What is ethical?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
> Manipulation of what masses think is one of the issues I have against mass surveillance they way is done today.
Any type of propaganda is an attempt to manipulate the masses, be it the propaganda of Facebook or that of the free software activists or any other. The main question remains though.
It's different if certain media (Facebook or the FSF) is telling you "I exist and this is what I stand for" to media also getting data from and manipulates the information you get. You can read about Majority Illusion to give you an idea about manipulation of ideas.
Just because the propaganda has a different goal doesn't make it less of a propaganda. It still attempts to influence people.
I don't want to read or refer to sources. If one cannot know what ethical is without reading then it would mean goodness is some information passed from person to person with unclear initial source, i.e. it is some fantasy. I don't think this is so.
Under your logic, if ethics should not be information passed from person to person and external sources don't count, why are you asking in this forum what is ethical? You're not making any sense.
PS: Referencing other sources helps to know the opinion of others that have thought about the topic more in deep than what we've done here.
As like a short rest or summarising.
As I expected, it seems that defining the word ethical/justice/good etc is very valuable. But of course you may mock the expected value. I was reading Wikipedia's page about ethnic cleansing and it was written that defining the word "ethnic cleansing" is very difficult. Perhaps why defining this kind of words (those words are usually based on good ideas, democratic, cleansing, freedom etc) is such difficult mainly comes from the criminals's complicated excuses. From mainly psychoanalysis view points, criminals's motivations seem very simple (rape, torture, kill, arrest, etc) but about their excuses, it must be complicated because it depends on the circumstances. Because basically their chief concern is after arrest. That would be why Beformed mentions "case by case".
Probably mainly I have been trying to clean the word ethical with indicating those so-called historical or present ethical crimes.
Its fundamental meaning of the word morals seems clear to me, like "luxurious dog house". Ethical conducts are something good conducts. That's the fundamental base of the basis. We don't have to let the word add other meaning. Like the trust of currency, I can say the word ethical is decreased in value very much now. The word "democratic", "justice", such a kind of words are all decreased in value now, like currency. We have to increase the value of those words which fundamentally have "good" meaning. Why? Needless to say, to stop those so-called ethical crimes.
Linguistically speaking, also like currency, a word is realised by trust of everyone who uses the word (as it was mentioned in this thread). If a currency of a country lost its trust, the currency might be abolished then people of the country would use USD instead of the currency.
But in linguistic, it might not be a good idea to abolish those contaminated words then establish a new word. It seems to be possible and possibly it might be a good idea but currently I don't know if it is a better idea than cleaning those contaminated words.
I tend to write long so here, I would like to listen your opinion. I feel confidence in value of this discussion. It might have even a critical value to solve those problems. Probably those important words will be prevented from being misused by given conflicting concepts/meanings in the future. I did not understand well the meaning of the word moral when I was a school boy. There is a subject called moral even in elementary school. If we succeeded the definition, many children might understand the meaning of the word better than me. If you do not have a particular opinion, please let me write about deeper exploration.
Actually about even the word "black dog", we can only have a vague consensus on the word.
"black" is a vague range of wavelength of light.
Feelings depend on a person. Also there are colour blind people. We have a consensus on the word black vaguely. I think from the perspective, "ethical conducts are good conducts" is enough. If you have counter-argument, please firstly clarify the meaning of the word good. If I admit the importance of further deeper definition of the word ethical (in that way), I might join it. But it seems that the current important point is to clean the word, or establish a new word after consideration, or measuring which is better, or is there a third way, of course to define the word ethical.
About neutrality of a word and neutrality of currency,
English language has a tendency to let a word have more meanings than Japanese languages. I think that the characteristic operates basically badly on the current (mainly economical) situations e.g. zigote was asking a way of an ethical sell of digital media, but in future it will operate positive effects on the fundamental matter of trust of human beings than e.g. Japanese language. Because it would require the understanding, sensitivity, clear head. In short, frauds cannot survive because of people's understanding based on the redefined/uncontaminated (by us) words. So It seems that it requires this task that cleaning the words, then returning the neutral meaning to those contaminated words. I would like to call the task "neutralising contaminated words". The word "Laundering" also seems to be proper but it already has a dirty meaning. The word neutrality has a special benefit that that is not contaminated or exaggerated because of its neutrality. Useful. This kind of neutral ideas would help us do this kind of tasks often. It could have the same problem (what is neutral) but seems easier to solve.
If there is no counter-argument, please let me continue this exploration. I will open a thread about neutrality of currency. This would help to consider then solve a global, especially internationally gap-widening (especially in macro).
Edit: PS, there was better words. The gap-widening between nations. The word "International" seems to include/imply a gap-widening problem between wealthy class and poor classes in a country too, as a common same problem from a global view point. It does not mean only a gap-widening between nations, it seems.
Masaru,
I don't have an opinion. If we are looking into something that is so clean and (as it becomes obvious) impossible to put into thought then it is beyond thought and beyond opinion (therefore beyond verbal definitions).
It seems everyone can be judgemental and easily say "this is bad/unethical" but when you ask "what is ethical" there are only word shuffling, examples and references to what others have said. All these are just attempts to fill the emptiness.
> If we are looking into something that is so clean and (as it becomes obvious) impossible to put into thought then it is beyond thought and beyond opinion (therefore beyond verbal definitions).
