Ethics: Do They Work Anymore?

'Free will' raises questions about ethical behavior and mature judgement.

Ethics are civilization's front line defense against irresponsible and destructive behavior. The question is, do ethics work? Both personal and world history demonstrate our ongoing lapses in ethical behavior and sound judgement. Nevertheless, humanity has generally fared fairly well to this point; we have avoided nuclear winter, anyway. The consequences wrought by lapses in ethics and judgement in the coming years is another matter.

Modern information and technologies are raising the stakes. Before the 20th century, pushing the button meant nothing and tweaking DNA was not an option. The exponential increase in information and technology has now opened a Pandora's box. Our new world begs for a commensurate increase in ethical behavior and wisdom. Simply put, we need a society of mature, ethical people. How is that going to happen? We can not teach people to be mature, like we teach them factual information and technology. Such qualitites of character come slowly as we mature, right?

Foresight and mature judgement increase gradually; each of us is wiser now than we were as youngsters. Ethical behavior is different because it is not linked as much to age. It is obvious, empirically, that we are or are not ethical according to how closely connected we feel to our social family group. We are much less likely to cheat a friend than a complete stranger. The closer we feel to our group, the more likely we want to conform to its ethical norms. In practice these norms appear to arise out of a group consensus of what is and is not permissible. This has varied widely throughout history and cultures.

As society becomes more mobile, we can not help but feel increasing social isolation. When we lose the intimacy and security of the family group, we are left to do our own thing. We adapt by skewing our ethical rudder to favor individual rights. Our paradigm shifts to support a belief in 'free will' and in the virtue of independence and free choice. This more self-centric ideal, at the extreme, leads to a world view that feels "my way is the right way".

Ethical relativism

This modern decline of traditional ethics into a kind of ethical relativism has been decried as the downfall of morality. It is not ethical relativism that causes our current and impending predicaments. Rather, this relativism is a symptom of our social disconnection which has been deepening over the last few hundred years, but especially from the 19th century onward. As a result, many folks are now independent enough to sense how arbitrary ethics can be. Many no longer believe that God dictated ethics on clay tablets or that 'he' created the cosmos in seven days.

Ethics, as described above, are relative and arise out of cultural consensus. As long as all or most of the members of a culture believe their ethical world-view is true, they will uphold and conform to it without question. A good example of this is slavery. Slavery was ethical for millennia in various cultures because it was believed so. Now, most cultures share the belief that slavery is evil – unaware of how arbitrary this opposing belief is. The extent to which ethics can deviate from natural law exemplifies this fluidity. The ethical taboo of people breast feeding in public is a classic and sadly maladaptive example.

The individuality and attendant social detachment of the 'me' generation is eroding many of our traditional ethical norms, while enforcing those that impact the individual, e.g., my right to privacy. Increasingly, the importance of any specific ethic is relative to how it impacts me or what I empathize with. Perhaps this accounts for why we now see slavery as evil. As self-identity rises, group/tribal identity and the comfort it affords declines. The very idea of being free to realize ourselves as individuals can also become a lonely and isolating part of life. A social species such as ourselves can not thrive with increasing social detachment. Sure, we support and/or join churches, political parties, sports teams, and so on to recover some of that tribal solidarity, but the profound primal intimacy of the tribe is lost. It is the price of civilization.

Enforced vs. unenforced ethics

Compliance with ethical standards has always been one of civilization's most pressing issues. Religious ethics have always taken the lead in attempting to instill righteousness in people. The result, by and large, has always been an outward show of morality overlying an ocean of hypocrisy. Natural ethics, on the other hand, intuitively form in intimate social settings where both children and adults feel connected to the hierarchal paradigm of their family/tribe. This is one reason why elders and ancestors have always held a prominent social position. Symptomatic of our cultures' break with these ancient dynamics is how our culture idolizes its youth and devalues its elders.

In small hunter-gatherer tribes of a few dozen homo sapiens, there were little or no enforced ethics. The birth-to-death tribal environment provided such an intuitive sense of inter-dependance and connection to all members that, in most cases, they naturally behaved ethically. The advent of agriculture allowed more people to form into larger and larger social groups. The larger the group, the less each individual feels connected to all of the individuals outside his immediate and extended family. When individuals are not connected as intimately, natural intuitive ethics do not form as deeply, if at all.

As the tribal opportunity for natural ethical behavior subsides, a culture-wide need for enforceable ethics arises to prevent social chaos. Among other things, we invoke a pseudo 'alpha male tribal elder', e.g., gods, spirits and higher power, to validate the ethical standards we want. We then chisel these commandments in stone for everyone to see. Finally, breaking these laws comes with some form of reprimand, anything from shame to beheading.

Beyond ethics and free will

Ethics has not resolved our irresponsible and destructive behavior, both for reasons covered above, and because of how we attempt to fix these problems. Our 'find the cause and fix it' urge is probably an instinctive reaction to difficulty, e.g., "Ouch, a thorn! I'll stay away from those." This proactive approach won't work if civilization itself is responsible for our woes.

Many of our difficulties arise from our innate animal nature operating within civilization, i.e., tool-using circumstances. There are numerous examples; here are two. Our innate attraction to high-calorie food was a survival advantage in the jungle, but with civilization's abundance of refined rich food, it leads to obesity and illness. Our innate tribal instincts helped the stone age tribe compete in its struggle for survival in nature, but with high populations in civilized settings, it can foster entrenched warfare, slavery, racism and other exploitive behaviors.

Civilization affords us comfort and security through our mastery over nature. We then idealize our civilized existence as superior to that of 'lower' instinct-driven animals. This belief in the superiority of civilization blinds us to its pervasive dark side. Instead, we single out little pieces of civilization we deem villainous. It is those religions, those politicians, those corporations, those ______ (fill in your favorite villain). There is a bonus, too . . . faulting others makes us feel even more superior. Lastly, we point the finger at mankind's sinful animal nature. "Don't be an animal," we implore. Indeed, we believe the solution to our woes is even more civilization to tame the nasty old beast within.

This cripples us in our attempts to deal with reality – the unintended consequences of civilization. As technology increases, the consequences of our blindness are becoming inconceivably serious. Why are we not able to pull our superior heads out of the sand and take an honest look at ourselves from a primate point of view? If we actually had free will, we probably could . . . and would.

There may be a silver lining

As the average age of a population increases, so does its average wisdom. The longer each of us attends the school of life, the more we experience personal dead ends. We become wiser as we realize our own mortality and ignorance. A wiser population can not help but lead to a more mature and ethical culture. Surely, humanity will think and act differently when the average age is 100+ compared to Roman times, for example, when the average age was probably in the teens. Thank you modern medicine! A falling birth rate also moves a population's average age upward. Wealthy populations have declining birth rates, so let's spread the wealth! All in all, things are looking up, . . . and not a moment too soon!

To much to take in after a long Friday night out ! But I don't think it was ethical behavior that avoided a nuclear winter.......Just Fear !!

As mossop mentioned, your post is a long read and I’m not up to it right now. But I did read a little bit at the beginning and I would like to comment on a couple of things.




I have often argued that governments should be run be a ‘counsel of elders’, and that those elders should indeed be ‘wise’. Unfortunately, ‘wisdom’ means different things to different people. Some people place their faith in dogma and would attempt to rule by that. For me, this is a stagnant approach that cannot possibly be applied to the dynamically changing world that you’ve described. Moreover, how can we be sure that the original authors of the dogma were indeed ‘wise’?

The biggest problem that faces modern man is not so much the idea of maturity or wisdom, but rather on coming to a consensus of what those words mean.



I would disagree. I believe that we can teach maturity. It’s not that we can’t teach it, it’s simply that we don’t teach it.

Even the most well-meaning parents are often terrible mentors. Maturity cannot be taught via violent, or restrictive discipline, which seems to be the popular methods of teaching behavior. The very best way to teach is through the use of encouragement and reward. And the rewards should not be hand-outs, but rather they should be in the actual accomplishments of the pupil.

Our schools are notoriously unsuccessful. Not only in ways of teaching maturity and responsibility but even in ways of teaching technical concepts which they focus on.

I would love to be in charge of a school system for one generation. From kindergarten to the 12th grade of high school. I believe that I could run a system that would produce students at that age who would put our current college graduates to shame. Not only would it be extremely efficient and productive, but the students would even enjoy it immensely and feel greatly satisfied and rewarded. Rather than wanting to drop out or be bored, they would be anxious for the next day of class!

Unfortunately I do not have the credentials required to obtain a position where I could oversee such an undertaking. So sad.

And this is yet another problem with our society. There is so much wasted talent because the wheels of bureaucracy crush what is good in favor of choosing that which has credentials. Often times, all that credentials really guarantee is that there will be no originality. This is because the people who earn the credentials earn them by not ‘bucking the system’. They just meekly go along with the status quo and thus nothing ever changes. Those really original thinkers are seen as ‘rebellious’ and ‘restless’ they don’t fair well in our educational systems and are either cast out by not being recognized for their original creativity, or they simply get bored and frustrated and drop out.

There are many very wise people in our society who never reached a position of any authority. Their genius wasted in lower positions where all they are permitted to do are the things they are told to do by the less creative carriers of credentials.

The final product is a deterioration of originality and creativity. Our system favors rote obedience over genuine innovation.

Until that changes, neither will our society.

Abra,

I appreciate your in depth thoughts... know this. Thank you.


The notion of teaching 'wise will' is contingient upon the ability to teach maturity, is it not? As I understand from your post, maturity can be taught?

Or is it that more 'mature' decision making perspectives can be taught, after all maturity is an individuals own inner growth through their own experience, isn't it? Could it be then that although a 'good' teacher may, indeed be able to teach a student how to think on a more mature level through the experiences that the teacher matured 'through', would that truly be teaching the student his/her own 'maturity'?

The notion of 'knowing' better is pivotal for both, as I understand... The ability to 'mature' as an individual, and the 'wise will' that comes as a result of effectively learning from 'mistakes', both are contingient upon personal experience as much as teaching aren't they?



P.S.

I agree much with your notion(s) concerning our country's educational system... and all that is lost as a result of it.

They require both and neither depending on the individual.

I’ve met people in their 60’s and beyond who show every little sign of maturity. I’ve met 6 years who have blown me away with their insight and maturity.

Going back to your other thread about ‘beliefs’ and the meanings of ‘words’. What is maturity?

If maturity is a person’s ability to clearly recognize their surroundings, evaluate them without bias, and respond in the most productive manner, then I’ve known very young people who have displayed this ability and very old people who seem to be quite obvious to it.

Wisdom and maturity don’t necessarily come with age. And as ironic as it may seem a person who actually had some wisdom and maturity in their youth, may actually lose it as they become an adult. Possibly due to changing beliefs, peer pressure, or a general disillusion with life (or society) itself.

Looking back over my own life I think I was most mature in my early 20’s. I became more of a rebel in my 30’s behaving in ways that weren’t nearly as responsible as I had been in my 20’s. The 40’s brought forth a new era of wisdom and majority in my life once again. Now in my late 50’s I feel more like a zombie than a human.

What my 60’s will bring I have no idea but I feel a second childhood coming on. Although in my case, it may be more like the hundredth childhood.

The point is that time does not automatically cause a person to mature. At least not with respect to wisdom and disposition. Some people may mature in a more linear fashion than others. Some children seem to be born mature, while some adults seem to have never matured.

Whatever the case may be, I’m a firm believer that both, environment (peer company) and the quality of mentorship can heavily influence a person’s maturity at any given point in time. From that point of view then, maturity can be ‘taught’ or maybe another way to look at it is to say that a mature disposition can be ‘contagious’ as can an immature disposition.

So if we allow that a person’s environment can affect their level of maturity, then we can believe that maturity can be ‘taught’ by simply proving the proper environment.

Also, don’t mistake being ‘mature’ with being a prude. Mature people can kick off their shoes, let there hair down, and act like hyenas high on grass. The fact that a person is mature does not mean that they can’t exhibit wild and crazy behavior at times.

Yes...


Contagiousness...



I believe that the state of humanity and it's progression throughout history has, in fact, been determined by man; and man by three things, instinctual need, personal desire and the dynamic between these two things. All the while, the source of all being the only constant, and I shall choose for 'it' to remain 'nameless' throughout this thought process.

Instinctual need are the needs that one is born with. Whereas personal desire is that which is learned throughout the development of the mind, and is contingient upon the not only the natural ability of one, but also dependant on the method(s) by which the mind is nurtured, the teachings which lead to the acceptances within and shape the mind's faculty, while absent of knowing the 'nameless'.

On instinctual need...

For in our instinctual need(s) lay survival and physical sustenance needs, such as food, water, and shelter, and the need to feel loved. Without the knowing of the 'nameless', and the resulting fear which is born thereof, both competition and comraderie are born of personal desire, which is born of ignorance of the 'nameless'.

While neither of these survival and sustenance needs are a choice as an infant, the first 'teachers' of life play a pivotal role in the development of the mind. The affects of which are the beginning of the acceptances that lead to personal desire, as a result of that which is learned. Furthermore, this teaching begins the developing of all other human emotion and thought, thus the foundation of 'one' begins...absent of the knowing of the 'nameless'...

So then, there must be a distinction made within the instinctual needs, between those that are deemed 'critical' for our physical sustenance, and that which is not. Which brings the discussion to the notion of love, While it may be widely accepted that love is not an instinctual need, I beg to differ. I feel it is the only absolutely necessary human need that is on an ethereal level. Moreover, the very notion in fact gives life to life, and value to all religion through personal desire.

If one has serious doubt of this, perhaps this website address will help to shed light on the powerful energy that love has..... ON WATER... I invite you to see the amazing difference that love has on creation of all types, even that which has been presumed to not be 'alive'... such as water crystal formations...

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm


I will rest this discussion for now, to enable others to get involved with this open invitation I present...

I personally feel that our definition of love is often misleading. Especially when I hear people say that love is uniquely a human concept that does not extend to the animal kingdom. This would negate many things that we place underneath the umbrella of ‘love’.

I’m currently enjoying watching the nature series “Planet Earth”, and it is a stark reminder of how loving animals can be. If the care a mother Panda Bear gives to her cub for the first year of it’s life is not considered to be an act of ‘love’ then I’m at a lost as to what they word should mean.

Humans are extremely arrogant in their notion that they hold such a superior position over other animals.

I think we expand on our notion of ‘love’ to include emotions and ideals that may not actually be part of love itself. This is particularly true when it comes to the physical intimacy. I feel that the thrills of orgasmic ecstasy associated with physical intimacy actually have nothing directly to do with love. Yet we often equate sexual pleasure with love, at least in a one-way fashion.

By one-way I mean that we don’t automatically assume that someone who finds us to be physically stimulating is in love with us. But ironically we claim that if they become physically intimate with someone else we claim that they have ‘cheated’ on our ‘love’.

It’s a bit of a two-faced issue there actually.

However, clearly we can talk about the love of a parent, sibling or child where no physical intimacy is involved. I think this is the truest sense of love, and I do believe that animals share this concept. What they may not share is the complete concept of death as we have come to understand it. In other words, because animals abandon their dead loved ones without much apparent emotion we might assume that they do not then understand ‘love’, but this may not be the case. They may very well understand ‘love’, it’s the concept of ‘death’ that they don’t ponder as deeply as we do.

On the water crystal site:

I have seen that water crystal site before. I hesitate to believe its claims as they are made simply because if these claims could be demonstrated to be repeatable I would think this would have a lot more publicity than it has. I would have to freeze some water myself to be convinced.

Although, having said that, I do believe that humans (as well as all other living things) give off an aura. In fact, this has been scientifically verified. So the idea that we could have an affect on the formation of ice crystals is plausible.

