Moral Ethics

I found another fine post by our bloggy friend, Medjhiesco.  His place is called Story Time.  Enjoy…

Or Ethical Morality. It has always bothered me that these things, taken separately or together (though I have a difficult time doing so) have been the bailiwick of organizations and schools of thought, which claim, divine prominence. At least here in the Western world. Why must these things come from outside, dictated by external authority? I know the Church has spent centuries building the case for this and ramming it down the throats of society with many claims of hellfire and damnation. It doesn’t say much for

humanity that they have accepted this without one shred of proof. Not to mention many exhibitions of proof to the contrary. It has been my observation that when something is true, it finds its way into our reality whether we humans want to accept it or not. Nor does it matter to the truth if mankind believes it or not. Nor does the irony of it escape me.

An example of this is the present move to ban gay marriage contracts. I can understand why the religious organizations might find ways of taking offense so if they want to keep their dogma from blessing, sanctifying or whatever these unions, that is their right. But the last time I checked we had a nation where Church and State are separate. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. The legal process of entering into a contract is one of the core building blocks of democracy. Not that long ago other types of people were prevented from doing this and these egregious wrongs have slowly but surely been corrected. Women can now participate, as can blacks, Hispanics, Asians. It wasn’t that long ago that society felt it immoral for people of different races to intermarry. This whole magilla is just more of the same blind prejudice. It is evidence that morality and ethics are not divinely inspired and enforced. Just as it is evidence that people are so very selective about what they believe to be God’s will. If they were truly interested in the moral fiber of this country they would be more concerned about the fact that about half of all marriages end in divorce (What God has joined, let no man sunder) than the idea of a tiny number of people wanting to exercise their civil rights by making a contract between them that allows tax breaks, rights of certain legal powers (next of kin) and trying to provide a stable home atmosphere.

This happens when responsibility for either morals or ethics is not personal. It opens the door for such silliness as; everyone else is doing it or if I want to be accepted by (insert whatever group you want) I have to subscribe to their tenets. It is compounded when the sources of these morals and ethics have split in so many ways that it is impossible to find much continuity in the original concepts. Sort of like being a Democrat. There is no source so people make it up as they go along, picking and choosing from the limited and ambiguous guidelines to make things work for them. Usually in the short term. And the groups that are supposed to have the true skinny either change their tune to pander to the childish needs of the moment or fall back on the inflexible dogma that made the mess possible in the first place. This what happens when people abdicate their personal responsibilities. Christianity made this particular bed and it is slowly coming around that it is a most uncomfortable and useless one.

Part of the problem today is communication. As the song said…”Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.” It has only been in the last century that information of all sorts was made available for mass consumption. And only in the past decade or so that it has surpassed human capability to process. Prior to the printing press, people had to depend on their local padre to tell them what was in the Bible. This kept a nice captive audience. For local news it was minstrels and merchants who traveled and dispersed news that didn’t come through the Church. A very slow process and easily contained and controlled. That the bulk of humanity in Europe was illiterate helped as well. Don’t worry, chilluns, we will tell you everything you need to know. Which isn’t much.

So enter the printing press. And Martin Luther. Now Martin was not the first to try and reform the Church. He was just luckier because he came along just after Gutenberg came up with the printing press. With information beginning to flow people were exposed to more ideas and the novel concept of thinking began to show its ugly head among the masses. It was the beginning of the end for the nice closed system the Church had built, an end that is finally coming to fruition now 500 years later. The main difficulty today is that nothing has risen to replace the old way, which is why we have this void of morality and ethics today. Organized religion is still fighting to retain old patterns that can never work in this modern age rather than searching for ways to make it grow. They are battling to keep Christianity a child when it is time for it to become an adult. Instead of embracing all of the writings of the early Christian era, they insist it isn’t needed. They don’t see that something has to not only be allowed to grow, it must be nurtured and encouraged to do so. Maybe mankind in the 5th century wasn’t ready for more of the information.

Keep reading…

Beyond CNBC v. Jon Stewart

As we watch the amusing back and forth between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, as you an see here and here, there is a bigger point to be made.  Is Cramer a criminal?

Julie Satow at Huffington Post has exposed Jim Kramer admitting to this questionable behavior.

In light of the current economic crisis, and with the hullabaloo ignited recently by Jon Stewart over the accuracy of CNBC’s reporting, we thought it might be useful to revisit this shocking 2006 interview Jim Cramer gave to TheStreet.com’s Aaron Task.

In it, the host of Mad Money says he regularly manipulated the market when he ran his hedge fund. He calls it “a fun game, and it’s a lucrative game.” He suggests all hedge fund managers do the same. “No one else in the world would ever admit that, but I could care. I am not going to say it on TV,” he quips in the video.

He also calls Wall Street Journal reporters “bozos” and says behaving illegally is okay because the SEC doesn’t understand it anyway.

On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls “fomenting”): “You can’t foment. That’s a violation… But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn’t understand it.” He adds, “When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment.”

Why is Cramer not being investigated by the SEC, that group which just “doesn’t understand” the gaming Cramer did?  And what type of ethics does this demonstrate this man has? (I would say none.)  This is stealing from the masses to give to the rich…the anti-Robin Hood.  Robin Hoodwinked is more like it.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook