VICCAPP.XTGEM.COM
Ethics involves the sphere of interpersonal, group, and community politics at the
level of values–not just what can be achieved or how to achieve it, but more what
should be sought, in the realm of social harmony and fairness. It is the complexity of
the other side of individualism– other than taking care of oneself, what do we want
our collective to do or refrain from doing? Ethics looks at our proper relations, our
duties to each other, indvidually and collectively. In the past, ethics–and a good deal of civil law, in addition–was mixed with the
requirements of religious ritual and the establishment of the details of the priestly
caste. There was no other law back then, around the time of Moses, at least for the
wandering Israelites, and when the alleged basic rules were laid down in the Torah,
the first five books of the Bible. In most other countries, the law wasn't codified, and
although there were traditions, the king was the boss and he could be pretty capricious. (The code of Hammurabi, around 1700 BC in the area near Babylon, was a
bit of an exception, as far as we know.) It took a while to establish a civil government with some semblance of consistent
law, and the revisions of the code re-established this effort. Such efforts also were in
reaction to the growing problems of trade, the establishments of small sub-cultural
communities within larger communities, and inter-cultural mixing, which then
required laws that applied to all sub-cultures within a greater empire. (Before that,
each minority or mini-nation or tribe was allowed to apply its own traditional rules of justice–as long as they paid their taxes, sent their military levies, and didn't make
trouble, they were left pretty much alone.) The ascendency of the Church in the West and of a theocratic legal system in the
Islamic Empires tended to re-establish a more theocratic process, but once again this
has broken down in most countries of the West and many in the Middle East, so that
civil questions are distinguished from religious ones. This preamble is being
presented because there's still a sense that our ethical rules are if not explicitly
described in the Bible, they are implicit there, and can be applied to all modern issues. The Jews actually tried to do this, and the Talmudic tradition was a result, an
interpretative tradition that laid the groundwork for some of the later traditions of
rational argumentation found in our judicial systems. But the problem is this: New
circumstances and technologies really create new problems. Should we rationally tie
our ethics to these traditional sources and precedents, especially when they arose
out of cultures that may be becoming minority cultures in our present society? (i.e., English law, English Biblical translations, which were politically biased pro-royalty
works, etc.) Beginning perhaps with the Magna Carta and flowering in the 18th century, the idea
of "rights" emerged. The problem is that these were perceived as existing a priori,
0ut there, so to speak, objectively. Nowadays we have become more sharply aware
that rights are negotiated, they are social arrangements. As increasing groups of
peoples--including, lately, the "unborn," and now, even animals, are viewed as
having "rights," ethics has expanded to explore who should have which rights? Is health care a "right," and if so, are we obligated to collectively offer it, or should it be
something people have to purchase (at some significant expense) from privately-
owned corporations? Thus, we are charged with a goodly number of "hot potatoes," sticky and pressing
ethical problems, social issues, that are more often than not avoided, at least as
topics of ongoing rational social discussion. There are positions taken, of course, and
challenges to these positions, but, alas, rarely is there really rational discourse. So it is
worth while to stand back and consider what these issues are in contemporary
culture. The following are presented in no particular order–I haven't been able to think of a way of classifying them or attributing any sort of rank or hierarchy. The
numbering, then, is just for the convenience of referring to them later in the paper. Contemporary Ethical Issues 1. Welfare and charity. Welfare is organized charity, funneled through the collective, the government. But it raises many issues. How should we help others who are less
fortunate? Can we differentiate between the "deserving poor" and the
"undeserving" poor? Here are some associated questions. A. How responsible can people be? To what extent can we require that people "pull
themselves up by their own bootstraps." If a college student is raised in a
neighborhood where study is not fashionable, and they didn't study, to what extent
are we obligated to provide "remedial" training in college? B. What if some folks are disabled, to what extent are we obligated–or would we
choose to be obligated if we were fully enlightened–to help these people. The "how
much" issue is tricky, because new technologies make increasing levels of aid
exponentially more expensive. C. What if a teenager has been raised in an area that is judged to be significantly
culturally, economically, or technically "behind"–to what degree should we choose to
compassionately support these people? Again, the themes would be remedial
education. D. What about those whose disabilities make them mentally unable to do more than
fairly simple and routine tasks? In our culture, merit is associated with intelligence.
What levels of subsidy should be given? What about the in-between categories,
which represents an expanding sector of the population: Folks not that smart, not
smart enough to get "good" jobs, but smart enough to live independently and have
full and dramatic lives. E. What about people who say they can't work? They're too burdened with kids–
how much should this role of mothering be challenged? (This of course is a lively
socio-political issue in the legal system right now.) F. Regarding the broader topic of welfare: General issues of responsibility are
raised. When is helping someone really helping them, and when is it rescuing them
and enabling their own self-defeating behavioral patterns. Can beggars be choosers?
Are any "rights" implicitly forefeited by someone who receives charity? (This varies
in different cultures!)
For example, if offered work, is the person who is given welfare obligated to accept that job, even if they don't like that work? What if the decision as to a job being not
acceptable is viewed as trivial or unworthy by others? G. What then are people entitled to as a basic support of society? Can these
entitlements be negotiated? H. Do we have special obligations to veterans, the elderly, children, women, any
minorities, any types of disability or "differently-abled" people? I. When does support for certain occupational groups, tariffs for workers in certain
industries, subsidies for certain farmers, – when are these matters of social -ethical
policy and when are they merely matters of community economic self-interest.
(1) Do we owe people jobs? To what extent do we collectively need to extend
ourselves to sustain lines of work that are economically uncompetitive?
funny
catton
Viccapp
Online : 1 user
Today : 1 user
This Week : 1 user
This Month : 1 user
Total all : 101 Visitor
ec2-18-223-29-62.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com
