[macintologist]

http://spl.haxial.net/weblog/index.php?p=76

How do you define what is ethical?

Anything that has no real negative impact on other people is not unethical. (For simplicity, let us exclude animals from this discussion.) If you are the only person in the world, anything you do is ethical. However you are not the only person in the world, we must live together, and this creates the opportunity for unethical actions.

Ethics and freedom are closely related. The most ethical system allows each person to EQUALLY have the maximum possible freedom. This creates an issue of balance. For example, you cannot grant people the freedom to kill other people because doing so would remove the other peoples freedom to live their life. Ethics is about finding the balance which gives everyone the maximum possible freedom, equally.

Any society which seeks to restrict freedom is unethical, UNLESS that restriction of freedom is to maintain the aforementioned balance, in which case the overall effect is actually to equalize freedom rather than restrict it. It is impossible to give everyone complete and utter freedom (unless everyone lived each in their own independent parallel universe where their actions had no effect on others), so the next best thing is to give everyone equal access to as much freedom as possible.

Fanatically religious people are often unethical because they believe that ethics are determined by their deity. However the deity is their own creation, and thus this circular relationship leads them into defining ethics to be whatever they want it to be. Their god authorizes them, and they authorize their god, and thus religion easily destroys ethics.

I think spl hits it dead on the spot

Ethics, not morality, should be legislated.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Whether it's morality or ethics, I predict this thread will soon devolve into semantics.

[Wiskedjak]

Ethics are what one accuses the other side of not having

[Millennium]

As though imposing relativism were any different from imposing absolutism...

[Millennium]

Maybe I should expand upon this a bit. The problem with He-Who-Was-Hinks is that he refuses to examine any viewpoint other than his own on its own terms. In the case of this particular essay, that manifests itself in his refusal to examime any religion from an agnostic standpoint (in other words, that any religion could be valid), instead going to faith-based atheistic standpoint (that no faith -aside from his own- is automatically invalid). If you read his other essays, however, you will find that it applies to many other aspects of his thinking, including UI design.

This keeps any analysis in any of his essays from ever being truly valid, because he's never willing to examine anything without filtering it through his own impressive ego.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Macintologist; Ethics, not morality, should be legislated.

So, you're saying legislating morality is wrong?

Personally, I'd argue they are exactly the same thing.
Ethics defined;
1. a.A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values.

2.The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Morality defined;
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Ironically, the word morals is commonly used in defining the word ethics. In maintaining ethics in society, should we allow the majority of those living in that society to generally agree on what constitutes 'good and right conduct' in that society? Many would say this is "mob rules" and would disagree. How then do we determine what is and is not ethical? Whatever template we use, it should not morph, change, evolve, or fluctuate. It has to be like a rock. It has to be complete from beginning to end and cover all aspects of humanity. It must remain the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Fact is; whether you call it morality or ethical, it is still subject to the human condition which is anything, but consistent and unchanging. This is often when we turn to theology. Man has abused religion to be sure, but in most cases had to ignore it's tenets in so doing.

[bygimis]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I think spl hits it dead on the spot
[/B]

A few concerns;

1. It speaks nothing of *how* unethical different actions are. From the 'hurts no-one' point of view almost almost *anything* is unethical, and therefore I think it would be better to say that the important thing is to choose the most ethical (least harmful) option.

2. This leads to my second point which would be to say that self harm can certainly be seen as unethical in some situations; maybe less ethical than harming others? Harm no one but yourself - I would prefer to say 'harm no one, not even yourself'.

3. Excluding other species of animals entirely doesn't strike a chord with me. I would prefer a 'sliding scale' of ethics, where harming a dog is less lower on the scale than harming a human, but still not ethical. I would call someone who tortured puppies unethical for instance.

[OldManMac]

Ask Tom DeLay; he can tell you all about ethics.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Ask Tom DeLay; he can tell you all about ethics.

Ask any politician, for that matter; the only real difference between DeLay and any other member of Congress is that DeLay got caught.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ask any politician, for that matter; the only real difference between DeLay and any other member of Congress is that DeLay got caught.

I was afraid you had gone soft. Glad to see some cynicism remains.

Ethics = Morals
Everybody's are diferent.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I was afraid you had gone soft. Glad to see some cynicism remains.

Me? Soft? Never. I'm just a little less one-dimensional about my cynicism than I used to be

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ask any politician, for that matter; the only real difference between DeLay and any other member of Congress is that DeLay got caught.

I think the case could be made that DeLay has many more skeletons in his closet than the "average" politician.

[budster101]

Ethics:

Teaching freedom of speech in schools... which they are sadly not doing as many young people believe today that the government should aprove articles before they go to press.

I'll try to find that source for y'all.

--

Edit: ... uhm riiiight.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Wait a moment, Budster, are you not homosexual?

[budster101]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Wait a moment, Budster, are you not homosexual?

Ha-ha. I'm a very happy person, but that is as far as it goes.
Ok, I'm usually grumpy...

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Okay okay

[finboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I think the case could be made that DeLay has many more skeletons in his closet than the "average" politician.

I think that's pretty naive.

[OldManMac]

You're entitled to your opinion; it concerns me not. Do some research on DeLay and his funneling of PAC money and his dubious ethics.

[budster101]

Everyone should read: "Deception Point" by Dan Brown.

There are some interesting passages regarding political fundings etc.,

Dan Brown: Deception Point

[finboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You're entitled to your opinion; it concerns me not. Do some research on DeLay and his funneling of PAC money and his dubious ethics.

