prof wrote:Greetings, Tesla
You write: "So what do I believe takes priority? Principle or policy? Neither. Both have equal relevance. But neither have very good definitions. Let’s first do some defining as a nation, a whole voice, not the few, and then with that knowledge let's write good policy."
I argue that if we don't have in our consciousness good moral principles - if we don't know our Ethics - we will not likely create good policy
If we want the best policies to come out of our officials, they must have a sense of ethics, that is to say, they must
care about people. How we teach them ethics is a
problem, but
it is do-able.
I suggested we elect only those who already live as though they are persons of character and integrity; who will show devotion to work for a (morally)-better world. It is true, as you mentioned, that some have good acting ability, and can pretend, convincingly, that they are genuinely highly-moral. I believe, though, that the truly authentic can (like a child can) see through phoniness, can detect insincerity. And can, so far, make their findings widely-known, can expose the pretender. ...shine a light on it.
You cannot get to there from here. Another words: when voting is dependent on an ignorant public and intentionally misleading vote techniques are implemented by law of those who make the laws: there can only be one outcome. A choice of voting for a candidate the powers that be will allow. That must be addressed first. I'm not arguing against being moral, not saying it is not important: I'm pointing out the rulers are corrupt, and the policy writers are corrupt, and so unless you benefit the system you cannot help the system, and benefiting the system means supporting the vision of the current immoral powers. They will not endorse morality, and the moral are punished for their morality. Just be in a position of need and approach a state funded system for support and you will learn fast that very few honest people will find aid. Law is the same. Politics are the same. So while your argument to be moral is right: the system you want to bring morality into will not accept it. And so policy must first be addressed to allow morality and ethics to flourish. And that means: police the higher laws of Life Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. Which right now: is not policed or addressed. Only the "thou shalt not" is policed, and only because it adds money to do so.
You feel strongly that
we had better get busy on doing something about Climate Change, or that (as David Roberts teaches in his TED lecture) by 2015 the damage done will be irreversible and the third rock from the Sun - Earth - will start seeming to resemble planet Mercury, as far as temperature measurement. [And I, for one, respect your views on that !!]
Our species - due to accelerating climate trends by then out of human control - will not be able to tolerate the conditions; we won't find a place to grow the food we like, and we want to eat, due to widespread drought. Even now, today, our corn crop is miserable as a result of drought.
The temperature is going to climb to make Hell on Earth, literally. This entails policy changes:
reducing drastically greenhouse gas emissions. We MUST stop releasing carbon into our atmosphere as of yesterday. Every time we drive a car that uses gasoline we are contributing to the problem
.
So solving this problem is "making the impossible possible" and that is always fun.
It's like beating the casino (out of a little money.) IT CAN BE DONE. But first we have to care.
That's where Ethics comes in. It needs to be made part of the curriculum - at every grade level, from primary to college.
That is my prescription.
The Evil here is I have a clean energy solution that is very good, if not the best option on the planet, and I cannot get funding. Like I said: it can be done, but it sacrifices the oil economy: and no one wants to do that. Ethics do come in, but whose ethics? The leadership will not choose an ethic against their position. And neither will anyone else. Will it take failure before ethics will be seen as wise? Perhaps, but then: see what is lost? Our planet and the species’ future. You cannot combat poor ethics when policy overrides ethics. Policy therefore: enables ethics. And so they have equal importance.
My essays, which you "haven't the time nor patience to read, are full of emphasis on sustainability, on the necessity to go green, on the need to switch over to renewable energy and on the hidden cost of fossil fuel that is not reckoned into our present-day cost-benefit analyses. I was a friend of Bucky Fuller. {He even introduced me to his lovely granddaughter as a possible prospect to court her ! He wanted to be a matchmaker.} In his masterpiece of a book, CRITICAL PATH, he devotes chapters to the true costs of coal, and of petroleum, that we mine and utilize for our source of energy. We have only been kidding ourselves that it is "cheap." Far from it !!!
They're messy, very egotistically written. You need to keep the reader in mind. A sentence is worth a million ideas, or it is a waste of paper to write. Pick your audience and write for them. The substance of your essays should be clear on your mind, and each point should be available in your memory to argue in real time, and improve the essays from what is learned in argument. No one wants to read a paper and go: oh it all makes sense now. I found myself wanting to argue paragraph to paragraph. If I reject one point, all points built on it are useless. Not that I necessarily dislike your works, I prefer to discuss so I can address each point honestly and more in depth, than trying to argue two hundred points at once.
Also keep in mind that my opinion is my own, and it is a reflection of much ignorance. But also remember: everyone else has that same fault, including you. Through our lens we see only, and despite all attempts to be fair and objective, subjectivity will never be erased.
Yes, working on Climate Change is most important.
But only if we have a sense of real ethics would we be motivated to get going on it.
So Ethics education takes priority.
I have spoken.
[/quote]
Right. So the task at hand is to have everyone 'CARE'. So again: what is the 'most important thing' that society will agree on that appeals to their egotistical natures? (The house is on fire fool!) And who will look? That starts with you first asking yourself, and with all honesty: What is YOUR most important thing? Because to convince everyone else; you will have to convince yourself. And that will take an immense argument. From experience I've found that I cannot even get a discussion, much less a convincing argument. So if I know what people can agree on is 'most important' then together that crowd can work together utilizing the right argument. So I want the right argument, and to find it, I need a little help.
Good sir: What is the 'Most Important' thing?
