ETHICS AND MORALITY. JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE. PT 2.

Remember, you have no way of knowing how many Individuals were

Interviewed to get the few Sound Bites Broadcast over the Air.  There 

could be Dozens of Reasonable and Thoughtful Comments Discarded,

to get the Irrational Ramblings of a Few that will create Dissension and 

Controversy.

FOCUS GROUPS are another Form of Interviewing that Attempts to

get a REASONABLE MEASUREMENT OF THE ATTITUDES AND 

OPINIONS OF A SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE POPULACE OR 

ELECTORATE.  However, These are also Unreliable, Especially if; 

-  The DEMOGRAPHICS RELY ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED

BY PERSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS, WITH LITTLE OR NO ADDITIONAL 

DATA TO SUPPORT IT.

-  The PROBLEM OF PRODUCER\INTERVIEWER BIAS, WHERE 

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF

ONE OR TWO MEDIA MEMBERS.

-  THE INTERVIEWER ALLOWING ONE OR MORE PERSON(S)

TO CONTROL THE GROUP DYNAMICS.  THIS IS DONE WHEN

THE PERSONALITY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS INTIMIDATES 

OTHERS.

-  THE CONTENT OF INITIAL QUESTIONS ARE WORDED TO 

STEER OR INFLUENCE ANSWERS IN A PARTICULAR DIRECTION.

-  EDITORIAL CONTROL OF AIRED CONTENT IS LEFT TO THE 

JUDGMENT OF THOSE WHO MAY HAVE INCENTIVES TO CONTROL

WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES.

Never take at FACE VALUE WHAT YOU SEE OR HEAR ON A BROADCAST 

BY ANY MEDIA OUTLET.  MANY TIMES THEY ARE NOT THE 

IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS YOU THINK THEY ARE.

Date- 8/21/2015.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 2.

Rights, when we are discussing the Public Sector, generally fall into two categories;

1)  HUMAN RIGHTS-  These are Protections, Freedoms and Guarantees that are bestowed upon individuals by virtue of their being part of the Human Race.  To a certain degree some of these may be applied to all living things, but only to a certain extent and varies depending on specific situations.

2) CITIZENS RIGHTS-  Are granted by a governing body with the legal authority over a specified jurisdiction, to individuals identified as part of the recognized civil population.  These Rights can vary greatly, depending on the source of Authority.  i.e (Constitutional Republic, Monarchy

Oligarchy, Dictatorial etc.)

This brings us to the concept of CIVIL RIGHTS, which is basically a sub-category

of CITIZENS RIGHTS. The main difference is;

 -  Rights given to all Citizens may include the ability to chose a System of Morality and/or Faith that is constructed by the individual, and is not interfered with by the State.  Further, that one cannot be held either Criminally or Civilly for Behavior or Speech that others consider offensive.

 -  Civil Rights are guarantees set up by the State/Government, that protect individuals from Malicious, Discriminatory, Arbitrary and Hateful acts that target them specifically as a single person or as part of a group.

These Rights apply to both the Public and Private sectors. Civil Rights are basically set up to"Level the Playing Field", in which no single person or group has an unfair advantage over other parts of society.

However they are applied, not all Rights are created equal.  Some can never be taken away, Some are Valid only in certain cases, and others may be given up voluntarily.

There is one main rule that applies to all Rights:  NO ONE CAN EXERCISE A RIGHT, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

End of PT 2.

Date-  5/16/2014.

Fiction- Stories, Myths and Legends. A TALE OF WORSHIP. ( First published on examiner.com, and partially rewritten.)

A long time ago, there lived a King who loved his country.  The people were, for the most part, very happy.  

However, there was one big problem.  Although the country was united, religion was still a problem.  The King came to realize that to truly unite the citizenry, a single religion must be adopted.  So the King turned to his wisest Adviser and asked what he should do.  The Adviser replied, "Bring in all the most educated, that they will present the best case."

So the King sent for the wisest scholars who would present the best reasons to define God in a way that would unite everyone.  In the end, only three were left, those whose words that the King found the most valid.  The King said " Let us decide now," and turned to the three and said, "Give me a reason to select you, and no other."

In the first case a wizened old man bowed deeply, and said, "It is obvious, the Sun is God.  This orb is the reason we have the most fertility, for when it shines the most, it is when we can plant and harvest the most food.  When the sun shines least, our crops do not grow."

"Ah," the King nodded , "sounds very good, who will dare to disagree."  In that instance the second scholar approached the throne.  "Your highness," he began,  "the Sun is indeed powerful, but it is the Clouds that are truly divine.  Not only can they block sunlight, but they provide us with life giving water to drink.  Our crops need water or they will die."

The King sat and considered this new testimony.  " Very compelling," he said to the second scholar, "perhaps you are correct."

At that moment, the third and final scholar spoke.  "Your highness, they are both wrong.  The earth beneath our feet is truly where we find God.  The soil nurtures the seed that grow our crops and provides us with plants that heal the sick.  Trees from which we build the shelters that protect us from the weather, are provided by the ground in which we walk upon."

The King frowned.  What should he do?  In frustration, he dismissed all but his trusted adviser.  To him he turned and said, "Give me council, what am I to do?"

The adviser thought for a moment and then replied; '' In each case, your majesty, we find a belief that we are are controlled by outside sources.  These sources must be worshiped, or we will be punished.  However, in no case is this true.  We plant crops according to the time of year that in the past has given us the best results.  We do not worry about droughts because we have created reservoirs in case of need.  Our soil is worthless unless we fertilize properly and rotate our crops."

The King was in despair.  "What are the people to believe, how should I rule?"  The adviser looked the King straight in the eye, and with a dignity that is born of confidence replied; "Perhaps they should believe in themselves.  For our ability to use and understand the natural resources around us, to the benefit of all, is where we truly find the hand of the Divine."

Date- 8/11/2013.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. MORAL COWARDICE- WHEN YOU SACRIFICE YOUR PRINCIPLES, SO NOT TO OFFEND. PT 1.

While writing about Political Issues through the years, there is one recurring theme I find most disturbing;

MANY AMERICANS DEMAND THAT THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS REVEAL AND STAND BY A SET OF MORAL PRINCIPLES THAT ARE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE AND UNCHANGING, YET ARE AFRAID TO FOLLOW THIS LINE OF REASONING IN THEIR OWN LIVES.

Many individuals are deathly afraid to reveal their personal beliefs on Religion and Morality, in fear that their family or friends will ostracize them.                                                 

This has always fascinated me.  Why would any person deceive others, just to maintain a relationship built on lies?  Yes, I understand that a Human Being is essentially a Social Animal, and the need to be accepted is a fundamental desire. However, what do you sacrifice, in the name of being part of a particular social circle?

To be clear, I am not including the individual who is trying to interact with an extremist group, or others that are clearly irrational in nature.  Sexists, Homophobes, Religious Fanatics, Xenophobes etc., are examples of Mindsets based on Fear, Hate and a general loathing of Humanity.

This article is to ask why an Intelligent and Caring person would decide to mask their beliefs, which are genuine in nature, from those that mean the most to them.

Let me ask a question, to all of my readers. Think of the people you are closest to. They may be a relative, or a friend.  By close, I mean an individual that you consider a close confidant, in that their advice would be considered a prominent part of any important decision that you make.  Would you be afraid of offending them, if they found out that there were certain moral absolutes that you were not in agreement?

Look for PT 2.