Ethics. Can you define it?

For those of you who know, I'm currently back in school taking a General Communications class. There is a portion of our grade that is based upon team assignments; one of these assignments is a paper that involves the broad subject of business ethics and values. Now, for those who have undergone the mind blowing series of The Truth Project, we are told by RC Sproll that there has been a subtle shift in our linguistics when we define ethics and morality. He teaches his students that ethics used to be about the study of ethos, the transcendent universals that govern all men. The study of morality, from latin mores, was "how people behaved in a given society" (Sproll, 2008). To simplify, historically there was distinction between how we used philosophy to answer the question, "What are the ethical standards that apply to everyone?" Also, "What was considered right and wrong behavior for a specific culture or people group." Example, it is unethical for all societies to murder. However, one culture may advocate killing another human being in self-defense only, whereas, another culture may not permit violence in any way.

The subtle shift that Sproll is referring to is that the two words are no longer distinct and related, but synonymous. Much like the words sphere and ball may be interchangeable in most conversations, ethics and morality are treated similarly. I have found this to be true recently when I have reviewed the academic journals and works written on this subject. Along with other theologian commentators, he believes that this is due to the postmodernist movement of philosophy. In layman's terms, when you hear someone state something like "All religions are equal. It doesn't matter what you believe. All that matters is that you believe." This is a common example of postmodernism in our culture.

I'm not totally convinced right now of our Christian brother's point of view on this shift, at least not yet. All my independent research has left me frustrated because I have only uncovered evidence that points to ethics and morality as having the same interchangeable meaning. If there is a difference, it only comes from specified fields of ethics. For example, there are business ethics, medical ethics, law ethics, religious ethics, etc. The word ethics can be compartmentalized into specified professional fields, whereas, morality applies to the individual. However, both are still relative. Each people group has their own ethics that can be different and independent of another field, and each person has a moral compass independent of one another.

This is how it is defined today, and there is not much evidence pointing to the contrary in the secular world. I can see why theologians point to the infiltration of postmodernism in our culture. I think I would like to reserve my final conclusions on the matter until I have exposed myself to more of the historical development of ethics and morality. I would like to go all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps that would be a great start in this journey.

Even so, whether or not I discover Sproll and others are accurate about their teachings, I still have to analyze the concept of today's ethical and moral definitions in the light of philosophy. Philosophy is a science that goes after the big questions: Why are we here? Who is man? Is there a God? If there is, who is he? What is my purpose? What is truth? Ethics and morality are subcategories of philosophy. They use the words right and wrong, so I have to ask how does a postmodern definition of right and wrong (ethics/morality) work? It still boils down to the age old question of who determines right and wrong for a people group or a person.

The secularist would make a statement like, "It's not personal, it's just business" (Thanks Jer). But everyone knows that this is wrong. Essentially, this person is saying, "I am wearing the business hat right now, so please don't judge me personally." They are saying that according to my business ethic, I am going to conduct myself in a way that would make you cringe if I wore my personal ethic hat, but that should be acceptable. Wait a minute! We all know this is hogwash. You can't screw me in a business deal and expect that somehow we can still be friends personally. The real world does not work this way. If postmodernism were true, we could screw someone in business and then go out for a beer later that night as if it never happened. But it doesn't happen, because humans are not wired that way. It's not possible to live in a postmodern world. It's completely unrealistic.

On the foundation of applied philosophy, one would have to consider the modern definitions of ethics and morality unrealistic. I can conclude this based upon philosophy, but I would also like to know if the modern definition has been constant throughout history. I will keep you posted on this as I uncover more.

Epiphany's effect is especially expedient

Easter is over. Man, it feels a little sacrilegious to say that, so I suppose a little qualification is in order. Easter, the fluffy bunnified, pastel saturated, commercial candimnation...is over. We may now continue to live in the grace and freedom that is Christ. That is, of course, what we should have been doing everyday and need not a holiday to celebrate. This is my opinion, as Paul says, "every man should be convinced fully."