However, since this article claims that by merely placing the water between speakers whilst music is playing this will affect the formation of ice crystals based on the intent of the music. The problem I have with this is the simple fact that I can write two sets of lyrics for the same piece of music. One set of lyrics having ‘evil’ meanings, and the other set of lyrics having ‘good’ meanings.

But then when I play the music without the lyrics which way would the ice crystals form????

I would need to be involved in these ‘experiments’ myself to be convinced of anything.

Ah Abra...

Yes, I absolutely agree with the degradation regarding the use of the term 'love', unfortunately it is the only common term that evokes a close enough assemblance which most can relate to in some fashion. Your extrapolation on such was a good indication of our previously unspoken agreements.

On the site:

I found it quite interesting as I suspect it also perked your curiosity...

The same musical piece without any lyrical content, I would have to presume would yield yet an entirely different formation. Not withstanding further evidence though is the notion of the displayed and drastic differences. I think the difference in the formation as a result of the different energy is what is being 'measured' in the experiment(s).


What of the rest Abra? I am curious on your take of the beginning of my penned 'thesis'.

I’m really not sure what to say Michael. I think your views as a philosopher are often times too philosophical.

By that, I mean that you seem to be speaking of the progression of humanity throughout history, yet at the same time I get a feeling that you are viewing this progression in terms of the masses, or the mass behavior of the humans on the planet.

I think there are different levels of existence for humans. This is in no way meant to be judgmental of any individuals or groups, but clearly everyone isn’t an Einstein or a Newton, everyone isn’t a Descartes or a Plato, or a Zeno. In fact the majority of people on the planet make up what is called the ‘lay’ population. They may ponder ideas from time to time, but overall they live a life of much more pragmatic existence.

Moreover, the political scene is usually dominated by people who seek power and opportunity, not by people who seek to better the state of humanity from a deeply philosophical point of view. I don’t think anyone in their right mind could possibly view President Bush as being either a deeply philosophical person, nor a very wise person. Yet he is the leader of the most powerful country on earth.

When you talk about the progression of humanity throughout history it can be confusing. Because there is more than one ‘progression’ going on. The age of ‘enlightenment’ has only occurred a few centuries ago, and although that age has brought about major changes in technology and our way of life (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth), the masses in general are still living in the dark ages in their minds.

Same thing is true with the progression of science. We have discovered and understood our evolutionary origins, and we have discovered the quantum nature of our universe. Yet most people are still living in a Newtonian clockwork world and even question the truth of evolution.

Humanity has a ‘whole’ has crossed over these bridges and is looking forward to the new pastures on the other side. Yet the masses, are still stragglers well on the far side of the bridge, some will not cross over it in their lifetime. This doesn’t mean that the bridges haven’t been built. This doesn’t mean that the masses won’t eventually cross them. It just means that you can’t measure the progression of humanity by the activity of the masses. We have seen throughout all of history that the behavior of the masses in general is no indication of where humanity is headed as a whole.

As far as seeing intelligent and truly wise leaders rise to the top of the political scene, I’m not sure if we are headed in that direction with any genuine purpose. Anything that might happen in that regard is more likely to be an accident. History reveals that wisdom and innovation often take precedence over the blindness of the leadership via the pure force of will of those who are willing to stand up for humanity. This is what happened so profoundly in the 60’s and continues to happen everyday on less visible scales.

Well, I’m rambling here. But I think the point I’m trying to make is that we really don’t have a solid method in place to assure that the leaders of humanity will progressively get better. Every free election is a draw of the straw of chance. And unfortunately the straws that are available for drawing are motivated by power and control, not by a quest to improve humanity as a species on planet earth.

This should not be viewed as a pessimistic situation. It’s not utter chance. People like George Bush have taught us a valuable lesson. I think people are going to be playing a little closer attention to who they vote for anymore.

So that can certainly help things.

I don't think that humanity is fully awake yet. After all, we only became 'enlightened' to the concept of ontology a brief couple of centuries ago. The collective eyes of humanity are bearly opening. We are like a new born opening our eyes for the first time.

I think I can take this as a compliment...

Something ties it all together, and I am driven to put a pretty bow in the knot which completes the circle...

I do my best to keep my mind completely open... I do believe that it is much more simple than we have made it out to be... and that it is in parts of all...

Personal attachment confuses the reality of what is being seen should it contradict what is 'known'.

One must be as disconnected as possible to what has been accepted as 'truth' while searching for it.

It is only when one quits searching that one will find.

I agree with the futher statements of Abra.
Creative, it seems your analogy equates maturity on two different levels. Maturity can certainly be gained through experience, hence the idea that maturity is time intensive. However, maturity is also gained through perspective and knowledge.

There have been many theories that have attempted to prove that each individual has certain personality traits. The results of testing these theories have be so conclusive as to push research into the realm of identifying the brain characteristics, metabolically, biologically, physiologically, in an effort to pin-point where and how such traits are ingrained.

This would explain the idea that Abra put forth, that sometimes the most mature solutions to a problem or issue is contributed by a very young person.Of course this is considered rare.

Something that has come to light in all this theory is that lesser personality traits can take the forefront, if nurtured. Just as dominant personality traits can be latent in development, due to an ineffectual nurturing.

All this really says is most of us have the ability to ‘learn’ in accordance with the traits that we have; dominant or recessive. What it takes is the right nurturing.

This is the idea that Abra sets forth, that we can teach ethics. It’s not a course, it’s a development. It’s situations that are set forth for the purpose of developing the correct ethical thinking. For example: Take child learning about colors. We have a box of crayons and paper at the front of the room. And each child has a ‘technology’ coloring book. Imagine an etch-s-schetch, only on the order of a Microsoft word – where there is various pictures to choose from and a hand held crayon (mouse). The color is chosen from a palate on the computer and the child can color, as if they were really coloring.

But here are the lessons we teach. We are using the computer to save paper. Because paper is made from trees, the process is destructive to nature because of …… The coloring assignment would be to color trees, or wildlife, or streams, or even machines that use gasoline. Then have each child explain why they chose their picture and what is being preserved because they are using a computer instead of crayons and paper. The teacher learns about the child, their interests and can better teach individuals, while the child is free to learn and develop both ethics and a desire to continue to find knowledge and approval, both from self, and from others.

This really is not a far stretch, I have taught my much younger cousins and my son about recycling, and conservation from the time they could turn on the tap water. It is unbelievable how much they can absorb, and what is phenomenal is how much they retain and gets fed back to you, when you are remiss in conserving.

Imagine this at the age of 5, what ethics could we teach at the age of 10, 15? Philosophy should be the basis of all teaching. As Abra said, not all people are interested in the same thing, cramming math down the throat of a natural born opera singer, does not make for good music. But that opera singer can still learn ethics, while learning about the things that interest them.

We have taken options away from our kids, and instilled, instead a highly competitive nature. For what are we promoting in our schools? Sports, why? Because it makes more money, because it brings more status. These are the ethics we are teaching.

We must first be mature and ethical adults, before we can teach the same to our children.

I think as a society we put too much effort into bulk ‘teaching’ and not nearly enough energy into the more personal area of ‘mentoring’ or ‘coaching’. People really need personal trainers of the mind, spirit and soul, yet they are seldom blessed with this kind of leadership.

Even in our public schools we tend to sit the students at desks in large groups looking at a single lecturer speaking. There is certainly value in the kind of seminar approach. But when this is the only approach it quickly becomes boring and ineffective.

The students really need to become involved in actually doing the things that are being taught. This type of learning environment can also free the teacher up to spend more one-on-one time with individual students whilst the others are ‘self-learning’ through their exercises.

This kind of learning environment automatically breeds a level of maturity, whilst the rote lecture style of pedagogy actually inspired immature behavior.

Many educators have actually recognized vast differences between the styles of pedagogy (the teaching of children) with styles proposed for andragogy (the teaching of adults). There can be significant differences.

One is rote memorization and data absorption. Young children do well with this style of learning. But adults to much better if they fully understand why something is important, and they learn it best by seeing (or better yet doing) concrete examples.

Unfortunately, our school systems are based almost entirely on pedagogical methods all the way from the first grade clear through college. It’s discussing, and ineffective for many people. Our educational systems waste more of the student’s time than most people realize. And the educational institutions then blame their ineffective pedagogical teaching methods on the students, claiming that students just don’t work hard enough. But that’s an utter cop-out for a failing system.

This is an extremely hot topic for me because I was ready for the methods of andragogy way back in about the 5th grade, and instead I had to suffer through a lame educational system for most of my “adult life” which I consider to have begun prior to becoming a teenager!

The bottom line is that far too many things are taken as being the ‘norm’ and are never questioned or changed. Our educational systems are the slowest aspect of our society to see change. And it’s such a shame because so many students our suffering because of it. Both intellectually and in matters of becoming more mature much earlier in life.

This is an extremely hot topic for me personally. And it makes me very angry that things are so slow to change.

I think one of the harshest reprimands are the judgmental words “you know better than that”.
Obviously they don’t. I bit my tongue on several occasions, NOT, to say those words to my son. Instead, I fought to remain calm and open. At which point, I would simply ask, “why did you do that?” For several years, I got the normal “I don’t know” response. But one day, when my son was about 7, maybe 8, I got an actual logical answer, and I realized, he did it, because he was conducting an experiment. He really did NOT know better, he was learning. That was when I knew I had him, and that discussion was possible. He learned to trust me and instead of making ALL the mistakes, he made fewer, because he asked first.

This was a source on contention within my family. My family was not of the opinion that a child should be ‘arguing’ with an adult. If I told my son no, the reason was insignificant and the child was to obey. My son was always given the freedom to question my authority. I may have said, we’ll discuss it later, but for now the answer is no. BUT, we did discuss it later. And I have to tell you, I was beginning to learn to trust HIS judgment. What my family, the adults, did not recognize is that he was not back-talking, he was not being disobedient, he wanted to understand, and the older he got, the more interesting the conversation became. Because he was using ALL this great knowledge that I had TAUGHT him, not that he had personally experienced.

Sadly, this was a terrible dilemma for him at several points in his life. The worst of which was when he went away to college. The reason goes into, what Abra states: peer pressure. High school, was less difficult. The environment, while large, was still quite confined. His close friends looked up to him, respected his ability to see what was important, not to jump to conclusions, not to be judgmental. As Abra said, this quality become ‘contagious’. Many of his friends wanted to be like him, and we still have contact with amany of them, and I could not be more proud of a group of kids than those early friends. They have each maintained a very high degree of ethics in their lives. Mistakes, yes, we will never get past that, but how they have handled those mistakes, makes me proud, and I tell them so.

