Ethics... for the good times

Ethics for the good time do not require as many hard decisions. The decisions usually do not hurt much, so as a result, they are easier to make. Problems arise when there are no good choices, as in the case of Saskatchewan Stanley. 

Consider the coming problem of derivative of climate change, the rise in Co2 level. Ultimately the correct answer is that the earth cannot handle more than about 4 billion people, and we are approaching 8 billion. Perhaps that 4 billion can be increased if we start some organic form of carbon capture, shallow unpreserved burial or sky burial, or a mound burial culture, may be one of the many partial solutions. A whole lot less children. Perhaps less active medical care. Perhaps allow the sick to die naturally. Allow natural death, as opposed to do not resuscitate. AND DNR.

So who will have the political will to actively consider such public policy? Consider the Co2 rise problem. We humans and our plants and animals now produce something like 98 percent of all the organic carbon dioxide production, and almost all of the non-organic Co2 production. Our plants also use Co2 some of the time, and that can be increased considerably in some areas. Farm land capture of Co2 may be the most effective means of reducing Co2, but conservation is still required. This will require on land water capture as well.

If equality and justice is taken as the foundation of ethics, then big changes in lifestyle must also occur for the rich, with their big well heated houses with nobody living in it, or one or two people in five or six thousand square feet. This suggests that there should be rationing of carbon products, rationed by need, not our ability to buy.

There is always the possibility of new technology, which must be considered, but that also cannot be counted on.

So when things are going wrong, and we are being violated, what is the right action? Should we shoot in self defense, property defense or let them steal? It is noted that in the original native cultures, it was not wrong to take from others when you were in need.

The philosophers cannot agree on what the foundation of ethics is. It is not the choice of bad verses good, not as MacQuirrie suggests right and wrong, but the shotgun clause. One sets the price, the other chooses buy or sell, usually for share prices of business in dissolution or the value of common assets in divorce. There is nothing better for selecting ethics. It must be agreeable to both sides.

So what am I saying? we must be both willing to do and be done to, and not do and not being done to. The golden law in reverse and in the negative, and all must be enlightened and equal else all is failure.

The Saskatchewan natives are getting uppity, and that will need to be addressed. Europe is being taken over with Muslim hoards, Canada is not far behind. Expect unrest in countries of two diverse cultures. I am glad that I am old, and lived at the peak of civilization. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.