Tag Archives: ethics

IS THERE A NON VIOLENT SOLUTION TO A CORRUPT COLLUDING ESTABLISHMENT LEADERSHIP?

It is tragic when money becomes the primary motivation and morality takes a back seat in an anything goes power struggle for dominance.

Top universities accept bribes or donations which predominate in many enrollment decisions and phony enhanced resumes are made for a fee by shady enterprises and then submitted by the children of wealthy parents to top universities.

A financially failing establishment media resorts to tabloid sensationalism to try and enhance their ratings and hopefully boost their bottom line.

The leadership of the deep state colludes with the media and justice department in a more than two year drawn out systematic investigation of Russian collusion by the president only to find out after spending millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money that there was no Russian collusion. During those more than two years it was trial by public media without any real evidence but a stated certitude of guilt by association and circumstantial dubious so called evidence.

Celebrities joined the media in the BS fest with profanities, ridicule, insults, put downs, name calling, humiliations, and merciless criticism. Promiscuity and female abuse and exploitation was and probably still is quite rampant and acceptable in the entertainment business.

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party has any charismatic and morally sound candidates either in office or running for office. Since the establishment media is on a steep decline it is debatable whether any candidate will be able to work their way up to enough name recognition to challenge Trump with a somewhat notorious nationwide celebrity name recognition.

Big money tech firms and international and national corporations are showing an ideological left wing bias which is further evidence of international globalist collusion with monetary world domination as a goal.

There was and perhaps always has been a politicization of the Supreme Court and recently there are overt attempts at making ideology dominant over constitutional principles.

Opioid and drug abuse is killing more young adults than car accidents, ruining many lives, and marijuana stocks are the new business money craze.

No serious legislative attempts are made to solve illegal border crossings and fundamentally Congress is deadlocked and thus dysfunctional. Can cheap labor and future Democrats be the reason for the Congressional deadlock which goes back about 30 years?

I could go on and on bitching about the sorry state of affairs the United States is in and unfortunately the only solution is more transparency or public internet knowledge of governmental functions, government workers, and special interests which are humans, institutions, businesses, and foreign nations lobbying Congress and their relatives with sweetheart deals.

I left out the most important long duration solution to corruption and that is a fundamentally moral public. A secular moral code should be taught to all impressionable young elementary students so that they know what is right and what is wrong by the age of about 13 so they can be considered to be moral adults.

Knowing what is right or wrong, moral or immoral is a fundamental necessity for humans since the dawn of human cultural history and ethical or moral relativity is just not a good foundation for impulsively judging humans who comprise the vast majority of any national population. By the age of about 13 children should IMPULSIVELY know what is right or wrong from a moral and if you prefer an ethical viewpoint.

Believing in a secular moral or ethical code is a form of self government over one’s behaviors in society because forced morality from above is impossible to enforce if the public does not believe in it and has not been indoctrinated from early childhood. What is that secular moral code? I have offered my suggestion for one in my blog and book titled Secular Moral Code.

If interested the secular moral code is- in nonemergency situations-don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder.

Religion is on the decline worldwide and has been the major repository of morality or advice on how to live peacefully with your fellow humans. Take away religion and a moral indoctrination and you have chaotic dysfunctional behavior in humans. Religious morality has some drawbacks because of all the mythology which is no longer believable in the modern world. But religious morality absolutely must be replaced with a secular morality which most can agree with and form a necessary consensus of opinion.

Join me in trying to make a secular morality popular among the movers and shakers of this world. More realistically try practicing this morality in your own and children’s lives. Of course you will need details so start searching my encyclopedic blog by keyword and if you are not interested in morality questions and answers then pick topics like parenting, relationships, marriage, dating, love, integrity, trustworthiness, honesty, truth, etc. Happy hunting!

MORAL DILEMMAS WITH PARTIAL, TOTAL, OR NO SOLUTIONS!!!

There is a lifeboat which can only hold 7 humans without sinking and there are 30 humans to be saved. What would you do? It all depends on who is being saved and under what circumstances.

If the water was ice cold and I was the captain with authority then I would save the children first followed by the youngest women and then the youngest men and seven lives would be saved.

If the water was warm children and young women would have the first priority but I would make them undress and tie a dress, shirt or pants together to form a rope. There would only be about 5 in the lifeboat holding on to the clothes rope permitting another 10 to be saved by holding on to the clothes rope outside the lifeboat. 15 lives would be saved.

