Ethics is an intellectual approach to moral issues, a philosophical framework from which to critically evaluate the choices and actions people take to deal with various aspects of daily living
My friend, Kim was talking to me about men.
And damn, I didn’t know my friend could spit truth that hard.
So, I don’t usually post here. In truth, I only think I’ve been on tumblr a handful of times in my life. I’ve definitely had an account. I even had good intention in wanting to USE the account… but I never really did. Then, Zuckerberg decided to be a coward.
I mean a full on, spineless, no morals, no ethics PetaQ of a Verrul. (Yes, I had to reach to TWO competing Star Trek languages to find words to express how much of a coward he is.
When you control information, you have a responsibility to all the information, the people who own the information, and the consumers of the information. This lends itself to a tangent about information ethics and assurance here, but I’m going to skip that for the sake of ranting more about “the Zuck”.
He has a responsibility to make sure people aren’t
- Using Facebook to perpetrate crimes
- Using Facebook to spread misinformation (DING DING DING, fucking coward)
- Using Facebook to harm others (DING DING DING, fucking coward)
- Using Facebook to engage in dangerous
Among other things… Today, he decided he isn’t going to Fact Check the current president [SIC, he doesn’t deserve the capital letter] of the United States. Now, people might think “Oh, good, he’s staying out of the political game.” but he’s not. Almost every major politician (Including opponents for the current run for POTUS) has had a fact-check’d post on Facebook, but not his buddy, trump [SIC]. Now, he’s openly admitting that he WON’T fact-check trump’s posts.
This is a lack of spine. He’s not staying neutral, as he claims. He’s not deciding that he should stay out of the political game. He’s deciding, very openly and widely, that populist neo-christian[SIC] fascist nationalism is more important than truth and integrity of information.
So, here I am tumblr. Let’s be friends :).
Congratulations to the first person I’ve ever blocked for anything other than spamming gore.
No, I am not going to do a free Celtic cross relationship spread for you “because it’s Pride month.” Even ignoring the fact I don’t do relationship readings regardless of what month it is, a Celtic cross is an ENORMOUS amount of work and you’ll almost never find a reader who’s willing to do one for free. The level of entitlement it takes to demand that someone violate their ethics and do several hours of work for you for free is absolutely revolting.
Seriously people, don’t do this. This is what makes people stop offering free readings at all.
Hot take: The dumber and more expansive forms of SJ “boundaries” talk are reskinned Rothbardian libertarianism.
Rothbardianism centers around the idea of the “Non-Aggression Principle”, which is that it is unethical to initiate violence or force against another person. This is a basically reasonable sounding principle. And from it, Rothbard deduces the ethical necessity of anarchocapitalism.
But he’s palming a very important card here. Pacificm, “never engage in physical aggression of any sort”, can be conceptually simple. If your ethical rule is “Don’t initiate violence”, then you’ve just moved all your complexity to your definitions of “initiate” and “violence”.
So you say “Okay, so if someone attacks me, I can’t defend myself against him?” No, because he attacked you and started it. “Okay, so does that mean that if someone breaks into my house I can’t defend myself against him?” No, because he initiated violence by breaking into your house, so you’re justified in using violence.
“What if I wasn’t at home?” Breaking into your house is still an act of violence, so you’re justified in responding with violence if you catch him. “What if someone steals from me by lying to me, and cheats me out of a ton of money?” Oh, that’s a fradulent transaction, which means that it was actually an act of force, so you’re justified in using violence to reclaim your money.
But taxation is clearly an initiation of force, and forbidden by this very clear and simple ethical principle that we all agreed on to begin with.
There are a few problems with the Non-Aggression Principle, but the one I find most interesting is how contentless the short version is. Different people—even different libertarian theorists—will come to different conclusions about what counts as “initiating force”. Pollution is a good wedge issue; and I swear I once read a Hans-Herman Hoppe essay where he argued that immigration was an initiation of violence against the citizens of a nation, who own its public lands in common.
But when you ask people what they think of the rule “Don’t initiate violence”, they fill those blanks in with something that’s agreeable to them. It’s like a rule that says “Do good and avoid evil”. Most people will agree that we should follow that rule. But it’s not terribly helpful in resolving disputes about what the good course of action is.
(Another term that sticks out to me here is “fairness”. Paul Krugman thinks we should be fair, by taxing the rich heavily to support the poor. Greg Mankiw thinks we should be fair, by not taxing the rich heavily and letting them enjoy the fruits of their labor. This is why I expect any argument that hinges on “fairness” to be deeply unproductive.)
But the SJ community risks doing the same thing with “consent” and “boundaries”.
The problem with the idea that all of ethics can be boiled down to respecting is that any rule, or any request, can be expressed as a boundary. This is one of the classic abuser techniques: “Look at how you’re hurting me, you need to stop doing this to me”.
And with “consent” it’s even worse. Who has the right to consent, or not consent, to the thing in question? It’s cute to say that the problem with exhibitionism is that you involve people in sex acts without their consent. But that’s structurally the same argument as the conservative request that gay people not engage in PDA.
The difference is that we (“we” being [most of] the people reading this blog) think “I don’t want to see people boning when I walk down the street” is a reasonable request, and “I don’t want to see two dudes holding hands” is not. But you can’t avoid those sorts of object-level questions just by appealing to consent. You still have to decide whose consent is needed for which things.
But of course, “you should respect people’s boundaries, as long as those boundaries are reasonable and not imposing on you or other people in aggressive or unfair ways” is a much less compelling-sounding rule than “respect people’s boundaries”. Even though we all know people who try to “establish boundaries” that we consider to themselves be gross boundary violations.
Now, this “critique” of consent and SJ self-care language isn’t new either. But I was struck by how similar it is to the non-aggression principle in both its structure (you can’t cross certain boundaries) and its vagueness (doesn’t at all clarify which boundaries need to be respected). And given how opposed those two camps tend to be in public discourse, I was amused.
14/100 Days of productivity
- Read a bunch of “más allá del bien y del mal” by Nietzsche. Im pretty close to finishing it, will probably end it this week.
- Did some readings on Ethics for a summer class.
- Took a CrashCourse on writing!
Money can be/should be used as a beneficial tool in preserving, healing, and benefitting life. This is what a healthy, moral, and ethical economy should reflect.
Money should not be prioritized over life for profit. That’s an economy of death.
#COVID19 #economy #health #ethics #TheLongArc #PlantingSeeds #EngagedBuddhist #JMWart #JinpaLhaga
only valid philosopher is diogenes that man did not give a flying fuck about anything
not gonna lie I don’t really care about what the empiricists think about Plato
In a subtle but dangerous way, a lot of modern social media rewards thinking less or worse than we ought to in many situations.
THE show that offers new facade of moral philosophy.
Missing this one GOOD show.
Welcome! Everything is fine at this PLACE.
THE GOOD PLACE
After having seen the video and talked together, we think it is important to give you our opinion about the expansion of a business aborad and the ethical issues that raise.
As DesJardins explains, we cannot say if there is universal standards concerning ethics or if each country has its own standards and what is good in one country can be bad for another. Nevertheless, even if we are not sure about this, we can all agree on one rule. If you go global, if you enter new market, you have to COMMUNICATE and COLLABORATE. It is the only way to avoid conflicts with local people. You, as a business, needs to consider local people opinions and if you are not sure about their vision of ethics, you need to ask to ensure a successul expansion.
However, if there is no common sense of ethics, it may be necessary to redefine what is ethics. DesJardins asks for a common process, we ask for common rules, in the case of business. Why cannot we find universal ethical norms for business? This would make things easier.
What do you think about it? Do you share our opinions? Feel free to comment this post and share your thoughts!