College was much more difficult. There were almost no peers at his level of maturity, and no close friends there to spread the contagion. He was so confused by the actions and morality of so many. I had failed to teach him that the ‘real’ world would not see things the way he had come to analyze them. The inner turmoil took a great toll on him. He could not come to terms with the illogical nature of these other young adults, and he did not know how to reach them.

It has gotten better – but the point is, imagine the majority of 18 to 21 year olds, being able to consider the ethics of their actions before they act. Imagine, these kids, wanting to learn, more than they want to party. Imagine the close social structure they would create, an environment of friendship based on trust, and sharing, instead of peer pressure and judgement.

Forgive the long posts, but you both laid out so much to be discussed.



I know that Abra has addressed this, but I’d like to also. There have been others in the world of phychology, Maslow for example, who have attempted to construct and use a hierarchy of basic human needs for various reasons. The need that you speak of using the word love – is most often equated on these charts as the need for acceptance.

Abra pointed out, I think in this thread, and on one or two others, that the definition of love, is often, superimposed, by other ideas. If you love a child but never show approval or acceptance of their thoughts, words or actions, there is no ‘love’ perceived by the child. The same is true of adults. An adult in a work environment who is never give the proverbial ‘pat on the back’ (a reward) in any form, will not be happy in that environment and it WILL eventually take more internal tolls on that person, if they do not seek to change it. The same is true of friendships, we do not keep friends who are never there to support us, or advise us or listen to us, etc.

So in the case you are presenting, Creative, I believe there is a definition issue. Many will tell you that we must fist ‘love’ ourselves, before we can extend love. But I believe that is incorrect. I believe we must first accept who we are. We do that by continually assessing our strengths and weaknesses through comparisons as they are presented to us in our daily lives. Through knowledge of self, through that same ability of rational and ethical analysis that we have learned, along the way. Acceptance of self, allows us a more ethical view of those around us, allows us to more readily ‘accept’ (love) the world around us.

When I think of the definition of love, I think of acceptance, protection, support, presence. I think internally, I think of nature, and I think of my similarities with all the world. This is how I maintain the peace within. This is how I feel connected to everything. This is what grants me the ability to be ethical.

There is nothing nameless in my reality, there is only the unknown and my desire to learn about it. There is no need inside me, for any greater acceptance or love than I can find within myself, within my circle of peers, or within the rest of the world I feel connected with.

I do believe also that there are those we connect with on many levels, and sometimes we are fortunate enough to find one with whom we connect of the most major of all our hierarcy of needs. This is love, for in that connection there is acceptance of a multitude of our highest needs. I think this is what every person hopes to find as a life partner. I think THAT is love.

In this, love is not needed for life to be sustained or even happy. It is just the fulfillment of a desire to have one other accept us, even when we might be struggling with our own self acceptance.

However, I thing to 'create' a nameless entity to fulfill that desire is destructive. It is destructive because it excuses from continueing to analyse our innerself, our own ethics. It allows us to accept our 'faults' rather than to attemp to correct them.

One example: it is our nature to sin, and because we are not perfect, we have been given a pass, through grace, if we only believe in and 'love' that which 'accepts' our faults.

How do we achieve a higher ethical view, when so many have ceased analyzing thier own behavior, as it connects with the current world at large?

First off...I love you both and Merry Christmas to you... Happy Holidays, should you choose...

It seems to me that we are not discussing the same thing on one hand, but are on the other. I will explain this further later on in this post.

I have no disagreements concerning the failing educational system. Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we surely lack tremendously in the 'end product' on average.

However, I contend that on teaching maturity, we have major differences in opinions as expressed.

Di, I believe what you have described has not at all been a description of teaching one maturity. It is a fine example of an effective teaching method, for sure, by allowing the child to express and learn on a more personal level and as one with equal value, rather than a person with lesser value. As a matter of fact, I, myself have changed my personal parenting techniques in the past five years to enable more participation and contribution of my children. I believe this method is so much more effective than the 'because I am the boss' method. The results since I have adopted this method are indeed remarkable... astounding at times...Good for you...

The problem with your argument lies in what 'maturity' actually is, I suppose.

I see maturity as the result of one's growing in sound judgement and ONLY through personal experience... I will show why...

A successful teaching method simply places one farther ahead on the learning curve than a less effective one.

Either way, maturity only happens after the teachings are put into practice and learned from by making mistakes.

Example...

Di, from your example, your child did in fact mature through the teaching. However, the evidence only surmises that you indeed prepared the child to mature, by teaching sound ethical principles, and good judgement skills. His assessment abilities seem strong, as a result of these teachings.

The fact that a child is more well-rounded and mature than his or her peers only attests to a more effective parenting technique(s).

In five years, should a child be sound in judgement he will gain maturity...as a result of good teaching, not because he was taught maturity. Although he might have been taught with a more responsible method, it does not and cannot teach maturity.

Maturity only comes as a result of one putting what they have learned into practice and growing as a result of the mistakes one has made. It is one's growing in knowledge and sound judgement throughout one's experiences in life that teaches maturity.

EDIT:

Di, I will address your last post separately, possibly at a later time...

We can use acceptence as described...I almost did anyway... and the thesis needs to remove or change part or all of the 'nameless' statements...not as a result of anything other than somethig is not quite 'right' with it within me. I had planned on changing it and starting a different thread to cover it. It is off topic of maturity.