Theoretically if all thirty undressed and made at least 15 ropes long enough to tie to the boat then all thirty could survive by being in the water with no one on board with 2 holding on to each clothes rope. So theoretically all 30 could be saved as long as they did not tire of holding on to the rope.

Yes, to solve the problem you have to know Archimedes principle of buoyancy and a little ingenuity with a clothes rope.

It is World War II and you are in a concentration camp and the guard says choose which of your two children will get gassed. If you don’t choose one then both your children will get gassed.

This is a very cruel and serious terminal situation and chances are great that all three of you will die eventually so it really doesn’t matter what you do or say but you could perhaps try to reason with the ruthless guard and offer him something that he may like.

If you are a female then you could say if you don’t gas either child then I will have sex with you. If you are a male then you could say I will suck your dick and give you a massage three times a day if you don’t gas my children. Trying to change the subject or an offer of sex or some humor could remotely get you out of the dilemma for a while. This topic is cruel and unusual with no realistically good choice or solution in real life.

Just like most fantasized highly improbable moral dilemmas, the third and last moral dilemma is really a highly improbable one with a realistically zero probability of happening or maybe a one in a trillion chance of happening. There are two of you stranded on an island and both terminally ill with an antibiotic which can save only one life. What would you do?

I would probably split the antibiotic in half and give one to myself and the other half to the other party. However, let’s be realistic. How do you know that you are both terminally ill with something without a diagnosis from a doctor? How do you know that the antibiotic will cure just one of you without a doctor’s advice? If you are stranded on an island then you will probably both die of starvation sooner or later. So in conclusion I don’t think this is really a realistic moral choice at all.

If there truly was a realistic moral choice the question really is- would you save yourself or a buddy or perhaps a stranger? I would probably save myself first unless it was my child or wife who would have first priority.

Conclusion:

I have read many other moral dilemmas which are frankly so hypothetical and improbable that they are not worth considering because it is the realm of improbable fantasy.

One more final example of a supposed moral dilemma.

You are a judge who is going to sentence a criminal for murder. Suddenly you find out that your children have been kidnapped and the kidnappers threaten to kill your children if you find the murderer guilty. What would you do?

Well I would call the FBI to capture the kidnappers if possible and delay the sentence for another time until the kidnappers were apprehended. This example is not a moral dilemma but rather a question of legal criminal procedures or extortion.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4600 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

7 ETHICAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED ABOUT HUMANITY AND OTHER LIFEFORMS!!!

Should animals other than humans be given rights?

For the survival of future generations and a healthy environment it might be wise not to reduce the size of wilderness and it is smart to even expand it. Wilderness may become a life saving healthy source of food when technology irresponsibly destroys the health of domesticated animals and plants used as a food source.

Factory farming of domesticated animals should probably be outlawed as cruel and unusual punishment for animals because it causes pain and suffering which is not advisable to introduce into the food chain. Factory farming is unhealthy in the long run because disease and genetically unfavorable mutations are introduced needing antibiotics and other artificial chemicals to maintain health. All these disadvantages are passed on to the humans and pets consuming the food which can be disastrous for overall health in the long duration.

Should we edit our children’s genomes?

If a fetus has a debilitating disease such as Down’s syndrome an abortion of the fetus is the best and most efficient response which prevents the unnecessary burden on the family and society if the parents can’t afford the cost of maintaining an undesirable mutant.

Enhancing a child’s ability with genes that improve memory or intelligence in general, improve the health of the child, and improve physical coordination or looks in general should be conditionally permitted. Since the long duration potential bad effects of gene manipulation are unknown it may be wise for the prospective parents to have to set up an escrow account of a million dollars or more in case the gene alteration results in mental or physical handicaps later in life. Society should not be burdened with genetic mutants which can potentially need monetary support from society if the parents can’t afford to fully pay for the genetic mistakes which they choose unwittingly.

Should we make everyone “normal”?

Chemicals in pill form and genetic alteration can make someone less aggressive, more empathetic, and less dominant and more forgiving.

Pills are already given to aggressive violent criminals in jail and many psychoactive pills prescribed by psychotherapists also make someone less aggressive and more docile. The real question is whether the government should force everyone to medicate themselves so that they are not so aggressive. If done this could result in a docile society unable to rebel against an unjust government and tyranny would become almost absolute on into the foreseeable future.

If individual parents make a choice to have genetically more docile empathetic children then if they can afford it they should be given the right to do so. Eugenics carried out to an extreme by the government was a disaster in Nazi Germany so I don’t think it is a good idea to make offspring more docile or more superior with a government mandate for all.

I don’t like the equality mindset of “normal” to begin with because it stirs up visions of cloned normal humans all looking alike and behaving the same. One of the great strengths of humans is that there is so much genetic diversity which makes humans less vulnerable to total destruction by contagious terminal diseases and makes life interesting with varied looks, varied personalities, and varied abilities in humans. The world would be a very boring place if everyone in the world was “normal”, whatever that really means.

Should we abandon privacy online?

In an age when international drug dealers and criminals frequent the internet it is logical to police the internet for these illegal fraud and scam artists to the maximum. If that means losing your personal internet privacy is the cost then so be it. If you are afraid that your posted illegal drug habits, alcoholism problems, promiscuity, profanity, immorality, thievery, verbal abuse, health problems, etc. will cause future employment problems or insurance rate increases then it will be a just punishment for your transgressions.

If you are leading an illegal life then you should be smart enough not to post your activities on the internet in the first place. I sort of foresee a time when every law abiding citizen will be vetted before they have internet rights in the first place. There is far too much fake information and fake news on the internet today which needs a remedy soon or the internet will become pure insecure chaos.

If you are rich and in positions of authority then you will have or can afford a relatively secure encryption to communicate relatively sensitive corporate and personal information which will not be as vulnerable to criminal observation or theft. For the common human, let’s face it, there is no information which they possess which will be a violation of national security so what they post is their responsibility and they should post responsibly.

Will this make you vulnerable to ruthless advertising ad intrusions into your life? Probably yes, but with time there will be web services which will minimize your exposure to ruthless ads from retailers and other service providers.

If you want to keep secrets then don’t post them on the internet in the first place!

Should we give robots the right to kill?

If you phrase this question into should robots be given the right to kill, maim, or incapacitate humans then the question is really what kind of humans and under what conditions? It is entirely possible that robots could replace swat teams to some extent and non lethally maim or incapacitate all the armed criminal gang members in a hideout.

Where there is a question of kidnappers holding innocent hostages but the identity of the kidnappers is known a robot may be used to save as many hostages as possible and maim or incapacitate the armed kidnappers, preferably with non lethal means.

Robot soldiers going after known terrorists or armed enemy military humans in a secluded jungle or well protected areas is also a valid possibility.

Yes, there is also the possibility of armed police officer robots chasing and apprehending fleeing criminals in a non lethal way. As long as these police officers were not given lethal arms then I would be in favor of it.

Finally robots could be used to kill or harvest invasive animal and plant species in the wilderness with surgical accuracy and probably more efficiently than human hunters and harvesters.

Yes, intelligent robots could be programmed to confront most armed criminals and enemy military soldiers but not in all situations and the right to actually kill but not maim or incapacitate a human should be postponed to very far into the future when robots will be considered to be intelligent and moral enough.

Should we let synthetic lifeforms loose?

It is now possible to genetically engineer microbes and animals and the question is should these new forms be let into the wild or environment? With microbes you could probably say that genetically engineering deadly or contagious strains like e coli bacteria, etc. could have devastating eventual effects on human populations if they were to be released into the environment. Even genetically modified fish released into the oceans could have bad serious long duration impacts such as mass displacement or destruction of natural species.

Genetically modified corn or GMO’s have already polluted organic farmlands and the wilderness could similarly be polluted with other GMO plant life displacing indigenous populations.

Human long duration health is the primary issue and if microbe, animal, or plant life can potentially harm human health then synthetic lifeforms are a serious danger and steps should be taken to ensure that they are not released into the environment.

As a general precaution all genetically modified food for human or domesticated animal consumption should be labeled as such so humans have a right to choose between an organic version and a genetically modified one. I doubt that the US has the wisdom or balls to pass such legislation due to big agribusiness political clout but it is a vital step to ensure the long duration health of the human population worldwide.

Should there be population control?

Western promiscuity, robotization, income inequality, and a relatively easy life are ensuring the destruction of family life and severe reduction in the population. Poverty in third world countries is controlling population to some extent but perhaps birth control measures should be propagandized more and serious attempts at world population control should be made.

The earth has finite resources which pollute the more that they are utilized, so human population growth should definitely be curtailed and any reduction in human population anywhere is a good thing for the planet in the long duration.

Conclusion:

Genetic manipulation is a strong scientific tool to use for good or bad purposes. Theoretically whatever can be used for good can also be used for bad purposes so the future will be plagued with bad uses also. In the long duration, most of humanity will probably survive the bad effects but the environment could potentially be very adversely affected.

If humanity does not survive in the long duration then it may not be such a bad thing because the other remaining lifeforms on earth will be liberated from human intrusion and pollution. Nature is a deceptive and ruthless predator and if humans go too far in their genetic manipulation and pollution they will be punished with death in one form or another.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4600 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

17 IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED!!!

Does free will exist?

 

Most of us are free to set short and long duration goals for ourselves and try to achieve them to the best of our ability. We make choices on a daily basis and proceed to follow through with actions. So it seems that we are free to lead the life that we choose or have free will.

Unfortunately we have physical and moral boundaries to the choices that we make in life and we have been brought up with certain opinions and beliefs which limit the free choices which we make. We are a product of our environment which also shapes our approach to life so free will is not that free after all. We are “programmed” throughout life which affects the choices which we make impulsively and otherwise.

We usually are not free to rape, pillage, and murder so we choose alternate lifestyles that are socially acceptable. You could say that we have free will to choose to do things but that the things that we choose to do have limits or boundaries to them both mental and physical.

You have the free will to become a serial killer or mass shooter if you chose but the probability that you will actually do so if you are mentally healthy is miniscule or almost zero.

 

What is the meaning of life and how does it differ from animals?

 

For animals it is survival of the fittest and reproduction or survival for those who can best adapt to environmental circumstances and for those who can reproduce. For humans those who best adapt to environmental and social circumstances usually reproduce and their genes survive into future generations.

You could say that eating, drinking, sleeping, setting goals, achieving goals, and conservatively reproducing along the way is the meaning of life. I say conservatively reproduce because overpopulation if not reduced can mean the end of humanity as we know it.

Yes, you can further elaborate and include sacrifice, smart hard work, a useful education, a moral personality, integrity, love, creativity, etc. in your description of human characteristics and activities which give meaning to life in greater detail. So  the meaning of life can be simply or generally summarized by describing what humans think and do in the world. What you think and do is the personal meaning of your life no matter how shitty or tragic it may sometimes seem or be.

 

What should be the goal of humanity?

 

You can describe many goals of humanity but probably the main goal of humanity is to survive maybe even beyond the death of the sun and survive with the conservation and even expansion of the wilderness with its plant and animal abundance. It is my belief that humanity will perish or become extinct much sooner if it destroys or poisons the environment and that includes wilderness and wildlife.

 

Will religion ever become obsolete?

 

Historically religion has been used to tame the human aggressive beast into a moral human who can relatively peacefully interact with members of his or her own tribe. Science is also a kind of religion or belief system which is a powerful tool to use in solving and often creating new problems. Science will never prove experimentally the need of morality for humans but it can be useful in pointing out the exceptions to any absolutist moral code or morality.

Morality will never become obsolete but it should be transformed into a modern secular moral code such as- in nonemergency situations- don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder. This secular morality has worldwide application and if accepted as a standard worldwide it could facilitate more peaceful interactions amongst nations.

Religion someday may be close to obsolescence but some sort of morality or ethical principles will continue to exist as long as humans populate the earth.

 

Is suffering a necessary part of the human condition?

 

Suffering is really a punishment for doing something wrong or having the wrong beliefs and opinions. Suffering can vary from culture to culture but it is punishment for living an unhealthy, uneducated, financially irresponsible, disobedient, and irresponsible life in general. Break the rules of society and you usually suffer or get punished for breaking the rules in some way.

Destroy or poison the environment and you will also suffer or get punished with bad health and even death.

Yes, suffering for many is inevitable as a fact of living in a changing society always trying to avoid chaos in a relatively chaos prone world. A world where the new generation always challenges the old generations ways of thinking and doing.

 

Is it more important to help yourself, help your family, help your society, or help the world?

 

All four are important but of primary importance is yourself because only when you land a good paying job or start a successful business can you hope to support a family and contribute money towards social causes and world causes such as wilderness protection or even expansion.

Of course you can also set aside time to participate in social organizations promoting certain causes which may at minimum only be a political party. So help yourself first and then you can better help a family, society, and the world.