With all that justification and Christianese speak, the point of this blog is that I've had many epiphanies over the past few weeks that I would like to share. I will not share all of them for some are still mysterious to me, but others have helped me a great deal. I hope that I can be of the same assistance and pass down this wisdom to you.

Philosophy, when you follow it's epistemology is a joining of phileos and sophia. Phileos is greek for to love and sophia means wisdom. Hence, we understand philosophy as the love of wisdom, to which I call myself a philosopher. I am one who loves wisdom. Please ponder for a moment what it means to be a lover of wisdom. What does that person look like? If you are like me, when you first came across this concept, the question seemed on the surface very simple, yet when you processed this in your mind it seemed to elude you like a butterfly on a breezy afternoon.

In order to understand what a philosopher (lover of wisdom) is, one must first consider what is wisdom? It is true that wisdom relates to knowledge, as does intelligence, but one generally assumes that to be intelligent is to also be wise. This small misunderstanding, although innocent at first, must be made plain so that we may understand why it to be superior to become a philosopher rather than an intelligent person.

I like to use Noah Webster's 1828 Edition because it lacks a lot of the politically correct phrases and the definitions are not relative to the current public's sentiments. He defines wisdom as "The right use or exercise of knowledge...Wisdom in the first sense, or practical wisdom, is nearly synonymous with discretion. It differs somewhat from prudence, in this respect; prudence is the exercise of sound judgment in avoiding evils; wisdom is the exercise of sound judgment either in avoiding evils or attempting good."

Intelligence is defined in that same edition as synonymous with understanding. Intelligence is simply, the ability to comprehend knowledge or information. It is a passive skill, at least when compared to wisdom which goes further to the "right use of knowledge." One is passive, the other is active. One receives, the other gives. One is amoral, the other is moral. The first is good, the second is better.

What does all this talk of intelligence and wisdom have to do with me? How do I relate to philosophy when I do not possess the skills necessary for such an intellectual discussion. Ah, see this is where the deception of our society has crept in. One need not be intelligent to be a philosopher. In fact, philosophers are not so concerned with what you know, but how or why you know it. Intelligence is measured by the accumulation of knowledge but the philosopher is concerned with how you apply it to life. You can be tremendously wise, far above your peers, but never comprehend molecular physics, nor be able to explain Einstein's theory of relativity.

The hallmarks of a wise philosopher is his ability to turn what little information he may posses into life changing ways of living for tremendous personal or societal changes. Simply put, he takes the little and impacts much with it.

I describe wisdom's superiority not so as to devalue the importance of intelligence, but to introduce priority. Unfortunately, we have praised far too long the intelligent over the wise and are paying the price for it. For intelligence is like the weapon of war and the wisdom the proper training. What good is a gun without knowing how or when to use it? The prudent exercise of power can only be expected of the wise, not the intelligent.

I have written this blog today because I want to establish a foundation for my faithful readers for the next few weeks. Since, I plan to introduce many of these ideas, which, I admit, are new to me but maybe not to you, keep in mind I am a layman. I am not the professional theologian, or physicist. I am not a politician, though on all these subjects I profess my opinions the same as any other human. I am, however, convinced more so than ever before on my positions that I may come across too strongly. Forgive me of this, because it is not my intent to "bible-thump" or strong arm anyone to my side. All I ask is to keep an open mind as we walk together and explore what we believe about this world. And if you do manage to maintain your openness, you have already made your first steps down the path of a philosopher and I am happy to play a small part in your growth.

Nice vs. Nasty: The Movement that Is Destroying Critical Intelligent Thinking

This morning I was listening to Armstrong and Getty's Talk show and they read from an article in The Australian, an online newspaper in. And yep, you guessed it, published in online Australia. Everything is going online and pretty soon The Matrixwill become more than a movie. More on Adam's blog about this and the effect of social networking can be found here.

