The Key to Unlock the Door – and thus reduce corruption.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

“Unlocking the door” here refers to making a dent in - or even gradually dissolving - corruption, abuse, war, hypocrisy, and revenge.

I would like you to inform me if we can gain agreement on these points.

We need a key to unlock the door, to overcome the barrier. In the present context, what is ‘the door’ (the barrier)? It is that not enough people behave ethically. [size=85][This thread is about implementing moral philosophy, making it a part of daily life …about activism, in a sense, more than about dry theory.][/size]

Someone might ask: Why should they live ethically?

If they did, we would have a better world: we wouldn’t be plagued with problems that are so oppressive. You can list them as well as I.
[For example, in an ethical world, rather than have, as we do today, a terrible “unemployment crisis,” both business and government - would pay people while they are retraining in the skills that society needs.

We would then welcome the onrush of automation and robotics – which now are replacing traditional human labor – welcome them as facilitating the introduction of a Resource-Based-Economy. (Research this on Google if you are not familiar with it.) We would teach people not to go into debt, and how to avoid getting into debt.]

There is room for self-improvement – even among those who believe that they do behave ethically, and who understand what this might mean.

THE KEY: We need a massive self-improvement awareness campaign aimed at drilling in a comprehensive insight into the principles of Ethics and how to live them. {See the dialog - the conversation in that fictional conference - linked to in the signature below for details.} Maybe a special “month,” set aside to publicize that awareness, would help launch the campaign; and some spectacular entertainment event(s) to dramatize it .

What is the Critical Path leading to the campaign to teach the basic principles of Ethics? What preparations have to be made? In what order – with what deadlines? Will it require funding? Will a Foundation sponsor it? How does that get arranged?

You may observe: There is far more anger and resentment among people than anyone likes to admit. What information can banish these harmful emotions?

Here I would quote an ancient philosopher, Seneca, who wrote:

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient, nor does he take it ill to be insulted by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind as a physician treats a patient, and look upon it only as sick and irresponsible.”

You may inquire: How does the law of Cause-and-Effect operate in our relations with others?

Coleridge had an answer when he explained: “We receive but what we give.”

And that same law will explain why the individual who does good to herself will spontaneously do good to others; and whosoever harms himself also hurts others. It follows from this that self-development must be our first development.

We can’t depend upon anyone, even a friend, who doesn’t depend on himself. Only a person who acts beneficially toward himself will do so toward others. Ethical insight takes priority before worthwhile political change, before we devise better systems, better institutions. For why would anyone design a superior, more effective, system if he/she didn’t have ethical awareness to begin with?

Are we in accord on those points? Let me know what you think about all this, okay?

2

Since you asked,

I find that your heart is in the right place, but you are phenomenally naive and as such have absolutely no hope against corruption, fore naivety such as yours is the very cause of it. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

3

[quote=“James S Saint”]
…no hope against corruption, fore naivety such as yours is the very cause of it…

…Respect the morons.

[quote]
Out of respect I ask: Is this not an ad hominem argument? Are not such flames fallacies of reasoning?

The thread is about the most efficient methods to get people to pay more attention to Ethics, the new paradigm, the body of knowledge, and its derived principles and norms. If one has some constructive (in contrast to destructive) suggestions to offer as to how this is best done they are most welcome to present their contributions.

4

Again, another quality post, thinkdr.

I really like the quote by Seneca and the closing paragraph.

I’m saddened that James called you naive then left without illustrating it.

5

Not really. In my defense, firstly, it wasn’t a “flame”. And secondly, I don’t think a claim of naivety exactly falls into the common thought of an ad hom even though the asserting person was addressed in the respeonse. In every case I have ever heard, such a claim has always actually been about the argument itself merely with the presumption that the person’s knowledge-base formed that argument thus the knowledge-base was lacking, hence “naive”.

But if it will make you feel better, since as I said, “your heart seems to be in the right place”, I will apologize for what appeared to you as an ad hom and restate the response that you had requested, “Your assertion and argument is naive”. Feel better? {{suspect not}}

Really? I didn’t get that out of it at all. Efficiency wasn’t even mentioned. And “new paradigm”?? Your entire stance has always seemed very “old paradigm” to me. What is new about it?

The last time I asked for details so as to discuss your stance, you basically told me to go read the book. If I didn’t mention it, I certainly thought to my self that if someone is presenting such assertions yet cannot defend them without deferring the discussion to going to read a book somewhere, then the person simply doesn’t know enough about what he is saying. Are you ready to actually defend your assertions now? If so, I would be happy to sort through your stance and point out the all too many issues involved. Through that process, we might derive something more “efficient” and effective, but with a low probability.

6

I think the use of ‘we’ in a lot of these kind of nascent enterprises is misleading. Who is this We? There are lots of wes out there telling other people what is ethical. Or facilitating their awareness of ethical issues? Or distributing literature? or…and other approaches. This has been going on for thousands of years and still there are diverse opinions about what is good and then people who don’t even bother pretending that they want to be good. But really the first point is more important. Hitler thought he was being a good guy, doing his duty.

I think this can be a useful shift, but I think it is a terrible rule. If someone gets angry at me, but keeps dealing with me in general with respect, I am vastly more inclined to keep working things through with that person than I ever would be with someone who thinks my strong emtions are caused by illness, rather than, for example, by some oppression, enormous blind spot, callous regulation, etc.

This idea that it is either more loving or more spiritually advanced to look down on people rather than express emotions is a pattern that I don’t think has helped us much.

7

I think what James is saying is that there’s no way of getting people to pay any attention, not just more, to Ethics and that your desire to do so is a part of your idealism.

You say, “We can’t depend upon anyone, even a friend, who doesn’t depend on himself.” I’ve tried to teach our daughter a modification of that, “You can’t love anyone if you don’t first love yourself.”

BUT–and there’s always a “but”–what’s ethical to you may not be ethical to me. You may think the best way to curb–even stop–misuse of medicare and medicaid by doctors, hospitals, pharms, etc. would be to stop all medicare and medicaid. I would disagree, since doing so would harm medicare and medicaid patients as well as the honest doctors.

You may think that living on credit is unethical, because it adds so much to the National debt, or whatever. Your answer may be to stop credit spending. But that would hit small businesses that rely on credit to maintain their cash flow.

Naive isn’t a pejorative. It means only that you don’t have enough worldly wisdom to be able to understand all ramifications of a given situation. If you feel you do, please post your ideas.

8

Exactly. Thank you, Liz. :sunglasses:

Thinkr, there are things that cause people to behave the way they do. The notion that you can merely say, “hey everyone, if we all act this better way, the world will be a better place”, is simply ignoring the things causing them to be the way they are (hence “naive”). It is paramount to saying, “Why can’t we just all get along?” The answer to that is simply that certain people aren’t trying to… for a REASON.

In a prior discussion, you mentioned that only perhaps 3% of the population are “bad guys”. But do you realize that it is only 1% of the population that controls the entire world? And those guys couldn’t care less if your world is a nice place or the worst hell that has ever been. Their ONLY concern is their own lust for absolute control over ALL life for the purpose of ensuring for all time their own lavish life style. In their worldview you are very seriously nothing more than an insect, a worker bee within a hive that they own. If making your life more miserable increases their profits, they wouldn’t hesitate any more than you would hesitate to step on a spider in your kitchen.

Just as a single (of very many) sample; We OWN Your Ass and couldn’t care less… Period. Get used to it.

Or this one; “The Silent Police State”

Or how about this one;

How is your Ethics going to handle those people?

9

I think the problem is more about how we think rather than moral content of what we think.

10

I can’t speak on behalf of thinkdr, but I’d certainly like to chip in my reaction to some of the points raised.

@James

Efficiency comes into the equation when you’re trying to guide someone’s ethical growth. Often people accuse others, and shame them for their perceived mistakes. This comes in the 'You’re wrong. You should have known better!" approach to ethics.

What thinkdr is talking about, is understanding that the pain one causes to another, is equivalent to what one causes oneself. It advocates to not react with anger or accusation, but with compassion. The way to teach one love, is to give one love.

