Unashamedly Ethical

[adrianh]

I'm already trying to juggle 1000's of balls in the air, I sure as hell ain't going to worry about balls that are way out of my control.

[Dave A]

Scraps seem to go with "extreme" and "strongly held" views.
This may seem to be a bad thing, but I often find it's taking the time to understand those strong views that provide the greatest insights.

For example, on this unashamedly ethical concept, I've been having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what my reservations are. But I know what it is now...

The great destroyer of corruption is not going to be all and sundry signing up, declaring and advertising that they're ethical. The killer of corruption is transparency.

[ians]

The only way to get transparency is if enough people standing together to make the change. If you do nothing, nothing will change.

One thing i have learnt about change, sending emails and complaining on social networks from the comfort of your office chair or lounge suite or bed for that matter, doesnt make change, you actually have to get out of your comfort zone and make it happen.

[Pap_sak]

Lot's of organisations have clout because of the amount of members they have. It's doesn't mean all those members are active. Putting stickers on cars, as an example, gives awareness - just like advertising, think of the Think Bike campaign.

[ians]

Honestly, do you really think a sticker "think bike" makes a difference to people driving cars? people dont even think car and there are hundreds of them all around all day long. do you think if we put a sticker on our cars " dont text while driving" it would reduce the amount of people texting while driving? i was driving next to a person texting on the N2 yesterday driving at 120 km/hr and i got my passenger to count how long the person watched the road and how much time they spent reading and texting, ..... you would be amazed at how little time you only need to watch the road while texting. I cant do it maybe it is a women thing, multi tasking and all, i battle to find phone numbers, never mind typing especially without my glasses. I need to get one of those voice activated phone books setup on my phone, only problem what if i am talking about my girlfriend and my wife at the same time and it calls one of them....eeeeeish

[gac]

Dont let it bother you Blurock. Some folks just simply believe that their perspective is the only one and can't help themselves in attacking what others do or dumping down on alternatives views. Sadly, even though they may have some valid points it gets drowned out in the noise they make. Quite simply there are folks who have a narrow blinkered view of things, just let it slide by.

[gac]

I'm kinda prepared to believe that if something disturbs me enough that a good start would be to make a moral stand on it. I just happen to agree with adrianh that no flags, no T-shirts, no bumper stickers etc will create a change but I have to admit it might ll create an awareness. Personally I'm not a flag/t-shirt/sticker guy but I accept that others might find comfort in it for whatever reason they see fit.

In this particular case, what might "make it happen" be? I'm all ears.

[gac]

Scraps seem to go with "extreme" and "strongly held" views.
The great destroyer of corruption is not going to be all and sundry signing up, declaring and advertising that they're ethical. The killer of corruption is transparency.

Achieved exactly how?

[Citizen X]

Achieved exactly how?

Ethics: The concept of the greater good: A legal perspectiv“Utilitarianism may be considered as one of a number of outcomes or purpose-oriented or teleologi- cal theories of ethics. The basic idea behind teleological theories of ethics is that, ultimately, the only thing that is relevant in determining whether or not an action is right or wrong is the purpose which the action is intended to achieve. Here, purpose is understood in the sense of end-result or consequence. Hence, teleological ethical theories are often called consequentialist. Moral judgment in the case of utilitarianism boils down to the decision whether or not a given result is useful. A useful result is one that induces and promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number in society
A dictator who is holding 20 prisoners captive gives Jim the following choice: he must kill one of the prisoners, or the dictator will kill all 20 of them. If Jim kills one prisoner, the lives of 19 people will be saved. If Jim refuses to kill one prisoner, it will be to nobody’s advantage, because all 20 of the prisoners will die. From a utilitarian perspective, the choice is clear: Jim must kill one prisoner, since this will have the best consequences. According to this view, each individual’s well-being carries equal weight, so that, obviously, the well-being of the 19 who are saved will carry more weight than that of the one sacrificed. It is a matter of simple arithmetic: Jim must reduce the number of murders: more mur- ders are worse than fewer murders. “According to the utilitarian version of consequentialism, therefore, each person ought always to adopt the course of action, of those available to him, that contributes the most well-being to the world” (229). The fact that Jim’s conduct will place his own moral integrity in jeopardy and that the murder of one captive remains wrong, are of no consequence. It is clear that this approach does not hesitate to use people as a means to an end. One of the prisoners is “used” to save the lives of 19 others – something Kant would not have approved of.”[1]

---

[1] Vide: Professional Ethics: UNISA. Mucklneuk, Pretoria.2012.Page 66

[Blurock]

I'm already trying to juggle 1000's of balls in the air, I sure as hell ain't going to worry about balls that are way out of my control.

Hope you don't lose your balls - or your marbles.

Have a good day my friend.