[MarkJames]

My Survival and Wealth are Optional. I could have chosen not to get an education, not to learn multiple skills, not to save money, not to invest money, not to work 80 hour weeks, not to start multiple businesses, not to pay high income taxes and not to pay high property taxes. I could have chosen to take an average job, chosen to piss away my weekly paycheck, payed little if any taxes and taken advantage of every government, state, local and private freebie and subsidy available.

Helping the less fortunate by penalizing the wealthy or handing the less fortunate a fish (so to speak) is a temporary band-aid which often breeds laziness and creates dependency. This cycle of dependency can span lifetimes and generations. I'll often help someone to help themselves by giving them one-time-help, advice, instructions, lending/giving them tools or teaching them, but you can only lead a horse to water.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom The 10 Cannots:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

[Alcassin]

Mr Bill,

I didn't expect that you would enter into ethics and morality field. Question you ask is quite simple but the answer isn't I was reading this thread few times and what came to my mind is a giant subject of human nature.

Apparently I think it's the best question on this board since BigTex asked what is progress. Therefore my answer may be a bit long

First, let me reverse your question and it would take another shape: "Is it moral to die?". The choice is binary as we acknowledge this, and we come to another problem - Is death moral? I think it's inevitable and it's a part of natural cycle of life - we live and we die. The problem of morality goes away for a moment. As you see the question of morality of death seems to be irrelevant... We are all going to die anyway.

Let's get back to the question of survival, and change the question another time: "Is it moral to survive now?" It's the question about our activities in "the age of plenty" - why don't we commit massive suicide. If the death is moral, and survival isn't. Still, we live because our lives are invalueable and we punish people who want to take our lives. Nevertheless, the question is still irrelevant

To get this question tougher, let me ask - Were the survivors of Holocaust immoral? The question of survivng Holocaust isn't the question of ethics or morality. They survived, period. It's not a question of good and evil Don't you think?
The question is - Were all their behaviours during Holocaust moral? I don't think so, in that kind of extreme situation our basic instinct to survive comes before any rules and treason, murder, robbery, bribery can be efficient way to survive as long as possible. Moreover, you're in direct competition - if you don't victimize you are victimized. There wasn't any surplus of food in concentration camps to blame the victims, even those who victimized other prisoners (KAPO) were still victims of the circumstances.

Moral rules don't apply in fight over scraps. There is no applicable moral rule to give up your life - well, it can be seen as heroism (others get more) but you have to explain it very strangely - by myth of afterlife or "superior ethics".

I would like to mention normal observation that "lone man" or "the one hero" known from Amercian movies isn't efficient in reality. To secure your own resources and to attack you need a "tribe", a group of people fighting on your side. I love the old Voltaire quote It is said that God is always on the side of the big battalions. I would add also trained and skilled if the nukes are disposed

At last:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irst of all that planet wide destruction is the result of individual decisions either through production or through consumption.

[Heineken]

In terms of the morality issue, there is a critical difference between surviving and thriving. "Thriving" suggests some element of excess beyond what is necessary to live. The question then arises, Whence derives that extra margin, that high living? Does the protagonist create it on his own (which would generally be regarded as good, or at least OK), or get it by damaging or robbing someone else (or something else, like Mother Nature) either directly or indirectly (which would generally be regarded as bad)?

Is it moral for a human being to aim to merely scrape by, in a humdrum existence, so that as many others as possible may also live drab lives? Or does such behavior do a fundamental wrong to the human spirit?

These questions and many more can drive one crazy. There are only questions and more questions; no answers.

Ultimately they all boil down to this: What are we here for?

I too feel I am thriving, Bill, but I do not and never can feel secure in that feeling. I know it can be whisked away in an instant by illness, accident, or external disasters such as those we discuss endlessly on this site. Thus, I am just as vulnerable, in many ways, as a homeless beggar.

