Page #1
ETHICS &
MORALS
Where do I start? Usually the Golden Rule comes to mind. I had learned the rule in Sunday School as I am sure many of you did. Also, as a youth, I had read all of the New Testament and at least 95% of the old, but I could not remember reading the Golden Rule there. I will admit that my memory nor my comprehension are perfect.
Then about 25 years ago I made a deliberate search for it and found it in two of the gospels. It was not phrased the same as I had learned in Sunday School, but the meaning was the same. Today you can find it on the web in seconds. Also you can find that almost every religion has a very similar version of the Golden Rule.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, along with the negative version, [do_not unto others]; the Golden Rule works well as written in the great majority of cases. The ethical values of honesty and fairness, to do no harm seem to me to be very clear. Empathy [per- Wikipedia Empathy is the capacity to, through imagination rather than literally, share the sadness or happiness of another sentient being.]
In common expression, walking in another person's shoes, may be required for compassion especially if the other is in need. Also one should consider the possibility that the other may not wish to be treated the same as you would like, especially if he or she is from a different culture or religion. In all cases, one should also be respectful, thoughtful and understanding.
Morals are closely related to ethics; but they are more affected by a person's religion, culture, family and many other differences. Therefore morals are much more varied than ethics. I will not go further into morals here simply because that would be such a complex subject; and probably no one would agree with my assessment.
If we wish to live by the Golden Rule, we need to get to know our neighbors better, so that we will better know how they would like to be treated rather than just assuming that they would have the same desires as ourselves.
As for strangers that we meet on a hike or on the street or anywhere, a friendly greeting is usually welcome, sometimes very appreciated and occasionally, the beginning of a friendship. Until you know a little more about a new acquaintance, a bit of caution should be used in choosing a subject to talk about. Rarely can you tell what a person's beliefs are by looking at him or her. Weather and pets are almost always safe subjects, politics and religion should be delayed until you know a person a little better.
Page #2
Ethical Questions for Senators and Congresspersons
1.Is it ethical to accept campaign contributions from persons outside of your district or state? – My answer would be NO; if they are outside your district or state, you do not represent them. However I know that it is common practice to solicit contributions from others, there are solicitations in my e-mail quite frequently.
2.Is it ethical to accept contributions from corporations or lobbyist?
3.Is the Electoral College for the election of president fair? Again I say NO on at least two counts. First every small state has two Senators no matter how small the population. Then there are the so called battle ground states, with nearly, equally divided politics, they get the greater part of attention of presidential candidates. I can see only one fair solution to this problem. Popular vote. The Electoral College may have made some sense when the thirteen colonies first became the USA, and messages were sent at the speed of a horse.
4.Is it ethical for the Supreme Court to usurp the power of Congress?
Article I. Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article III part of Section 2
....In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I would very much like to hear your answers to these 4. questions.
1 2 and 3 could be yes or no or longer. I would like a sentence or two for #4.
Thanks for reading this..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are 9 SCOTUS politically appointed judges representative of the will of over 300 million citizens or their interpretation of the Constitution? I am inclined to say no. Even with senate sanction/approval this still leaves law subject to current political temporary power. Although mutable, law should be consistant with the will of the people (which caused the Constitution to be written in the first place) or the law will be rejected/ignored by the populace affected in toto. Just look at marijuana laws for a perfect example. Have financially/politically motivated marijuana/drug laws led to greater respect for the rule of law or less? Any informed thinking person would give a definite NO!
ReplyDeleteTwo suggestions:
1) Expand the court to 19 judges,
2) When a vacancy on the court appears have each state proffer a candidate. These are then thoroughly vetted & investigated by the DOJ Then the field is reduced to 3 candidates through a vote in the house. The top vote winner gets a straight up or down vote from the Senate.
The bottom line is presidents alone should not have sole authority over who is selected as candidates for the third branch of government.