ETHICS AND MORALITY. MORAL COWARDICE- WHEN YOU SACRIFICE YOUR PRINCIPLES, SO NOT TO OFFEND. PT 4.

Sometimes, it is fairly easy to pick out the Closet Bigot, Racist, Homophobe etc., simply by their choice of argumentation.  Very few public figures are going to openly embrace such belief systems, it would be political suicide.  Also, citizens who embrace such attitudes are usually careful enough not to be upfront and honest about expressing such views openly.  Both groups have adopted tactics they hope are devious enough to mask their true motivations, when dealing with groups they oppose.

However, these actions are not very artful, and really hide nothing if one looks closely at what is being said or proposed. They are designed to appeal to those who may not share the same opinions, but may become motivated to support the individual or group because they supposedly share common ground.

What is unfortunate is that the Moral Coward may realize the truth that motivates these individuals or groups, but refuses to "Rock the boat", in calling them out for what they really are.  This is especially true if those who hold extremist views cloak them under the guise of such terms as "Patriotism", "Nationalism", "Religious Freedom" or "Law and Order." The Moral Coward may see family, friends or co- workers drawn into supporting candidates who are hiding behind such concepts to appeal to a greater part of the electorate.  They see the "Smokescreen" being set up, and realize the actual intent to deceive.  Yet, the fear of "Offending" or "Angering" someone who is Loved, Respected or Admired, trumps the possible good that could be realized through honest and open communication.

This is very unfortunate.  Of course, no one likes to be told that they are being deceived.  Further, admitting that you are being duped is something that is not easy to accept.  However, progress is never easy.  History has taught us that "Traditional Values and Mores" , "Social Status" and other such constructs are not easy to overcome.  Yet, the belief that doing or espousing the "GOOD" or the "RIGHT", is the Moral Absolute that seems to be prevalent in both faith and humanistic based ethical systems.

Maybe it's time for all of us to practice what we preach.

Date-  8/23/2014.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. MORAL COWARDICE- WHEN YOU SACRIFICE YOUR PRINCIPLES, SO NOT TO OFFEND. PT 3.

In Today's Political Environment, as has happened in the recent past, the vicious nature of public commentary is again forcing Rational Discourse to the sidelines.  You cannot turn on the Radio or Television, without hearing the incoherent rambling of some Political Pundit.  Insults, Threats and Bad Information are the norm. Modern Technology has changed the very nature of how Political and Social debate is now conducted in the Public Spectrum, in comparison to Decades past. I am of course referring to Cable Television and the Internet.

Before the worldwide expansion of the Internet, and the introduction of Cable Television into private homes, Political News, Commentary and Review Programs represented a very small part of what was broadcast over the air.  Prior to the 1980s most homes received programming from the three major Networks: CBS, NBC and ABC, and maybe several local UHF Channels and PBS.  Legendary shows such as SEE IT NOW, SIXTY MINUTES, MACNEIL\ LEHRER and the National Evening News provided the vast majority of Over the Air viewing regarding Political News and Information. 

Additionally, Newspapers and Magazines, once Bastions of "In- Depth" Investigative Reporting and "From the Scene" Articles , are now struggling to stay afloat financially. The Reason: In the past, these elements of the Media prided themselves on the Professionalism, Integrity, Honesty and Accuracy of the information they presented to the public, and this led to the trust and esteem that the News Media relied on to succeed.

Unfortunately, the proliferation of so-called "News Stations and Programs", and the ability to place anything on the Internet regardless of Truth or Lack of Critical Construction or Validity, has led to the rapid increase in Bogus, Irrational, Racist, Bigoted, Homophobic etc. news items.  Such Reporting will never make it past the Editorial Standards of true Journalistic Professionals, who value truth and integrity.

The real sadness is not the Irrational or Closed- Minded people who report and thrive off the Hate and Misery they feel, and want to inflict on others through false and misleading information.  These people have probably always been with us, and maybe always will.  However, Moral Cowardice does not challenge or refute information known to be wrong, and allows this Bullying of the Innocent to continue without confrontation or contradiction.

Look for PT 4.

Date- 7/7/2014.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 3.

Can we break down the Hierarchy of which Category of Rights is the most important, and can supersede the others?  Yes, it is possible to do this, and the following is the result of such an analysis.

HUMAN RIGHTS-  Must, by their very nature, rank as #1.  They are the only Category of Rights that is binding on all Countries, States and Governments.  This is the goal of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, to create and enforce Laws that bind the people of all nations to a Universal set of Moral Standards in the proper treatment of every member of the Human race.

Further, that these are Rights that cannot be relinquished, even on a voluntary basis. THE BOTTOM LINE-  HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT BE DENIED, LOST OR GIVEN UP, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

CIVIL RIGHTS-  Are a sub-category of CITIZENS RIGHTS, but are placed on a level higher in importance. Citizens Rights may include such things as Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly etc., but may not be legally applied in every situation. This is where the Category of Civil Rights can be found.
Consider the following : 

        Example #1-  Freedom of Religion allows you to believe and promote a certain set of Moral Values.  However, the application of such values in the Public Sector may not be considered Legal.

         Example #2-  Freedom of Speech permits you to advocate and relay information to other people.  However, the Legal System may create limits on the How, When and Where such information is disseminated.

         Example #3-  Freedom of Assembly-  Allows you to Come Together and/or Associate with other like minded individuals.  A Legal problem may arise if these meetings are used for planning Criminal Activities, or for the purpose of creating situations that have a detrimental affect on other persons and groups.

These examples have one main goal:  That Government has a Moral duty to its citizens and society at large, to create restrictions on Individual Rights, for the benefit of all.

End of PT 3.

Date-  6\26\2014.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. MORAL COWARDICE- WHEN YOU SACRIFICE YOUR PRINCIPLES, SO NOT TO OFFEND. PT 2.

A major part of the work that goes into publishing this site, is keeping up with current news and events.

However, it also means confronting and understanding opposing viewpoints, not only of those I have never met, but also friends and family.  What I have found to be most interesting is the reluctance of some to voice an opinion, if they are aware of those with a dissenting point of view being present.

I understand that many people will go out of their way to avoid confrontation.  The desire to be liked and accepted is so strong in some individuals, that they will try to find a way to make everyone happy. This includes being a passive witness and listener, even when someone is ridiculing and disrespecting an opinion or belief they hold dear.  Even more disturbing, this can extend to the point of ignoring inaccurate or wrong information being transmitted to others, by an individual who clearly does not understand the facts of a given situation.

I have often found this to be true of a person promoting an idea that supports a certain world view that cannot stand up to close scrutiny.  They bend or distort information in a way that fits neatly with their conception of reality, even if it violates the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking.

Now the point of confronting such irrational and clearly invalid lines of reasoning, is not to attempt to change the mind of the offending individual.  Usually, this would be a pointless exercise, for they have already exhibited a capacity to ignore anything that would conflict with their viewpoint.  As we have seen, especially when we examine certain decisions made by Juries in Criminal Trials, that some people lack the ability or willingness to make decisions in a rational manner.

Look for PT 3.

Date-  5/29/2014.