We are all saprovores, living at least partly on the death and misfortune of others, until our own time comes due. Some of us take a bigger bite than others, but this is only to be expected because of the randomness of things. A uniform morality would require a uniform human being. Impossible.

[Newfie]

Mr. Bill said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')They say we are only lucky to be born in the developed world through the accident of birth. That seems like a strange argument to me? We are not accidents of birth. Our parents and their parents made conscious decisions to have children, and in some cases where to have children or not to have them. I do not believe that God randomly goes around distributing little souls here or there based on geography? It is largely biological self-determinism. But I may be wrong? ; - )

[bodigami]

there's a samurai poem that says something like:
"I have no morality, I make survival my morality".

So yes, as long as one can survive too then sure. What I'm not going to do WTSHTF is to kill others for oil and other luxouries (sp?).

[MrBill]

Newfie wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ead Guns, Germs & Steel by Jarred Diamond if you have not already. I think that his argument is pretty much that YES we are here by accident - if you take the WE to be Caucasians. I do detect a bit of a racial tone to some of your writing, but maybe I'm wrong. Just checking.

[CrudeAwakening]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'I')n terms of the morality issue, there is a critical difference between surviving and thriving. "Thriving" suggests some element of excess beyond what is necessary to live. The question then arises, Whence derives that extra margin, that high living? Does the protagonist create it on his own (which would generally be regarded as good, or at least OK), or get it by damaging or robbing someone else (or something else, like Mother Nature) either directly or indirectly (which would generally be regarded as bad)?

[Heineken]

If you have more than you really need, you should give at least some of it back. Make a donation. Plant some trees. Volunteer. Whatever. It may not change anything (as Lovelock would point out), but it's moral.

[manu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') prefer Budhist to Hindu custom. The Caste System may be an efficient division of labor by eliminating competition between castes, but I find it wholly unacceptable that some are born into lower castes and cannot progress 'in this life'!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t should be noted, however, that Krishna does not propose that the physical world must be forgotten or neglected. Indeed, it is quite the opposite: one's life on earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of a more timeless reality, acting for the sake of action without consideration for the results thereof. Such a life would naturally lead towards stability, happiness and ultimately, enlightenment.

[Revi]

I think it's moral for us to survive. We are not stressing the planet much. Our family is carbon neutral, and we are making the community work. You want people like us to survive.

That doesn't mean it will happen.

[MrBill]

Manu, I would be a very benevolent dictator. Trust me? ; - )

[Newfie]

Mr. Bill,
it is interesting but we have both read the same book and come to different conclusions. In my book Diamond was pretty clear that the triumph of Western culture over indigenous cultures was a matter of luck and not choice. I have not read the Landes book but it is now on my list.

I agree that as individuals we may be lucky or unlucky but that is a different matter. Actually there has been some interesting research on this point as well.

Thank you for clarifying your other opinions.

I found this thread interesting and it helped me clarify, or perhaps harden, some of my own opinions. I alway find writing out my opinions helps more than talking them through. In another thread they were trying to get people to bash Ayn Rand. I too believe that we often, if not always, act in selfish motivations, though they are often hidden even from ourselves. So, back to your first post, yes it is moral to thrive while others struggle. However, it should be done tastefully.

As to the Newfie jokes, well you clearly have me there. My Wife once got a book of jokes titled "Non Campus Mentus." It was hilarious. Full of anecdotes about things dumb college students said. Then I read the forward, it was largely collected at Memorial University, St. Johns. Sigh..................

[MrBill]

I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and her brand of objective epistemology years ago. Another poster lambasted me for talking about this once before.

Actually, my take away from her book was not 'greed is good', but that we are responsible for our own actions. But I thought her description of greedy self-interests grabbing at an ever smaller economic pie were right on the mark. She could have been the original post peak oil resource depletion economist! ; - )

Another good book if you are making a list is Salt, A World History by Mark Kurlansky. Fascinating stuff.

[manu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'M')anu, I would be a very benevolent dictator. Trust me? ; - )

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('manu', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'M')anu, I would be a very benevolent dictator. Trust me? ; - )

[Cid_Yama]

Mr. Bill,

I'm an Ayn Rand fan myself. One book you might find interesting is <i>The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff</i> It is prefaced and recommended by Ayn Rand herself. In her introduction, she says, "If you do not wish to be a victim of today's philosophical bankruptcy, I recommend 'The Ominous Parallels' as protection and ammunition. It will protect you from supporting, unwittingly, the ideas that are destroying you and the world. It will bring order into the chaos of today's events - and show you simultaneously the enormity of the battle and the contemptible smallness of the enemy. ... It's so wonderful to see a great, new, crucial achievement which is not mine!"

[MrBill]

It takes courage to be a fiscal conservative and a moral liberal when there are indeed calls from every quarter to eliminate poverty and make everyone equal as if it was a simple as that and entailed no costs. It takes no intellect or courage to simply throw money at the symptoms of every problem without solving the underlying causes however politically or culturally sensitive. Especially when it is other people's money!

[Ache]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

"Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice. Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. "Moral" has a dual meaning. The first indicates a person's comprehension of morality and that person's capacity to put it into practice. In this meaning, the antonym is "amoral", indicating an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The second denotes the active practice of those values. In this sense, the antonym is "immoral", referring to actions that violate ethical principles.

Personal ethics signifies a moral code applicable to individuals, while social ethics means moral theory applied to groups. Social ethics can be synonymous with social and political philosophy, in as much as it is the foundation of a good society or state.

Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung)."

Is this statement correct ?

"Your morals and ethics should be the same no matter where you are or where you go or who you are with or who is going to get hurt/benefit and they sure should not depend on lines drawn on nationality/ethnicity."

[FourOfSwords]

Nice Ache! I feel that the aforementioned statement is correct, from the point of view of morals and ethics. Some of the 'classical' philosophies start from the viewpoint that humans are born with an inherent sense of right and wrong. Using that as a base for your statement, one SHOULD apply the same moral and ethics given ANY situation encountered. That being said though, knowing human behaviour to be what it is,( and that the vast majority of the masses are not morally trained) we as a species tend to fall far short of that ethic.
As an aside Ache, the philosophy of Stoicism( as practiced by the Ancient Greeks; and more in tune with our times, practiced by the Ancient Romans) takes your statement and applies it to every situation a person encounters daily...ultimately to the benefit of the practitioner.
Nice topic to discuss Ache.
Cheers
Alex

[cowuvula]

Aforementioned statement is false. Man is immoral, and just give him enough power he will prove it. It is very simple no matter how much you don't like it. the moral law is the basis of morality anything breaking it immoral simple.
1. Listen to God over everyone else.
2. Don't use his name swearing
3. Don't worship or pray to any carved images or statues.
4. Keep the seventh day eacy week
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Do not kill for any reason
7. Do not have sex with anyone but your wife.
8. Stop taking things that dont belong to you
9. Stop lying already
10. Don't wish for things you don't need.

these are all the laws we need, every crime fits under these 10.
if you do all these things you are moral if you don';t you are immoral.
Moral is not what is for the "greater good." This is paganism, and is taught in hollywood for the last 80 years and it has succeeded in corupting our beliefs. (Spock dying in the radiation chamber spouts communism THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW what trash.

our constitution guarantees this will never happen the Bill of rights guarantees the needs of the ONE over the needs of the many.
right? correct? correct. communism is not moral. It served the "greater good" of germany to kill the jews and take their gold teeth, and their shops and bank accounts, but it was immoral. Man is naturally twisted. He will naturally come up with perverted definitions of morality every day of the week to justify his thefts and desires

there is black and white right and wrong, and if you don't like it, you are wrong. and situational ethics is immoral but you will find that out in a few months.