EDIT:


On second thought, allow this maturity debate to be discussed first, please... then go on to the love part?

Nice of you to visit on this night, Creative. May the season yield a wealth of joy for you as well.

I will have to concede to your description of maturity, through experience. But I do so, only because, I think I lack the ability to comprehend the idea you present. Not because it is, necessarily faulty, but becasue I, personally, have never experienced maturity as you speak of it. This may be a fault of my 'personality', I'm not sure.

I have attempted to imagine an individual life, very secluded but very well balanced as far as the kind of teaching, training, logic, etc. that I have discussed. Then putting that person, in the midst of mainstream 'American' life, as an adult. Would they be 'mature' accourding to your description? I would have to say no - but that maturity has little to do with logic and ethics and everything to do with 'expectations'.

In other words, this person would be much like my son at college. With no 'real' experience with which to gage others reaction, this person might well be at a loss of how to interact and be 'socially' accepted. But, logically, that reverts back to the 'acceptence' issue and not a maturity issue, UNLESS, of course, this is exactly what you mean.

Ok, so in all this, where are we going with it? I thought we were discussing the nature of ethics and how we, as a society, might develop a 'common' set of acceptibly and basically universally sound set of working ethics?

At least that was the questions I was relating to with my responces. Please set me the right path, before I destroy the intentions of this thread.

creativesoul,

Merry Christmas, my friend...from mine to yours, brother.

to your OP....


Ethics seem to move with generational moods to me.

Morality ebbs and flows with it too.

What was valued knowledge handed down from a well lived life doesn't have the meritorious quality it once had.

Raw info and tech is rampant today and wisdom and common sense and brotherhood of man is not even a secondary concern or value today in Western Culture, but relegated tertiary(sic...I'm tired) status.

At the family and local community level, that is.

The ruling classes always maintains family law and tradition....it's in the responsible management of inheritance that gives the credibility to the resolve to achieve excellence and maintain balance and autonomy.

That personal and familial leadership translates well into public life and service but is not generally enjoyed, nor recognizable to the disenfranchised and underpriveleged.

Avarice and greed are destroying the fabric of this nation and being modeled to the world as progress.

Deceit is the order of the day.


JMO

I think there are several issues here.

First, on the issue of maturity having to do with learning from our own ‘experiences’ I would argue that my earlier mention of andragogy versus pedagogy actually addresses this very issue. The methods of andragogy that I support embrace more hands-on and actually experience as a much larger part of the learning process thereby providing the students with this practical ‘experience’ that you are referring to. In fact this is my biggest complaint about the current pedagogical methods, they don’t give the student enough actual ‘experience’.

I’ll give you a prime example,… I once taught a computer curriculum at college level. The program began with a really boring class on the history of computers. A course the that seriously wasted the student’s time. Then I had to teach them how to use spreadsheets, data bases and word processors. Again, the actual curriculum that I was required to follow was boring and quite unenlightening. It wasn’t until the second year that the students were introduced to three different high-level computer programming languages, C, Java, and Visual Basic. Because of the need to squeeze these all in, there wasn’t much time to do much of anything with any one of them. We also covered HTML and web services only briefly enough to confuse the hell out of the students. By the time the students left they were armed with enough information to be dangerous and not enough information to actually be able to do anything practical with it.

Had I been in charge of that entire curriculum I would have had the students starting out using word processors, spreadsheets and Visual Basic programming. But in a very unconventional way.

I would have had them keep all of their class notes on word processors and they would be required to turn in their notes for grading. And the grading wouldn’t have been a one-shot deal. They would need to continually improve the same notes (learn editing and presentations techniques). That single project would have been a thread that ran through their entire educational experience. By the time they were done with the program they would have been expert in the use of word processors simply because of how they would have had to keep suing them to improve their own notes to the next level of professionalism.

Their notes would have been about the other subjects that they were learning, so they would be getting double indemnity whilst learning to use a word processor. Their use of the spreadsheets would have been a similar deal and I would have had them importing spreadsheets into their word processing as well. Again, everything being tied together in their main GOAL of producing a professional account of their own learning experience.

Not only would I have taught them about word processing and spreadsheets but I would have mentored them in ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS!!!! This is something that they never even remotely got from the actual program as it was set up by the college. They missed out on that learning experience altogether.

Finally, all this note keeping would have been focused on their experience of writing programs in Visual Basic which would have been the real focal point of my efforts. After showing them the fundamentals of programming with various practical and useful examples I would require that they write a program of their own desire. And documenting it both in the code as well as in their word processor (like as if they are writing a USER MANUAL for it!)

By the time my students graduated they would be EXPERIENCED PROGRAMMERS and not just a bunch of inexperienced students armed with a bunch of information they don’t know how to apply.

Ok, I told you this is a touchy topic for me.

The other thing I wanted to mention was what Dianna had mentioned about her son questioning her rules etc,… By GIVING someone the respect of being a mature person, and explaining things to them you instill a sense of maturity within them. Treating them like they are immature will do precisely the opposite.

So maturity can indeed come down to how a person feels about themselves. If they feel mature they tend to reflect that feeling. If they feel that they are being treated as an immature person they will reflect that as well.

In my example of how I would have changed the curriculum of a computer course, my students would have felt more respected and more mature, thus they would have reflected that in their disposition (i.e. they would have acted with more maturity). If a person feels more mature they act on how they feel.