We write a long book with verbal sentences to express a tiny peace of thing (like what is ethical) that we think we must pass on to the other people, to next generation. Authors, philosophers, film directors, everyone have piled somethings to express something that they thought they must tell. Our great predecessors devoted their lives to tell us those important things. I received many important things that (even if) were not simple words from them. I trend the beaten track. Beyond verbal words, if we succeeded to leave a tiny peace of beatiful something that is not a word to someone's heart, I don't have regret. If we failed it, I will regret.
> It seems everyone can be judgemental and easily say "this is bad/unethical" but when you ask "what is ethical" there are only word shuffling, examples and references to what others have said.
That's why I am thinking about it seriously now. I am devoting my life to think about it seriously now.
> All these are just attempts to fill the emptiness.
I don't think it is useless.
Some notes for some topics in this thread.
> The patient (normally) has no expertise to "take decision". So pretty much he trusts the doctor blindly and/or chooses between options based on which one *sounds* better.
I feel a necessity of a comprehensive website or centre about medical matters. Personally I have seen only a few so-called ethical (normal) doctors.
I have seen quite a lot of doctors who I can think nothing but they try to break their patients, or have no intention to cure for keeping selling medicine eternally. They actually exist. There are a few people who are really getting mad at such doctors. My uncle believes my grandmother died because of medical mistake.
I guess that medical practice is restricted by law strictly in every country. But the line between absolute medical practice and relative medical practice would be grey zone, of course. Etc etc.
For people's decision, the centre would be needed. We have to talk about medical matters but it is a huge matter to talk about it. But usually our topics arrive at education and medicine. There might at least be one long-run thread about the medical matter here. I might open a thread about the problems of the medical matters.
> What is your impression about slavery this days?
Working 10 hours 6 days, can have only 3 days leaves in summer and new year holidays (of course unpaid) even if they are 70s years old.
Even in holidays, a relationship with family is terrible, I often see a elder couple, they are silent, waiting a bus at a bus stop. The elder woman's weary face expresses suffering of a long history of miscommunication with her husband and 6 days working. Their faces express they are used to those suffering of several decades. What was my life? I have heard the mutter of a elder lady. What was my life? But there also are few elder couples who express calm happiness.
> Sharing can include many things, not only software. One can share knowledge, company, software, one's car, home or password.
I noticed we cannot say even currencies are not shared well. 50-90% of currencies are shared with 10% of so-called elite. If they say that is the jungle of the law, they would obey the law until the last.
About verbose words, good authors can use this as a technique. E.g. you pour water into a pot and put the pot on the fire. You observe the phase of the water. Then describe detail by words until the pot become empty. You would notice at a certain point, the verbose describing have an other value (like the Matisse's painting).
This is called anastrophe or inversion in rhetoric (but seems not a normal use of this word). And it seems to be similar to a technique of filming or painting. I mean, verbose expression is sometimes useful to e.g. redefine a word.
I think they would not obey the jungle of the law. What it that. I should not have mistaken there.
A note for a topic in this thread.
> In addition, the state's surveillance staff will misuse the data for personal reasons. Some NSA agents used U.S. surveillance systems to track their lovers—past, present, or wished-for—in a practice called “LOVEINT.” The NSA says it has caught and punished this a few times; we don't know how many other times it wasn't caught. But these events shouldn't surprise us, because police have long used their access to driver's license records to track down someone attractive, a practice known as...
I don't already understand whether those their habits are ethical or unethical now. Because mainly tracking a girl should be better than tracking a man persistently in a certain sense, if they are men.
I feel it truly creepy. I really don't want to go near (creepy) men who I don't like. Why do they come near men (supposed who they dislike because they are angry) so desperately (Well, actually there is always a certain distance, though)?
For example, the Japanese commuters' hell seems to be a bit famous. Sometimes I have to use trains then encounter it. Usually I don't know why but usually there is a (sometimes fat) man who follows me desperately. It seems that more I try to distance myself from him, more he seems to get something and try to come near. There is a like sardine can. So sooner I lose a escape then have to spend with him 20-30 minutes. Why don't they go near a woman side who is next to me or there? What is that? Is that also my neurosis? Shall I record them?
Anyway I warn that there is a Japanese famous proverb, "There is no medicine for idiots". It is almost always true, unfortunately. I think that pharmaceutical companies should tackle this problem seriously because [...].
PS, there are people who say that if the world becomes like the communism, that would cause a disincentive to economic competition, people would lose their motivation to earn money than others. But I doubt it. I see this kind of kind of lies that seem to be convenient for certain people, usually them.
It seems that there lacks an ideal consensus that a person works with everyone's benefit. We all should cooperate to produce something for every human being. We still lack the common thought. We would not need simple or total communism. But we would need some degree of the communistic ideas. Most people seem to work for only themselves. So it becomes that "scrambling for bananas in the cage". It seems that an awareness that the product that they produce is facilitating others's lives is weak. It is very hard to produce one's daily needs by just oneself.
"Earn than others" made this current world. Is that really ethical? If we share a bit more, would people really lose incentive to work? Even if they would be able to have firm feelings that the product that they are making absolutely facilitates someone's living? If one had the feelings, would the one neglect one's job? Does not the common feelings really cause our strong sense of solidarity for all of us? Which is ethical? Working for only yourself? Working for every human being? Is not there a possibility that we understand each other?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti