+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 1023
Most Online Ever: 1208
(March 28, 2024, 07:28:27 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 242
Total: 242

Author Topic: Future Earth  (Read 56355 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz-hnyVRvpM&feature=player_embedded
Democratic Womanism 

PART 1 of the Ex Curia Solution   


Golden Rule Government - A Legal Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest
by Jailhouse Judge Agelbert

Please excuse the nunc pro tunc (I'll fix the typos, spaces and add emphasis fonts and smileys  later - be patient) in this proposed world wide (and humbly submitted, of course!) legislation.  ;D


Background:

Golden Rule Government, not to be confused with fiscal policy in government (today mostly given lip service) where borrowing is only authorised except for investment, is a total ex curia replacement ot our hopelessly elitist, fascist, dysfunctional, profit over planet, biosphere destroying and human misery producing (and so on) social governing structure.

This new approach is not a reform of the old; it requires the scrapping of the old because the status quo is based on conquest. This new system mat be labeled "feminine" because it is based on caring.

However, overall, it is utilitarian in its application , not "sentimental", as anything labeled "femine" by our society disingenuously, pejoratively and patronizingly might claim.
In philosophy the male-centered versus the feminine approach are considered areas of moral

psychology:
Quote
... area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and women.
Discussions of this issue focus on two claims:
(1) traditional morality is male-centered, and
(2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be shaped into a value theory.
According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties.

Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Of course, all ethical conduct is based on some basic concept of what is right and what is wrong (i.e. morality). While there ARE people, a lot of them, out there that argue that ethics has no place in social structure UNLESS it is "situational" (see Orwell) in nature, what they are really advocating, adopting, espousing and defending is  a Machiavellian view of government of the people, by the elite and for the elite.

The issue, nevertheless, is further "muddled" by the claim that "morality" is a human invention that doesn't "do the Darwinian math" of "reality".  They claim that what is "moral/ethical" for one tribe may be "immoral" for another so the best (i.e. "real world")  course of action is to shake hands and come out fighting (i.e. Conquest is the ultimate "morality").

Actus reus
Action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused.

An excellent example of the LACK of "do the math" logic in our closed system biosphere by the Court System of Homo SAPs is poaching. Ask a lawyer to define poaching. While said professional may give lip service to the deleterious effects on the biosphere in general and the poached species of wildlife in particular due to this "illicit" activity, the APPROACH to this life destroying actus reus is ridiculously limited to the typical legalese tunnel vision of  'seeing the stolen healthy trees' PROPERTY, hair splitting illogic, that ignores the forest fire'. That is, the health and perpetuation of the 'impacted species' is measured only with regard to computing damages to the Homo SAP tribe or nation who 'owns' the animals being poached.

Furthermore, if the poacher is doing the bidding of a foreign government to undermine the GDP of the 'enemy' or some other 'justified' activity (according to social Darwinian situational 'ethics' Homo SAP juris-imprudent Court Systems) he is, acting 'lawfully'. It just depends (see SOPHISTRY and the practice of law) which group of Homo SAPS you base your 'fealty' too.

So what's the problem with loyalty to your tribe? Does not the life and welfare of 'your tribe' outweigh all other 'sentimental' notions of questionable ethical behavior? Well, at this point a lawyer will have a field day answering with a fascinating but thoroughly contorted and convoluted amount of 'logic' that basically says, YES (with several escape clause conditional "no" gray areas - be sure to consult a lawyer for each gray area.). The Homo SAP Court System has a sliding scale of ethics where "legal" is "lawful"(i.e. ethical/moral) sometimes but NOT ALWAYS. That's just the way it is among apex predators in a social Darwinian "real world' pecking order. Any other 'sentimental' and 'idealistic' and/or 'ridiculously utopian' notions of ethical conduct are just magical/wishful thinking for reality challenged ignoramuses. The current Court System used by Homo SAP governments  is the ONLY 'workable' system, Sniff! 

IF our concern (see trees versus forest) was exclusively occupying the king of the hill position among competing Homo SAPS, I would agree. But that fails to do the overall biosphere Darwinian (see natural selection and species extinction) MATH. Hence it is not just ridiculous to design and operate a Government/Court System predicated on Conquest, it is not ethical in any sense when the FOREST that Homo SAPS REQUIRE for the health, welfare and perpetuation of their species is COMPUTED into the MATH.

Idealist? Utopian? Try NOT OPTIONAL. In our biosphere, the ethical BOTTOM LINE is NOT some man made philosophical concept that defines "ethical" or "unethical" behavior in terms of what we do to each other and ignores other life forms. The ethical BOTTOM LINE is whether what we DO produces our DEATH or our LIFE, PERIOD.

Therefore, we must (see NOT OPTIONAL) strive, in order to save our own arses, for a Governmental/Court System that does NOT operate on a sliding scale of sophistic fun and games based on loyalty to one Homo SAP tribe/government/corporation/Bar association (you knew I would throw that in, didn't you? - I know - it's dirty pool - but like it!) over another.   

Well then, let's talk a bit about ethics that DON'T operate on a sliding scale of "morality". Let's try to get a bird's eye view of the BIG picture in regard to ethics.
Philosophy says this about that:

Quote
...The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology. ]

That doesn't seem to get us anywhere. But this is a good start.

Quote
Two issues, though, are prominent:
(1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and
(2)psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.

