution of fur animals and I think they should be (sedated) and decapitated instead as the chickens get when chickens are butchered for food (also for KFC). There are issues with cages of hens that are producing eggs (and new chickens). There are the usual issues on considering people fit for animal handling whatsoever, that /can/ they have domestic animals? Let me think about some other until next time... Cheers!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:32
ReplyDeleteOne example has dealt with people secretly creating great animal distress with some animal fur farms just to team up with broadcaster and accuse them after to something the fur farmers could never have prevented themselves because these disturbed animal activists could bring "specialists/vet" and create the necessary awfulness to put the whole thing out of business. This concerns at least one possible farm in Farsund "kommune", probably to little surprise NOW!
L.F.O.-L.30 September 2012 00:21
My writing on grass mats for cows seems to have been removed in some way. It's suspected the date for it lies around 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST and may be considered important for the agricultural industry in both the animal ethics way and for the very production itself, that when the animals "live" as they should then the production is also optimal.
Well, well, I'll search on, and in the meanwhile you can read from the above, as always in line with mu Objective Ethics under Philosophy Notes. Bye for now!
L.F.O.-L.30 September 2012 07:54
The grass mats text for cows now identified:
Funnily enough and over PETA, I got an idea for the milk cow today: to build the cow stalls directly on the grass/dirt field and so to avoid stress to the animals legs and well-being while being able to set on the milking mechanisms to the cows and over to the tank on the concrete floor! Good? (Also the cows will be able to go more directly and "happily" straight on to the field,
increasing their out-door time, the natural way of living by habitat!)
Url: http://www.peta.org/ !
And for maintaining the stalls (layer) one has the customs of the football fields to renew the layer on the fields, especially the goalkeeper's area!
Note on time-stamps (from Facebook):
3 February at 07:13 (CET?) - 3 February at 07:21 (CET?)
I do not live under circumstances that allow me a better presentation, given this country, Norway, and its use of torture (-threats) against the population, singled individuals or not, and by torture clinics, possibly also operated by med. doctors "in plain daylight"!!!
ReplyDeleteEcology: I hope [PlanetDiary, fx.] can see the importance of Overpopulation and how to deal with it. Thus: I'm also thinking about composing a "standard" letter that WWF (or Greenpeace or IPCC) can use to promote family planning of 1 or 2 kids so that they can help move the political climate into place in order to combat overpopulation and deprivation of habitat from the animals, in effect reducing the overall carbon footprint and create more wilderness for animals to "enjoy"/thrive in! Care to join, please? (For their slow pace, I must say they should already have had a foot in the ass...) PS: Please also put an enduring note on "An Inconvenient Problem" by Al Gore as a matter of Global _Warming_ (i.e., freak nature and more deserts). on [PlanetDiary's, fx.] timeline.
ReplyDeleteMore to go:
ReplyDeleteConcerning the fight against the fur/leather industry (good leather exempted and _you know why_), I just object to the notion that it will /help/ to stress the animals of these fur-farmers only to present /that/ media report later that displays these animals in this ugly, stressed condition (Soviet Union *NRK* or other)!! I think you get it. No, to the opposite, the fighting against the fur-industry is to be led in other ways such as ensuring a better slaughtering method (not electrocution by "ughh"...) and perhaps conditions for them as animals as they are brought up (they probably need "a bit of cheerful circumstances" in order to "deliver" that fur! Alright! Let's do it!
(8 June at 01:23 (CEST?))
Under Applied Ethics of course and respects to all (other) Animal Ethics philosophers in the World!
(8 June at 01:23 (CEST?))
Url: http://www.peta.org.uk/ !
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its affiliates are dedicated to the protection of animals worldwide..
(8 June at 01:24 (CEST?)
Over the slaughtering methods: and alternatively, chopping of the animals' heads, as death is secured within a second and has convention with chickens (as meat production, KFriedC) and is no worse than the legal making of Halal meat production, with or without sedatives of approved kinds... They have duties to implement if not in already!
(2 seconds ago - "appx. time: 16:40, date: 2012/08/12 CEST."?)
Human being are now certainly not electrcuted (because it is now defined to be an unusual/abominable way to kill people).
ReplyDeleteUnder Palliative Medicine/Care, I may yield a slight point on "making the patients wake up a bit in order to speak (sensibly)" with the closest ones. This also makes a duty to utilise good anasthetic practices like setting the drips, rather than imposing one's presence on the patient and this patient's closest ones as they bond or other.
ReplyDeletePalliative Medicine is now largely finished and uncontroversial and remains so with the motto: NO PAINS!!!
Ecology more:
ReplyDeleteCombatting the Overpopulation
Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.
I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.
(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)
I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!
Re-issuing (first to Facebook of earlier):
In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)
The approval for the humanistic, non-principal pro-death penalty enters here now as suggestion and adds to the political discussion, however, looking at the situation of crime in the World today, I request that Amnesty Int. removes its stance against the Death Penalty in working toward a more sane World. The arguments will follow here on a line, arguments by arguments, pro-death-penalty.
ReplyDeleteApplied ethics, suggestion/bearing:
ReplyDeleteFrom some time now, given the accessibility to information, I think it's mandated that the relevant leaders of the World are to be considered MONSTERS, "well suspended over all humanity", i.e., the inhumanity in them, by the direct consequence of failing people their chance (not instantly guaranteed, I'm sorry to say) to human rights, please see UDHR under UN, as matter of reality, i.e., in practice, in life.
The data-sets of crime (crime statistics) may have been "fixed"/left in the dark, in the social sense, for much of time we know, entire families practically "run over", abused, tortured, maimed, killed, whatever, very much outside the facade official stories we've been told of.
So if they provide leadership counter to human rights, they are to be named MONSTERS!
(See esp. UDHR Art. 3, please.)
The corrupt mind is a very serious condition that may agree/act with all cruelty the World can offer them, EVERYTHING, H*llraiser, so on!
Url: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ .
There are much people living under the letters of human rights, the entire 7,1 Bn people, a number that has 8 0s after the 7 and 1.
ReplyDelete(This text, plus the above, as you may infer, carries deep economical consequences.)
Now the objective ethics are ontologically proven, by corroboration, as we write 2013, also being a deep and hard part of my mSomatism, where the people who are unethical (may) become known to drop in neuro-values in becoming estranged from humanity in failure to comply with the ethics and proper behaviour, that inside the bodies, the nerves withdraw toward the spine and the brain, loosing a kind of neurological control over one's own body.
ReplyDeleteUnder Objective Ethics and Integrity:
ReplyDeletegiven the inhumanity notions, "to commit inhuman acts against others", that we find,
* to commit inhuman acts against other people must "stand thousand-folds" deeper into inhumanity
than to
* be a victim to inhuman acts because the victim doesn't need to take part in an inhuman psychology/personality (pathology, still under the investigation of level of corrupt mind) to be this victim.
Also, and importantly, to blame a victim for being a victim under inhuman acts is to give way to inhuman psychology (mind the pathology notion, please) on the "idiot's" side, perhaps malignantly or detrimental to the person who is blaming the victim for this!
BEWARE!
(Also in providing character by the Cardinal Virtues.)
Poking the J. L. Mackies of ethics "5 times more". Here with logics too:
ReplyDeleteLogical Ethics
The logical outline in plain wording:
Ethics (Deontology)/Best Ethics is to follow a set of rules, ethical rules, which are formulated according to credibility for ethics, that is, these ethical rules appeal to ethical sense that is of course the best human behaviour in terms of appeal/expression/description.
The pedagogical set-up is therefore this:
UoD: Everything (like Ethics, Ethical Rules, Credibility, Ethical sense, Human behaviour)
The logical entities:
Ethics (Deontology)/Best Ethics: D
Ethical rules: E
Credibility: C
Ethical sense: S
Human behaviour in terms of best appeal/expression/description: H
The logics themselves, by the symbols:
1 | D - P (P for Premise)
2 | D → E - P
3 | E → C - P
4 | C → S - P
5 | S → H - P
0 |-------------------------------
6 | D 1, R
( 7 - 12 or something, all Conditional Elim. →E )
13 | S 12, →E
0 |-------------------------------
14 | H 13, →E
The moves from the premises to conclusion at line 14 are all taking part in Hypothetical Syllogism (or Conditional Entailment, if you like).
The further logics under these primary set of logics is expressed like this:
Best ethics gives these rules (by public discussion):
Rule 1 to Rule n (math. n). Each Rule being expressed as "best ethics" rule and entered toward its use by the conditional logics as before.
This is only the rudimentary for now.
Math. n is BTW given by Alt + 120419 . (But who cares... ;-) )
ReplyDeleteOne rule: Given a World population of 7,1 Bn people by the size of planet Earth, the best ethics rule is given by "1 kid or 2 kids" in combatting Overpopulation.
ReplyDeleteSentential: W → E → C = C with Best ethics rule concluding with C (combatting Overpopulation by "1 kid or 2 kids". (The Hypothetical Syllogism routine over again.)
The crimes against humanity - The Logic for the d*mba*s, the disciplinary remark in pointing out stupidity!
ReplyDeleteThat crimes against humanity cause distance to humanity!
Not that the "Criminal" of ours has entered the med. doctor's blood line, "knowing the blood (now)"!
But that
"crimes against humanity implies inhumanity implies inhuman person-hood!"
Evidently, by proof, under sound police work, that the inhuman is the Criminal who have committed crimes against humanity! Here is no entailment for the victims, whether they are dead or alive!
That carnivore-psychologists can take their treason to humanity somewhere else!
This enters the discussion over whether survival / the carnivore stands over the victim in terms of inhumanity in case inhumanity has taken place! This also enters a kind of (ontological) discussion over whether history rewards the retards/the inhuman people/the carnivores by people as animals!
And that we are able to record history to see:
Red Khmer in Cambodia
Nazi-Germany and its havoc
Nanjing-Japan in invading China
(more...!)
Get it, please? (Only to worthy people...)
(Get it, d*mba*ses? Only to the unworthy ones... - No, not here, please, inside the forum!)
The slight sub-note as appendix, God mentioned:
ReplyDeleteThe Universality Principle and Symmetry of Humans under God.
Symmetry for all of humanity can also be understood as "equal under law", or from the French flag, Egalité, with the 2 others...
Of Ethics, 1st, and Distance from Center of the Earth, 2nd.
The Universality Principle of Ethics holds its key and with this 2nd angle, as God's Miracle, also as
Symmetry of Humanity as distance from the center of the Earth, crudely, for all in length by 0,3 m. to 2,30 m., from babies/new-born all up to the tallest people on Earth.
That 0,3 m. - 2,30 m. as span among human beings and a-not-so-spherical Earth of appx. 6 371 000, "that does not count meters in the first place", gives us this!
From Wikip.: "Earth radius is the distance from Earth's center to its surface, about 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). This length is also used as a unit of distance, especially in astronomy and geology, where it is usually denoted by R(special_mark)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius.
Not under the a**es of Hitler and Eichmann and beyond, but by the Metaphorical Jesus and the angles/saints and the best among us!
If not the 10 Commandments and 7 Cardinal Virtues in support then the laws and regulations as approved by all of the populations around the planet and the doctors included too!
One academic reference for the Universality Principle:
Philosophical Ethics, An introduction..., 2nd., T. L. Beauchamp, McGraw-Hill (Inc./HigherEducation), 1991. - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, p. 330, Right-Based Ethical Theories, pp. 316 - 324.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)#Universality_in_ethics.
Over "Joseph McCarthyism 2.0" and "Non-Naive Religious person":
The importance of the "Joseph McCarthyism 2.0":
- to progress society, the fighting of corruption and corrupt minds needs to be escalated!
Formal notions to this in NOT serving the public, the red-code list:
Remember please that these are not valid,
* Stanford Prison Experiment
* Stanley Milgram Learning Experiment
* The introduction of "Slipknot laws"
while, point to point, these are the good ones, under God, Truth and the Bible too, the green-code list:
* Criminals should be punished, jail-time if severe enough, and they deserve to sit too, well-knowing...
* Torture in wanting people to learn something is very wrong and is NOT commonly wanted, rather constituting the most severe legal sentences there are, "long time to be spent in prison, or death directly".
* Laws are serving the civilised, organised society that separates us from the animals. They are to be known as "Payment-slip laws"!
The importance of the "Non-Naive Religious person":
Knowing that the good faith has always been susceptible for the assault or the backstabbing, I take, in the year of the Lord, 2013, all corrupt minds seriously and I am wide awake in terms of what a corrupt mind represents!
Over Ethics and the Modern Society
ReplyDelete3 "smoking/charismatic" bulbs/globules of Ethics for the modern society. The apparatus becomes:
1. Main: The Cognitive Ethics - also known as rule-following for laws and regulations in expressing the ethics to live by.
2. Supportive: The Virtue Ethics - the best examples are the cardinal virtues and courage and conscience.
3. Rescue/Emergency Ethics - The Non-Cognitive Ethics, best known as feelings or feeling what's proper for a given situation.
Then it's all up to the courts if you perpetrate. Say it right, will you! ;-)
The practical guide under Practical Philosophy known as Ethics/Applied Ethics. Thank you.
By Lenny F. Olsnes-Lea, 2014-02-27, as written on paper, not published here.
(A note with this on it, formerly, may have been stolen from me at a nearby bus-junction. Sorry to say.)