I did my best to try to instill a feeling of maturity in my students despite the college’s curriculum policies, but it was difficult because, as I say, through the entire first semester my hands were tied. The students were chomping at the bit wanting to dig into something and the way the course was designed they had to bide their time. It really caused them to feel disrespected and immature.

If you talk down to brilliant minds they are going to know it. The college administration did this with their students on a continuous basis. Treat someone with no respect and they will act like they have no respect.

I think a feeling of being respected and a feeling of being mature go hand-in-hand.

They say that it’s hard to sour like an Eagle when you work with turkeys and this is true. If you are not treated with maturity you aren’t going to feel very mature.

In fact, despite the college’s policies I was able to assign some of my own curriculum assignment. When I did this, I would tell the students that they are professionals, and I’m going to treat them as such. And I would, I would treat them like business associates rather than students. And in doing so the students would sit up straighter in their chairs, and adjust their posture in ways that clearly showed that they “got it”.

Nothing works better to instill a feeling of maturity in someone than to give them the respect of being mature.

...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
—Matthew 5:23-24, NIV

To the modern Christian, this passage conjures up an image of a person rising from the congregation, walking to the front of the church, and laying a large check on the Communion table. However, while that picture certainly embodies the spirit of the situation, its details are wrong. At the time that Jesus said these words, there were no churches, there were no Communion tables, and there were no checking accounts. At that time, the Temple still stood, and the Jewish sacrifices were going on. The picture we should have in mind when we read this passage is of a Jew bringing (say) pigeons to the Temple, as in Luke 2:21-24, where Mary and Joseph are depicted as offering a sacrifice at the Temple upon the occasion of Jesus’ birth.

Whichever picture we may have in mind when we read this passage, we can be certain that Jesus was not concerned with pigeons or bank drafts. He was concerned with the relationship between ethics and spirituality. We see here an embodiment of a principle revealed by prophets of old:

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of the rams.
—1 Samuel 15:22, NIV

We cannot conclude that Jesus was banning all religious observances because then the passage from Matthew would read:

...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, forget about your gift and be reconciled to your brother. That is the gift that God wants.

Instead, Jesus says that the process of giving the ritual gift should be interrupted, not superseded, by the act of reconciliation. Therefore if we attain ethical superiority, we are not exempt from attending church, taking Communion, or any other duties which we may label “ritual” when we find them inconvenient.

We also cannot conclude that Jesus was revealing that the entire purpose of spirituality is to produce ethical behavior, because then the passage from Matthew would have read:

If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, you have eyes to see the altar, and ears to hear the commandment, but you do not discern the purpose of God in them. Forget about the gift and the altar! Go and be reconciled to your brother and realize that gifts and altars are just training wheels.

Jesus is teaching us about two aspects of our lives, our ethical behavior towards each other, and our spiritual relationship with God. These are two separate things, in that we cannot exempt ourselves from religious obligations on the grounds that we are ethical towards others, nor can we exempt ourselves from ethics because we have religious duties. Ethics and spirituality are separate but they are interrelated. Ethics forms a lower layer that stands between us and spirituality. A religious person is a hypocrite if he fails to love his neighbor as himself, in deed as well as in slogan.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble.
—1 John 1:9-10, NIV

Note that John does not say, “whoever loves his brother lives in the light and has attained perfect fellowship with God,” rather he says, “there is nothing in him to make him stumble.” Thus we see that the ethical person who loves his neighbor as himself has a clear path to God, but has not necessarily traveled it yet.

So what are we to conclude?

If we rely upon Jesus to save us—that is to say, if we are saved by our faith in Him—then our first concern in life is to keep that relationship in good order; that is, we should be concerned to stay on good terms with Him through obedience to His commands and through good stewardship of His trust. Jesus teaches us in this passage that our ethical behavior towards each other can cloud our relationship with Him. Our ethical behavior must be in order before our religious behavior is considered acceptable. We are exempt from neither; we must do both.

Therefore, all of us who truly trust Him will strive in every way to behave responsibly towards other people. Sometimes dealing with other people properly may result in messing up our fancy clothes or even in personal danger, but if we truly trust Jesus, we won’t have to worry about such things. If we can’t trust Jesus to look out for us in this world, how can we say without hypocrisy that we trust Him to look out for us in the world to come?

Suppose you dropped your mother’s birthday present into the mud. Wouldn’t you have it cleaned before giving it to her? Then shouldn’t you, through the help and power of the Holy Spirit, clean up your life as you continually present it as a living sacrifice to the one almighty and eternal God?


Now there is more then just taking what the Bible teaches and applying it to everyday life. I also feel that the PARENTS and only parents play a big part in their children growing up with ethics and values to then again pass on to their kids. If you bring up a child to believe in him/herself and that the basic treat others as you would expect to be treated is big in their development. From the time they are very young they are taught to share, to be kind, to help anyone that they can no matter what age they are. When they grow up with the basics this gives them a great foundation for treating people in general. I know for my kids....they don't and wont ever see color, they want to learn and experience all their friends culture. If any of their friends are in trouble or hurting they are the first to step in and try and help. They also never have an issue with friendships as they are friends with everyone and even if they don't like someone which of course is life....they are never mean or hurtful.

So you take all the above and you end up with kids who are very well rounded and will grow up to be leaders of this fine country no followers....