I've been reading about DeLay for years. He's got some troubles, but other folks in the House and Senate (on BOTH sides of the aisle) make him look like a Cub Scout.

[budster101]

Don't you have to:

- know a secret handshake
- screw someone over
- break every commandment
- insert more....

in order to become a Senator to begin with?

I think it's mandatory.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by macintologist:
What are ethics?

How long's a piece of string?

[OldManMac]

Here's some more about DeLays' "ethics." What a scum bag.

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politi...rtner=homepage

Political Groups Paid Two Relatives of House Leader
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, April 5 - The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.

Most of the payments to his wife, Christine A. DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as "fund-raising fees," "campaign management" or "payroll," with no additional details about how they earned the money. The payments appear to reflect what Mr. DeLay's aides say is the central role played by the majority leader's wife and daughter in his political career.

Mr. DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or Armpac, said in a statement on Tuesday that the two women had provided valuable services to the committee in exchange for the payments: "Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and helps with personnel decisions. Ms. Ferro is a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists Armpac in arranging and organizing individual events."

Mrs. Ferro has managed several of her father's re-election campaigns for his House seat.

His spokesman said that Mr. DeLay had no additional comment. Although several members of Congress employ family members as campaign managers or on their political action committees, advocacy groups seeking an overhaul of federal campaign-finance and ethics laws say that the payments to Mr. DeLay's family members were unusually generous, and should be the focus of new scrutiny of the Texas congressman.

Mr. DeLay, whose position as majority leader makes him the second-most-powerful House member, has offered a vigorous public defense in recent weeks to a flurry of ethics accusations from Democratic lawmakers and campaign watchdog groups, including charges that he violated House rules on travel. The executive director of Americans for a Republican Majority and a major fund-raiser for the committee were indicted in Texas last year on charges of illegal fund-raising, and prosecutors there have refused to rule out the possibility of charges against Mr. DeLay in the continuing inquiry.

In recent weeks, public interest groups have called on the House ethics committee and the Justice Department to review lavish, privately financed overseas trips for Mr. DeLay and his aides, including a 1997 trip to Russia that was underwritten by a conservative education group closely linked to a powerful Republican lobbyist who often boasted of his influence with the majority leader.

The payments to Mr. DeLay's family have continued into 2005; the latest monthly disclosure filed by Americans for a Republican Majority shows Mrs. DeLay was paid was paid $4,028 last month, while Mrs. Ferro received $3,681. Earlier statements show that the two women received similar monthly fees from the political action committee throughout 2003 and 2004.

Mrs. DeLay has been involved in her husband's political career and his fund-raising operations in Washington and Texas. In an interview in 2003 with Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol Hill, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay explained Mrs. DeLay's role as "the final signoff of Tom's travel schedule, what events he attends and what his name appears on."

Mrs. Ferro has also helped manage Mr. DeLay's charity operations. Financial disclosure statements filed by Mr. DeLay's House campaign committees, which are separate from Americans for a Republican Majority, show that Mrs. Ferro and her political consulting firm, Coastal Consulting of Sugar Land, Tex., received $222,000 from 2001 through last year, reflecting her role in the re-election campaigns.

Although there has been no suggestion from prosecutors that Mrs. Ferro is under investigation by the grand jury in Austin, her records were subpoenaed in the inquiry, which is focused on the fund-raising activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a state political action committee modeled on Americans for a Republican Majority. Mrs. Ferro received about $30,000 in fund-raising and consulting fees from Texans for a Republican Majority, the committee's records show.

"It's DeLay Inc. " said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a research group that has closely monitored Mr. DeLay and his campaign fund-raising and expenditures. "If it's not illegal, it certainly is inappropriate for members of Congress to use their positions to enrich their families."

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and a former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, said that "questions are raised anytime a politician puts close family members on the payroll."

Republican lawmakers can point to prominent Democrats whose campaign and political action committees have provided lucrative jobs or consulting contracts to family members. Representative Howard L. Berman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee from 1997 to 2003, paid $50,000 from his campaign accounts last year to a consulting firm owned by his brother, according to disclosure forms. Disclosure statements also show that Senator Barbara Boxer, another California Democrat, directed $15,000 from her political action committee in 2003 to a consulting firm run by her son.

Several public interest groups have called in recent weeks for the House ethics committee or another body that may be examining his finances to open an investigation of Mr. DeLay, focused in part on his privately financed overseas travels, including the 1997 trip to Moscow and a 2000 trip to Britain. Questions about the trips' financing were first raised in March in an article in the National Journal.

Mr. DeLay has denied that he violated House rules in accepting the 2000 trip from a conservative education group associated with one of the city's most powerful Republican lobbyists, Jack Abramoff.

The nonprofit education group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, has said it received large contributions from Mr. Abramoff's clients about the time of the trips, although it has denied that the donations were redirected to finance Mr. DeLay's travels.

The trip to Moscow, according to the American Foreign Policy Council report, was backed by the energy companies that had ties to the Russian government and that were trying to build support in Washington for Russian privatization efforts and trade policies.

Mr. DeLay met with Russian business and political leaders. House financial disclosure statements show that Mr. DeLay's travel costs totaled $9,029 and that the costs for five members of his staff totaled $55,033. It listed the sponsor as the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Bobby R. Burchfield, a lawyer for Mr. DeLay, declined to comment, as did the National Center for Public Policy Research. Jonathan Blank, managing partner at Preston Gates & Ellis in Washington, said the firm had represented Chelsea but would not discuss whether the organization had helped pay for Mr. DeLay's trip.

Dan Allen, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay, said the congressman had filed forms stating that the Moscow and Britain trips were paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research.