Since the  metaphysical issue is a gigantic can of worms in regard to ethics and morality, I have not referenced that contentious area in formulating the utilitarian "math" of Golden Rule Government.

Quote
... area of meta-ethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral.
We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them.

Some answers to the question "Why be moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.
Many will claim THEIR "mental basis of moral judgements and conduct is the only VALID mental basis for moral judgements and conduct.

Without evidence to back this claim, they are just smoking that crack pipe of "do as I say, not as I do". The "best of all possible worlds" argument is also fallacious simply because all the alternatives out there are willfully disdained, discarded or simply ignored. See Procrustean bed.
The mental basis of our moral judgements and conduct can only be justified if the following takes place as a result of the said moral judgements and conduct:
1. A steadily improving and diverse fauna and flora in the biosphere.
2. A steady Bioremediation of all toxins in the biosphere.
3. A steady and consistent policy of emulating nature in bringing about a zero waste economy for the benefit of all earthlings.
4. Equal protection among humans from other humans.
5. Equal representation among humans (vote, petition, proposed legislation and law enforcement).
6. Equal access to services.
7. Equal punishment for wrong conduct.
8. Guaranteed Minimum standard of health, education and income to insure the dignity of even the most poverty stricken, disabled, handicapped or just plain dysfunctional from mental disease or laziness. "A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." Gandhi
9. No statute of limitations on any crime for any reason and no limited liability for any human in any form of business, corporate charter, club, police, military governmental, bath club, etc. You do the crime, you do the time and you pay your share of the fine.   
10. Legal tender laws are carbon footprint/energy based (yeah, it's complicated but is VERY specific about SUBTRACTING the value of any product the EXACT amount of planetary piggery used to manufacture it, PERIOD.

Utopic? Nope. In fact, anything else, as in what we are doing NOW, is criminally negligent suicide. The status quo is not a measured, prudent, logical, or even social Darwinian approach to survival of the species. And forget about thriving when you are arrogantly eliminating diversity of life in a closed system such as our biosphere without even understanding scientifically WTF all these many and varied life forms out there do to contribute to our welfare.

Get this, people. What we are doing IS NOT WORKING. What part of that do you not understand?  ???

As reasonable, logical, intelligent (and so on) humans, it's time to give this strange idea born of the apparent benefits YOU have gotten from the dysfunctional human structure that you are not shooting yourself in the foot. Incremental measures and working within the "system" are doomed to failure because the "system" is based on unscientific principles of conquest.

We live in a closed system. A bubble of life, if you will. The only morality of life is, hello?, A LIFE GIVING social structure. Al the rest is baloney. We aren't talking about singing cumbaya and dancing with permaculture flowers in our head, people! we are talking about DOING THE MATH for a closed SYSTEM called the biosphere! YES, there are scads of life forms here that we can trample willy nilly and they don't fight back because they aren't self aware. SO WHAT!!? Are you going to sit there and tell me that we are going to promote LIFE by continuing to increase the rate of DEATH of non-self aware species as well as the MISERY of ours? GET OUTTA HERE with that Orwellian mindfork!

So you don't believe in God or right or wrong. And? Do you believe in breathing? Yep. Same with eating (and so on). See defecating where you eat. We are there. What part of that can't you wrap your head around? The MORALITY/ETHICS of a LIFE GIVING modus operandi and modus vivendi are not optional if you want to ensure the survival of your species. That is the math.

What's all that got to do with Golden Government Rule?

EVERYTHING!

Let us now move to WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD, so to speak.

Quote
Normative Ethics

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.

The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles.

The Golden Rule Government social structure uses computers (a LOT!) to DO THE MATH. This "math" is a biosphere life giving math MORALITY that is sine qua none for the perpetuation of the human species. You may say it is the formula for transitioning from Homo SAP to Homo sapiens as a society. There are many among us that are there already. But the Homo SAPS defending the biosphere ignoring LAW of CONQUEST "morality" are in the way.

I will discuss how to, through friendly persuasion, logic, prudent, measured, consistent, confident (and so on) PEACEFUL activity (or the lack of it - lack of activity, RE, not lack of peace - watch it!  ;D), we can save our arses along with thousands of other earthling species.

But not now. I want to see how the worthies here respond. If I see genuine interest born of a realization of seriousness of our plight and respect for the value of a REAL "do the math" Golden Rule Government proposal, rather than accusations of ignorance, puffery, hypocrisy or flatulence accompanied with disdain, sarcasm or branding of my post as flower child whining utopian blather, then I will get the message, loud and clear that, no matter what the risk of our current suicidal trajectory, you are not interested in a working solution and prefer the delusion that incremental reforms (see lipstick on a four footed truffle forager) will save Thelma and Louise from the laws of physics.

It is true, that once implemented, the Golden Rule Government will be the new "curia", among other things, but since the status quo will fight to the death to prevent said system change, the Golden Rule Government is an EX CURIA solution to our dysfunctional and brutal system. And, of course, if you want to implement Golden Rule Government, you are going to have believe in it to the point of willing to lose everything you have, including your life, simply for adopting the peaceful activities (and lack of them) required to get the Homo SAPs to wake up and smell the Grand Canyon of species extinction.

Sure, it might not work. But what we are doing now has a 100% probability of not working. Stupid is as stupid does. Have a nice day.



He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

 

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm