RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!)

RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!) (11/6/2007 12:20:41 AM)
You know why the NHL finally adopted a helmet requirement? You might remember that players had a hard time accepting helmets--you get a sizable competitive advantage in hockey if you're not wearing a helmet and everyone else is, even though wearing a helmet, naturally, improves your safety. This meant that most players were reluctant to wear one. However...there was an interesting questionnaire, and it turned out that most players APPROVED of a helmet requirement, but only if it were a real requirement, and enforced by the league. The players weren't stupid, and knew very well that playing with a helmet was safer, but for professional reasons couldn't justify wearing a helmet if it was only an optional safety measure. So the NHL went ahead and required helmets, and that was that. (It's a little more complicated, because there was a grace period, but today all players wear helmets and wouldn't dream of playing without one.) So what does the NHL have to do with what you're saying? Morality is not merely an individual's reponsibility. Free-marketeers and rugged individualists and so on will flip out if they hear you say something like that, but the fact is that we live in a real world, and often real-world conditions conspire to make it impossible for us to pursue our moral ideals EVEN IF WE'RE SINCERE ABOUT THEM. If we want any real improvement in the environment, in working conditions, and so on, we have to make them national priorities and pass measures that the federal government will enforce. Until then, yes, there are small things that individuals can do, but they don't amount to nearly as much as we can do as a unified nation; mostly what they do is contribute to the vague sense of guilt that sincerely moral people like the OP feel in the face of overwhelming social apathy.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!) (11/6/2007 12:55:20 AM)
Thanks for the post, LAM. I appreciate what you've contributed and understand your point. This is why societal laws are formed and bills are passed. But how far do we go? There were lots of complaints about the seatbelt law, as I recall. Now we have laws that disallow smoking in passenger vehicles carrying minors. What if they take those laws into the home? With the pandemic obesity in little ones in this country, will we instigate requirements as to what we feed them at the dinner table? At what point is compromise made? Are we compromising by letting government dictate how we raise our kids, or are we compromising by feeding them whatever we want? Dizzy yet? :) As for the small things people can do, I agree with you that the ultimate overall effect is small if even noticeable. I think people do the things they can because it feels right to them. Ever hear the story of the man jogging down the ocean shore, and stops when he sees another man throwing washed up starfish, one at a time, back into the sea? The jogger looks at the hundreds of starfish on the sand and tells the man there is no way he can save all them all, so why bother? It's not like he can make a difference. The other man picks up a starfish and tosses it in, saying, "I made a difference to that one." (I saw that on a corporate training film called "Paradigm Pioneers" with Joel Barker). I liked how you phrased, "vague sense of guilt." That's an interesting and accurate characterization. Just to add to things, someone I love very dearly showed up at my home today, in a bit of a crisis due to some very poor choices she was making - choices she knows I can't support. Which of my values do you think had priority? Did I send her away, because she is doing bad things? Or did I take her in and try to help her, because I love her so much? I took her in. I told her I couldn't support what she is doing, but I would love her anyway. We are faced with situations in life when we have to choose which value we will apply and which we will compromise. We do what is right for us at the time, while others may shake their heads and tsk tsk us, because we are compromising their morals and values and ethics. Maybe I'm weird, but I find this phenomena most fascinating.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!) (11/6/2007 1:49:29 AM)
I don't really see the slippery slope that right-wingers and other alarmists always bring up whenever you talk about laws designed to protect the environment. In the privacy of your own home, you're free (by and large) to do whatever the fuck you want. But the environment is not the privacy of your own home. Why should people be free to crap all over the environment and make life worse for everyone else--not to mention future generations? Anyway, in the case of the environment, we're talking not so much about individuals as about corporations. How does it restrict freedom for automobile manufacturers to be required to meet certain minimum fuel-efficiency standards? Or for energy companies to be required to find renewable sources of energy instead of just building another coal plant? Sure, there are all kinds of little things we can do, and if we all did them, they would make a difference. But one thing I cannot do is drive a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, and that would make more of a difference than all the little things put together. I need the help of my government to make that a reality. These days, my government doesn't give a fuck, because these days my government is owned by the same people who are crapping all over the environment and demanding not to have to pay for it. Oh, and solemnly declaring that the free market will solve all of the world's problems. Here's a good article about all of this: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/07/23/070723ta_talk_surowiecki As for your final example: holding serious moral principles doesn't require you to shut out people who don't live up to your ideals. On the contrary, taking them in when they're in trouble, talking to them, and convincing them of your point of view does a whole lot more to further your ideals than stubbornly keeping them out of your life.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Ethics, Values and Compromise (oh my!) (11/6/2007 2:38:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I don't really see the slippery slope that right-wingers and other alarmists always bring up whenever you talk about laws designed to protect the environment. In the privacy of your own home, you're free (by and large) to do whatever the fuck you want. But the environment is not the privacy of your own home. Why should people be free to crap all over the environment and make life worse for everyone else--not to mention future generations? We're in agreement, for the most part. I did hear squawkings not too long ago about possible upcoming laws about smoking with minors in the home, which is what brought me to mention that particular area of government infiltration. quote: Anyway, in the case of the environment, we're talking not so much about individuals as about corporations. How does it restrict freedom for automobile manufacturers to be required to meet certain minimum fuel-efficiency standards? Or for energy companies to be required to find renewable sources of energy instead of just building another coal plant? Sure, there are all kinds of little things we can do, and if we all did them, they would make a difference. But one thing I cannot do is drive a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, and that would make more of a difference than all the little things put together. I need the help of my government to make that a reality. These days, my government doesn't give a fuck, because these days my government is owned by the same people who are crapping all over the environment and demanding not to have to pay for it. Oh, and solemnly declaring that the free market will solve all of the world's problems. I'm right there with you re: finding sources of renewable energy. Right here in Sacramento is the California Fuel Cell Partnership headquarters (www.cafcp.org), a collaboration of auto manufacturers, energy companies, fuel cell technology companies, and government agencies. Seems promising. Much more promising than the Air Resources Board's fiasco with MTBE. quote: Here's a good article about all of this: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/07/23/070723ta_talk_surowiecki Interesting. Thanks for sharing :) Likewise, Huell Howser of "California's Gold" now broadcasts "California's Green" (saw the program on the Fuel Cell Partnership the other night). If interested, his site is http://www.calgold.com/green/. It lists the areas he is touring and DVDs for purchase, as well as resources for Californians - where to recycle tires, computers, etc. quote: As for your final example: holding serious moral principles doesn't require you to shut out people who don't live up to your ideals. On the contrary, taking them in when they're in trouble, talking to them, and convincing them of your point of view does a whole lot more to further your ideals than stubbornly keeping them out of your life. I completely agree with you here. My evening ended with this dear girl in my life crying, saying my home is her "safe house" where she can come and be loved, told the truth, and be herself, whoever that may be. I'm pretty certain I am helping her a lot more by this approach than by telling her how rotten she is and showing her the door. Tonight's end result was she went home to her husband and children instead of continuing her spiral away from them. Thanks to my Master's help as well, bless his heart. I appreciate your posts; thank you :)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02