Many are afraid of being rejected, so they hide their emotions. This is not fair. We deny ourselves, and then slight compassion, for we were denied it.

Seems like you’re not being charitable. Why would thinkdr defer you to books instead of defend his propositions?

Perhaps he does not like conflict. Perhaps he doesn’t believe he can do justice to the material. Perhaps he thinks you may be more open to the information if there’s no one in front of you who can be questioned and judged. Perhaps he feels the material is of such value, that he’d rather have people engage it as a whole instead of segments. Perhaps he thought you’d find what he found in the concepts. Perhaps he had X motivation.

I feel you’re being a bit critical by assuming thinkdr doesn’t understand.

@Moreno

In the example, there is a physician and a patient. The physician being someone who only has good intent for the patient, yet the patient is applying pressure that by no stretch of the imagination is unfairly being directed towards the physician.

It isn’t condescending to see another’s illness. To see that another is like oneself, is the way one justifies being subjected to adversity unjustly, and in doing so, can pull the patient out of their anger and into peace and happiness - the level of the physician. There’s great respect in looking past the rough edges, because you’re respecting one’s inner worth and right to a quality life.

What would you rather someone respect in you? Your anger or your humanity?

@Lizbeth

Everything we do boils down to things we desire as an end in themselves. Anything that is a means to an end, is really just a diverted path to get to the thing that we desire for it’s own merit.

We can define the results of these things we desire for their own merit, but it’s no more valid that we enjoy sight, than opening and closing our hands rapidly. Of course, the former is far more helpful to our survival, but survival itself is one thing we care about, or we don’t care about. It’s really just circular logic and there’s no reason why any point couldn’t be different. Or infinite reasons, if you’d like to detail however many points you can find in a circle.

Where does that leave us? Well… We want to do things that we value intrinsically, and ideally, we’d be in a position where we could do what we value 'til our hearts content.

Which is the most likely way to achieve this? Well… We have to address possible hurdles. We have to understand the scope of these intrinsic desires, internally and externally. That being, how many are there within you, and how many others share these. Is there common ground among you and I? Can our differences be traced back to similarities? What are our priorities? Can we cooperate?

If someone doesn’t understand and believe in themselves, they are condemned to have no understanding and belief.

How could one expect another to belief anything, if they don’t believe in themselves? You can’t show common ground to the one who denies the ground beneath them. Who is blind and confused.

The self, is where it starts.

11

That’s right, but… since you are attempting it, then…
…watch the entire film…
…answer the question.

This happens for a reason;

12
  1. why do I have to choose? isn’t the former part of the latter? 2) it seems like you are assuming that the ‘doctor’ - remember this was a metaphor - is right when condescendingly decides that the anger is not really relevent. I have seen this in many types of settings where one person looks down on the other person for getting mad at them. The problem is, they did not realize that the person’s anger actually did apply and was reacting to something real in the condescender.
  2. as stated, this was a metaphor. So what we have is people deciding they are an expert beyond the capacity of the person who is angry at them. This can be a very effective defense mechanism. It can also be a way of avoiding expressing anger.

And note, in my original objection I made it clear that there can be situations where one is the expert, the other person is really angry about something else, or insane, etc. But, as I said, as a rule, this is a terrible suggestion. And it can destroy a marriage, for example.

13

Joe, I agreed with thinkdr when I said you can’t love someone else until you can love yourself. You seem to be outlining how people go about making friends. As an optimist who’s generally happy with her life, I don’t want to surround myself with disgruntled pessimists, for example

What I was trying to share was there are many ethe (and, yes, I looked it up. Ethe is the correct Greek plural for “ethos.”) in the world and they often oppose each other. What is moral/ethical for me may not be so for a Muslim woman. How do we overcome those ‘hurdles?’ (I really don’t want to dwell on Muslims, by the way.) I’ll put it differently–what’s moral/ethical for me may not be so for the Republican Conservative woman living next door. There’s really no hurdle there to overcome–we just don’t talk about politics.

Do we spend our lives not talking about certain things with certain people–I think so. Is this a valid way to avoid argument and dissention? I don’t know, but it works for me. :slight_smile:

14

@James

How can we deal with the corruption of the ‘evil’ 1%? Well, their only power is what we give them.

If some guy off the street walks into your home and tells your family and you to beat each other to death, would you listen? Doubt it. Because by your standards, he’s clearly ill and it’s against what you believe in. What could possibly convince you to do this? Well, if you knew for a certainty he would cause more agony to your family if you didn’t. In which case, you may choose to show mercy and give them a faster death.

Why do people listen to those who they disagree with? Because they think it’s the lesser of two evils. When it comes to corrupt minorities, to ignore them COULD be a blessing to all.

If someone’s ill, they ideally would be helped. Why? Because we don’t want people to suffer intrinsically. That seeing others in pain is not one of our intrinsic values, or perhaps I should, it doesn’t need to be.

To avoid corruption, one must remove the incentive for corruption. If there’s two men - One’s starving and the other well fed - who’s more likely to steal a loaf of bread? Obviously the starving man. Again, two men - One has a loving family, is content, and respects himself and the other is depressed, alone, angry and longs for comfort - Who’s more likely to abuse power or seek instant gratification? Clearly the latter.

There’s a saying by Jacque Fresco that goes something like this. ‘If it rained gold for a day, everyone would be fighting in the streets to acquire it. If it rained gold for a month, people would be sweep it into the gutter’.

The point is, scarcity is what drives people to extremes. If there’s no reward for ‘corruption’, then there’s no incentive.

With that in mind, to deal with the evil 1%, one must understand what they are lacking, and see if it can be facilitated. (Also, remove their power via self empowerment.)

As far as peace advocators being killed. It was the job of men who were so corrupt, that truth stung their bones and hearts. The problem was, that the power of truth and courage were all in one basket. A group of a few men, who could easily be destroyed. To counter this, as Gandhi said, ‘We must become the change we wish to see in the world’.

If we were honest and respectful of ourselves, then we wouldn’t subject each other and ourselves to such adverse conditions. If people could do this, whenever someone loses their way, the rest could pull them back up and give them support.

Don’t put your eggs in one basket, and there’s no where for those afraid of truth to hide. They will be converted.

@Moreno

If the physician paid attention to your anger, treating you would become instantly more challenging and unfair to the physician. It is a coping mechanism on the part of the physician to underplay the importance of someone’s passion.

Beggars can’t be choosers. If you’re in need for help, and someone offers you help, why judge them? If anything, that would be an illustration of how deep the illness ran.

In your reply, you jumped perspectives (Or perhaps the former alternate is the patient’s perspective also, but it doesn’t make sense to me to expect a physician to get angry at you). That is perhaps where things have gone astray just now. Let me show this - The bold is the perspective of the physician, the underlined is the perspective of the patient:

Let me repeat it is the physician who chooses how to interpret the patient’s reaction, and it is for the physicians own well being.

And yes, anger is very human, but when I said humanity, I meant your worth as a human.

I tried to say it is not condescending by explaining why one would do this.

In the metaphor, I see someone who has only good intent for the patient. Not someone with something to prove. I associate condescending behavior with someone who is insecure and trying to find comfort and confidence.

This is not what the physician is doing.

It’s a person deciding what they want to prioritize in another. How they want to interpret another’s actions. It is not a matter of, ‘I’m an expert, so what you feel isn’t real’. The physician would no doubt be understanding of another’s anger, but hopefully would be able to cope with it and not be upset by it.

In this metaphor, to me it’s assumed that the doctor has no ill will and did not earn the treatment. If you’re talking about a situation where the doctor did something to deserve that reaction, then that’s a different story completely.

I must have missed that.

I see it as a tool, not a rule. It’s good at what it does, but can’t solve every problem efficiently.

@Lizbeth

Just so happens the methods effective at bridging differences are the same as what one may use to make a new friend.

My intent was not such, directly. I’d hope you could read it in the same context as the questions you asked.

15

Note: I see we reach positions that are on the same page. I leave the post as it is so you can see my thinking as I get this. I do think however you are missing the fact that it is being presented as a rule FOR ALL OF US in any situation where someone else is angry. I see now that you do not believe this is a good idea, but I think you are missing that the OP does think it is a good rule.

Yes, but again, this is being put forward as a rule for all interactions. And also even doctors should be careful to not assume that when their patients are angry it has nothing to do with them. Unfortunately because of my family’s health, I have had a lot of interactions with doctors the last 5 or 6 years. Let me tell you, they do precisely this, often, dismiss anger that actually is excellent feedback for them about what they are doing wrong. And note, the anger comes, generally, after this feedback comes is expressed more calmly.

So yes, sometimes the expert is right to view it this way. But it is a terrible rule.

Again, the idea is using doctors as metaphors for all of us in any situation to not take anger seriously. This is a terrible rule and one that we can see serving the self-confusions of many an asshole out there.

Or to avoid actually learning or admitting mistakes, being self-protective, if poorly, in general. And, yet again, the idea was not restricted to doctors or experts, it was being used to demonstrate that WE ALL should react to anger this way.

And anger can and often is a part of that.

Right, but what we are dealing with is someone is telling us as a rule to treat anger as if it was the symptom of a disease. That is a bad rule. It can be the right response in some situations and certainly in SOME medical situations. But it is a terrible rule.

All I can say is if your wife or child started reacting to your anger as if it was always a symptom of a disease, you would likely find yourself not feeling like your humanity is being respected. Of course, you as an individual may have very strong judgments of anger and think that they should always view your anger this way. But most people have some respect for their own anger and see it as part of communication when boundaries and rights have not been respected and calm pointing this out has not worked. Those people will not appreciate having their anger as a rule treated as symptom of a disease, rather than communication that needs to be respected for what it is and perhaps as sign one has not listened or respected the other person up to that point (on some issue or in general).

Right, but we just told doctors to, as a rule, view their patients’ anger as symptom. IOW you just agreed with me, though I not sure you noticed it. This is precisely my point, it is a bad rule, but can be true in many medical situations. Since it is being used as a metaphor for ALL SITUATIONS, this is even more problematic.

Great, we seem to have arrived on the same page. But note, it was presented as a rule. No qualifications. This is what anger is.

16

Delusion.
They take, with or without your permission. And often manage to make you and others think that you gave it.

If that is what they want, they cause it to happen, unseen. And that is happening all over the world, because they discovered how to do it.

Discomfort and Indecision - the very foundation of the Devil.
Both easily caused without your awareness.

“You” will not know that he was ever there.

Extortion - “do it or else”.

The way to ensure that you are on top is to ensure that everyone else is on bottom and helplessly confused and suffering (“Discomfort and Indecision”).

Well you got that part right.

Remove want and desire and you get merely weakness and lack of incentive to accomplish anything.
Those with power are usually those who once suffered… but remember and/or fear it.

…and there would be no economy.
If you rain blessings every day, there would be no seeking of blessing, no striving to cure the incurable, no seeking of the miracle, nothing that you could identify as life… and no “doctors” who specialize in discovering the problem. Who would pay them?

And complacency is what allows entropy to bring death.
Where is that incentive that brings and maintains life?

From their perspective the only thing they are lacking is more of what they are seeking - power to control all existence.
Their strategy is to ensure that no one has influence but them. And they are proving to be quite successful at it (laws against you doing or having anything while they are allowed to do or have anything and everything).

Those who have no influence with which to accomplish, accomplish nothing, even within themselves.

If you attempt that (again) they will (again) use their “Black Block” technique of instigating violence and making it appear as though you were responsible - “blame-shifting”, “false flagging”. That is the new way of governing the entire world (spoken of in Genesis as the “Serpent” in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

They cannot be converted to a truth that they cannot recognize. But they can easily be converted to a deception that was easy to believe.

Your corruption is their attainable goal. Their corruption is beyond your reach.

17

Greetings, Joe Schmoe

Joe, I want to congratulate you for your deep insight and wisdom. [size=85]You are a young man (relative to me). That is a safe statement for me to make. And yet you’re spot on :exclamation: Often people don’t get so smart 'till they’re over 60 because due to experience at having made so many mistakes earlier, they recognize a mistake quicker, and thus make better judgments.[/size]

Many years ago, when it first came out, I read a book by C. Wright Mills, with the title THE POWER ELITE. When I was 19 I was an activist. I went down to shipyards where nuclear submarines were being built (for the first time) and being launched. A group of us led by The Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Friends Service Committee picketed. A. J. Muste was there. I was thrown in jail many times after that for protesting, and later, when I was age 20,was a Conscientious Objector to “a peace action” in Korea, and did time for that. Then I was very active in the Civil Rights movement. We practiced nonviolent resistance. Today, some of the same techniques are being employed by folks in campaigns organized by 350.org. - http://www.350.org/en/story

After they stood peaceably at the White House gates, hundreds of people from all walks of life, mobilized by 350.org were jailed temporarily. Three days later they came back in greater numbers, formed a circle around the White House grounds, five deep. They continued to protest the Keystone Pipeline because they know the science that it would result in lots of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere, causing global climate change, which in turn would lead to a greater net loss of value to the human species. Our President took notice of them, listened, and very soon after announced that he was halting construction of that pipeline - the one that the fossil fuel industry wants SO much. Thus “people power” won a victory …for the time being. This non-profit is planning a much larger mobilization at a future date. The one-tenth-of-one-percent will attempt to suppress it, but it is irrepressible. Civil disobedience ‘speaks truth to power.’

When the people lead, “leaders” know in which direction to go: they follow.

The original post in this thread was written for philosophers to read; also for future teachers, superintendents and principals. My main audience is the next generation: they will change the world. It is being changed all the time even now as any reader of the online e-zines: The Intelligent Optimist, and Yes Magazine, would note. It is being changed in an ethical direction. Allow me to comment on that.

Gravity and electricity are forces of nature; they are always operative. Is there a law of human nature? Yes. Value creation: we do it all the time; even if we have a low Value Quotient score on the HVP test. Say, someone over-values Systemic Value, and thus earns a low V.Q. He or she may still create something because they are thinking of systems all the time. Or they may be passionate for their cause - because they tend to think in terms of Black-or-White, of either-or. Creativity and passion add value.

Value is a force of nature. It is created when we don’t resist going in the Intrinsic direction, as indicated in the HOV, nor violate it by committing disvalue. For example, using nuclear energy to drop an A-bomb on innocent people: that is committing disvalue. To combat violence with violence is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it :exclamation: (In Pakistan today we are, with our drone attacks, generating new Osama bin Ladins.)

Complying with the Hierarchy of Value, the HOV, always works. In that sense it is analogous with gravity. Complying with it means going in the direction of Intrinsic valuation, giving it preference over Extrinsic values, and over Systemic values. For, when any dilemma arises there are three basic considerations, or perspectives:

S: What are the codes, standards, traditions,? What would the authorities say?
E: What are the pragmatic considerations? What would solve problems? What is the cost/benefit analysis?
I: How do we build a stronger community? What is the loving thing to do? How do we incentivize better, sweeter cooperation? How cultivate a sense of unity-within-the-diversity? How can everyone better express their individuality, and feel more free, yet more responsible to our common purpose?

[size=85][The Existential logical Hierarchy of Value was first devised by a brilliant philosopher named Robert S. Hartman, whose bio you can find on Wiki.][/size]
Violating the HOV results in a net loss ( which might look like,though, a short-term gain.) For example, if after a boss in a mean and contemptuous tone nastily commands an employee to fix a piece of machinery - the employee fixes it - and the machine once again now runs: that appears to be a gain in value. However, the resentment that has developed in the staff member, and the subsequent loss of motivation on his part will mean that he won’t throw himself in a dedicated way into fulfilling the purpose of that company. This is a net loss of value. A short-term gain; a long-term loss.

As to what the HOV means …as it is expressed in the formula I > E > S …see the writings below to get the details.