The article was entitled Discipline overthrown by the new-found tyranny of niceness. It focused mainly around the topic of failed schools and the possible causes. Kenneth Minogue states,

"My argument is, then, that the collapse of family and school discipline largely results from a dominant moral sentiment that we may call "the niceness movement". Niceness as a political sentiment has many departments -- political correctness is one, for example -- but I am concerned largely with its sentimental undermining of authority in family and classroom. The selling point of this niceness was, as it were, that pupils would become a nicer, gentler generation, but in fact the disorderly tendencies that teachers soon lost the power to check have spilled over into the playground, where bullying has long been increasing, and from the playground this disorder has spread into the streets. Thus can politicised compassion lead to misery.

Moral vices prosper by dressing themselves as virtues. Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require. And it has spread throughout our societies because it is often popular with voters. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions, and so is a good deal of democratic politics."

I couldn't have written this more eloquently, except the spelling error of "politicised." Then again, I can't spell or use a comma, correctly, anyways. Who am I to critize?

But this article did get me to think. It did get me to ponder. Armstrong and Getty's commentary concluded that it comes back to the same argument, a feel good view that the world can be always seen as "oppressor verses oppressed." The political tipping point for the average voter has boiled down to simply this, which party can best portray the other as the oppressor? And this, combined with our inability to critically think, has led to our current debacle in the economy and abandonment of decent morality. Let me explain.

Personal responsibility has been watered down, devalued and subsequently, diminished as a virtue in our culture. It has been replaced with entitlement and a host of "feel good" belief systems. Do not think me to be so naive that I see this as something new, nevertheless, there is continuous evidence leading us back from adulthood to adolescence.

Mr. Minogue puts it this way, "Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require." What does this mean? We have a jar of M&M shells filled with dung, not chocolate, and call it sweet. Sure it looks like candy. Tastes like candy...at first. BUT, don't dive in too far because you will uncover something unpleasant, therefore, just leave it in the jar and believe it to be candy. Don't throw it away and get something real, just leave crap on the table and call it candy. And in doing this, you miss the greatest opportunity for advancement, the opportunity of pain and difficulty.

This "evasion of hard decisions" has led us to not address problems today with critical thinking. We make decisions based upon how we feel and determine it's goodness from emotion, not sound reasoning. When did America regress? Children do what feels good, and adults do what's right. I believe that America has become like a child, being led by the hand and spoon fed politically correct ideas that in the end, hurt us as a people.

What kind of country allows a woman to sue McDonald's and win, because she didn't have the words "Caution: Hot Drink" on the cup? (Liebeck vs.McDonald's) Answer: An America that believes she is oppressed by the larger oppressor, McDonald's.

What kind of country allows us to murder unborn children upwards in the tens of millions, the equivalent of Canada's population (source), in the name of choice? Answer: An America that believes the adult is the victim, oppressed by the Religious Right.

What kind of country would sit by idly while some call for the execution of AIG executives and their families with piano wire when the very government who caused this problem owns 80% of AIG? Answer: An America that believes people who lied on their loan applications and couldn't afford the home were swindled (oppressed) by the larger (oppressor) lenders who should have known better.

Now, I realize that my sarcasm and pointed articulation is uncomfortable and unpalatable to most people. However, you who read my blogs regularly are not regular people. You are not normal. Dave Ramsey would say, "Normal is broke, so let's get weird." I'm gonna modify it for politics and state, "Normal is a lemming, so let's weird."

I call you to exercise your cranium, muster some courage, and stand for integrity and principle. We cannot sit by and do nothing while the fundamentally foundational freedoms are eroded daily by men and women, who claim falsely, they do this in our best interests. I refuse to believe that another being, other than Jesus Christ, can have something better in mind for me than myself.

So, if being "Nasty" means that I promote individual liberty, expect personal responsibility from all, and stand up to those who believe otherwise...well, I'm sorry Mr. Politically Correct, but you will just have to live with me calling you an ignoramus and a dunce. And I hope that works out for you.