 

Can you become anything which you want to become?

 

Yes, you can set rather mighty goals in your life but we are all born unequal with different looks, abilities, and social and financial status. While the handicaps of average looks and low social and financial status can sometimes be overcome with a lot of smart hard work your average mental and physical abilities may handicap you if you are hoping to become exceptional in complex professions or high leadership positions.

It often requires an exceptional memory or superb physical strength or coordination to reach the top and excel in science, politics, and national and international sports. You will often become a frustrated, disappointed, and miserable human if you aim too high and your natural abilities are just not good enough to reach your lofty goal(s). So unless you are gifted at birth, you often can’t become what you want to become in life, especially if your goals exceed your natural ability.

How good your genes are often determines what your optimal potential is in life. Yes, you can have good genes and waste away opportunities by being lazy and not learning much of significance. There is a saying that talent without working smart and hard is wasted.

 

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

 

Yes, human power not limited by morality and just laws is impulsive, coercive, destructive, corrupt behavior. Historically caesers, emperors, pharaohs, and tyrants with absolute power became very corrupt, especially if they were corrupt to begin with. Yes, there were some great leaders in history but most of them were relatively moral and lawful with their own flock and imposed relatively just laws on those that they conquered or expected tribute of some kind from the conquered.

In an age of powerful monopolies and monied international big banks, international big corporations, big international organizations, and big government,  the temptation to be corrupt is great.

 

What would you genetically change about humans to make them a better species?

 

Healthier humans free of most debilitating diseases, humans with more efficient brains or better memory and processing ability, and finally and least important, better looking humans which is a very subjective choice.

Some may feel that making humans less genetically aggressive or violent and making them more compassionate or empathetic is the way human genetics should be modified. All that I think this would do is make a nation of obedient sheep with the more aggressive ones at the top anyway.

Still others feel that humans should be made genetically less emotional but I think this can best be done with a logical language which has less emphasis on emotional words. An example of a more logical language is LOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY which I authored.

Since humans remember intense emotional experiences longer than other experiences I think that reducing emotions genetically will adversely affect human memory so I am not for reducing human emotions genetically.

 

What should you know about yourself?

 

You should realize how good – your memory is, your coordination skills, your conversation skills, your math and verbal skills, and your social skills or emotional intelligence? Those are the keys to knowing thyself rather well.

You can improve your coordination skills by learning to use tools and participating in sports, you can improve your conversation and social skills by interacting more with others, especially those with diverse backgrounds, and you can improve your math and verbal skills with practice and reading.

You can slightly improve your memory with word association skills or mnemonics which will make it easier to remember certain things. What you probably can’t improve much is your brain efficiency or how fast you think and how much you remember over a long period of time.

There is truth to the saying that practice makes perfect. Keep in mind or realize that if you are practicing a new complex skill 5 or 10 times more than someone else your age practicing a new complex skill then chances are that you will probably not excel in that complex skill at the highest levels. Yes, you will acquire many complex skills with practice but you will probably never reach celebrity status or world renown in that complex skill.

Your parents are a fairly good example of the skills which you may excel in if there are any at a high level. Whatever the situation do the best that you can at any skill but realize that you may just be handicapped, average, or above average in most skills and not exceptional. Choose your life’s profession accordingly so you don’t suffer from premature burnout or trying to do the impossible. Choose your role models and professions wisely so that they better fit your natural or inborn abilities.

 

Was the universe created or has it always been around and always will be?

 

The problem with a creator is that you can always ask who created the creator and nobody knows the answer to this question. You can also ask what created the universe and try to answer infinite energy located at a point in space but this still doesn’t answer what existed before the infinite energy creation.

I like to think of the universe as something which always has existed and always will exist. Sure, galaxies, suns, and planets are created and then die or are reformed into other galaxies, suns, and planets but the universe in its entirety still exists on into an infinity of time and through an infinity of space.

 

Will humans ever know everything there is to know?

 

Probably not because we still have not invented accurate tools to explain the very very small and the very very big. Both extremes are still a mystery and probably will be until humans and machines evolve with greater sensing ability. Our best tools so far are light or electromagnetic radiation and gravity which we still don’t entirely understand.

 

How do we perceive reality?

 

Our senses and scientific instruments perceive reality which is spread from human to human through words and mathematics. Most thinking is done verbally, visually, and with audio.

Yes, thinking can be delusional and based on false opinions, false beliefs, and fictitious concepts or fiction and fantasy but perception of the reality is mostly through our senses such as eyes, ears, smell, touch, etc.

 

Is philosophy dead or has morality or ethics and science replaced it?

 

Science is an experimentally proven philosophy of words, mathematics, and facts about nature. The only real philosophical realm left to historical philosophy is morality or ethics. Morality and ethics can’t be proven mathematically so it is subject to some biased subjectivity which is a philosophical approach.

Morality or ethical principles vary from culture to culture and if you were to consider a modern universal secular morality applicable across most cultures then one would be- in nonemergency situations- don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder.

 

To what extent is government philosophical?

 

The ideal government should reward its moral law abiding citizens and punish the immoral or criminal humans or at least reduce criminality to tolerable levels. Government is the eternal struggle of its moral citizens against its immoral ones which unfortunately often includes the leadership or politicians.

 

What is the ideal government?

 

The reality besides a moral or philosophical question is to what extent should there be individual rights, minority rights, and collective or majority rights? Since an individual is the smallest minority how should the individual be protected against the oppressive tyranny of the majority and the government itself?

This is a governmental question with pure communism at one extreme and pure capitalism at the other extreme. My opinion is that there should be a bill of rights for the individual with mostly capitalism for the working class and socialism for the destitute and also unemployed. Call it Capsocialism if you want.

Yes, a governmental constitution of laws is necessary which often keeps evolving with time into more and more of a monopolistic and tyrannical structure from an original democratic republic of many relatively small economic units or businesses.

What an ideal government should also try to do is make sure is that humans have somewhat of an equal opportunity to succeed in society despite the fact that there will always be the very rich and the very poor at the other extreme. Since everyone is born unequal with differing natural abilities and looks, the ideal government should provide the possibility of advancement in the social structure and professions based mostly on merit rather than purely on ideology, nepotism or social status of parents.

What is the best protection against a tyrannical government? The right of every moral law abiding citizen to have guns or deadly weapons as part of a written constitution as well as free moral speech, right to assemble peacefully, and other legal defensive rights to avoid becoming the victim of oppressive acts by the government and immoral individuals and groups.

 

Should there be a limit on what science and technology can create?

 

Probably creating high frequency wireless cellphones and computers is not a smart thing to do because it can have bad effects on human health and brain health specifically. Altering human DNA is probably also not a smart thing to do because these resultant mutations might not be beneficial to human health in the long duration.

That is why we should be very careful with new science and technology creations because they can potentially have long duration bad effects on human, animal, and plant health and survival.

Artificial chemicals and drugs are already badly affecting human health and creating more toxic chemicals will just exacerbate the situation.

 

Finally, all philosophical answers with the exception of proven scientific facts are biased and subjective and there can be more than one answer which is deemed acceptable. If your philosophical answers are different then while free moral speech is still protected you have a right to your own opinion, belief, or answer. Best wishes. Peace!

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4500 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH ALL ETHICAL PHILOSOPHIES!!!

Ultimately all ethical philosophies run into the problem of quantitative versus qualitative results and the problem of majority rights and/or effects versus minority rights and/or effects.

Ethical considerations should optimize quality humans so they should also try to reproduce as many quality humans as possible so the next generation has quantitatively more quality humans.

Eugenics theory tried to advocate this but was perverted by the Nazi regime so the entire thinking in this area has been censored because there is too much subjectivism in eugenics concepts which are put into realistic practice politically.

DNA analysis and synthesis can make eugenics considerations more objective in the long duration so I feel that individual parents armed with this information can make personal choices on what kinds of offspring they want if any. Designer babies are a possibility in the long duration although I fear that looks or physical appearance will predominate in choices and not brain power and overall health.

Some ethical theories try to optimize beneficial results for the majority of humans with terms such as happiness, welfare, security, etc. The problem with these theories is that the minority gets oppressed or become slaves to the majority of humans and this is an unjust violation of individual or minority rights.

What we really need is a philosophy of moral principles which benefit both the individual and the majority in the short and long duration otherwise an unjust philosophy of the means justifies the ends results.

In nonemergency situations-don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t lie, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery if married, and don’t murder. This secular morality should be taught to all impressionable young minds in elementary school so that they don’t always have to stop and think- Is what I am doing right or wrong? Impulsively offspring will react with this moral foundation and be right most of the time and they should be considered to be moral adults by the age of about 13.

A very important moral principle is “don’t lie” which benefits the individual because he or she can retain integrity and be respected by others in society because he or she is trustworthy. The majority also benefits with this principle because it provides some security in knowing that there are others in society worth trusting. Hopefully the leadership will become less cynical and become more trustworthy too.

“Don’t commit adultery if married” is also very important for the survival of healthy family units which stay together for a much longer duration if there is no adultery going on. Individual family units benefit as does society with many close knit families in it for hopefully the long duration.

Don’t destroy biodiversity, don’t be inefficient, don’t steal, and don’t murder are also very important principles to try to follow for the benefit of the individual and society.

Realistically important government functions have to be financed so taxation which is really a form of stealing can be justified. In fact there are about 5 situations in society where stealing can be justified and you can look this up in my blog article or books.

The real philosophical question is not whether the government should be able to steal your money in the form of taxation but rather how much of it percentage wise should they be permitted to steal?

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 4300 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially EVERGREEN TRUTH, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA FOR SEARCH ENGINES!!!

Search-engines

All information is good and bad and in between or a mixture of bad and good information and what Google and other search engines are discovering is that information also has a reputation which can be good or bad or in between.

Criminal, terrorist, malware, immoral, extremely deviant, and untrue or false information is not desirable because it reflects directly on the reputation of the search engine. A search engine should ideally be a trusted source of information and if it is not trusted then its popularity will wane or be subject to legal prosecution.

How do you determine with an algorithm the trustworthiness of the information provided on the web? There is no algorithm which will determine this accurately and ultimately human mediators will be necessary to filter out the very bad information from the mostly good.

Reputable websites will have priority and this will usually mean a website which has been around for a while and has reputable contributors to it. This means that fly by night websites will not be permitted or will soon not appear in searches and humans with good reputations will be the ones whose web sites will appear if they are newly formed. Anonymous websites will begin to disappear from the web and be censored as well as anonymous writers or contributors.

Ultimately humans with good reputations will appear in searches along with their websites and there will be discrimination against those whose reputations are very bad. Humans and bots generate information and soon most information will be traced back to their human or bot generators as a form of protection from very bad information.

Total freedom of speech will no longer exist on the internet and the ultimate goal is to provide moral freedom of speech on the internet and reputable information on the internet.

There is also the danger of political censorship on the web so a legal procedure will have to be devised for regress of grievances if a website is unethically being censored for not being politically correct.

Total freedom of association will also be limited so that criminals, terrorists, and other very undesirable humans can’t freely communicate to promote their nefarious ends. Facebook and other social media will also be censored in favor of moral behavior within the world community.

Sure, criminals will always find ways around the censorship using reputable names or identities as fronts for their operations. This is why there will never be a perfect censorship of very bad information but it can greatly be reduced from the tsunami of crap deluging the internet today.

 

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 1400 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!

If you enjoyed this blog then here is a list of my most popular ones which you may also enjoy!!!

https://uldissprogis.com/zlist-of-my-most-popular-blogs/

common_sense (1)

THE TRUTH ABOUT CONSCIENCE***

conscience-1-728

Conscience: n. learned impulsive motivation to do right which is frequently gotten from ethical and/or moral principles which one believes in

A desirable developed largely impulsive conscience which includes morality and ethical principles helps us to interact peacefully and orderly with other humans.  There are humans such as criminals and psychopaths who seem to have no conscience at all or very little conscience. Even those humans with little conscience act impulsively based on what they have learned in their lives and make decisions on what is the right course of action for them personally and which is not always what most humans do. They have a conscience too although it is a very deviant one.

A thief who associates with other thieves may lie to and steal from others but not lie to or steal from his fellow thieves so there is still some vestige of morality present in that human’s impulsive behavior. Extremely selfish humans may lie, steal, and even murder for personal gain so their conscience is rather limited to what is personally right for them and not others.

Nothing is more potent in developing a good moral conscience than role models with good morally developed consciences. The sooner in life that you start developing a desirable moral conscience, the less it will become vulnerable to undesirable radical changes later on in life. If your parents don’t have desirable consciences then there is less probability that you will have a desirable one too.

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, about 900 so far, or read one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.

For a complete readily accessible list of blogs and titles go to twitter.com/uldissprogis.

Enjoy!!!!!!