Discuss: The Moral Climate

I think there’s valid discussion to be had about the moral direction society is taking and whether religion (which one?) is the best way to underpin an agreed set of moral values versus ones that can be achieved via Humanism.
Also, we need an economic framework to sustain the population.  Capitalism (with all its faults) appears to be the system that works best (it can work better).
What galls me is when environmentalists use scaremongering about global warming/climate change to influence morality and the economy. It’s becoming increasingly clear (and will be to anyone willing to do their homework) that (i) our climate changes on a constant basis (without any influence from mankind), (ii) CO2 is a trace gas and has no discernable impact on the climate (water vapour is the the main greenhouse gas) & (iii) there’s evidence that the recent warming period is over and we’re heading for a cooling one driven by forces (the Sun and Oceans mainly) that we cannot comprehend and have no control over.
Instead of perpetuating the gloabal warming hoax, wasting $billions on projects that’ll have no impact on the climate and starving the poor through high fuel and food prices we need to focus our energies on solving problems we can do something about: disease, poverty, economic inbalances and subjegated peoples

Bickers,

The article was about the moral (not religious) basis of the crises we face. But if you would ask “which religion?” then I would have to ask “which humanism?”.

Humanism is an ethical system based on the rational (scientific, logical) evaluation of life. If denying the largest scientific consensus in the history of the human race is “humanism”, it’s not a religion I would subscribe to.

Further, it’s not that “we need an economic framework to sustain population”, it’s rather that we need to acknowledge that the human population is many times beyond the carrying capacity of the biosphere, artificially and temporarily sustained by the massive exploitation of ancient sunlight in the form of fossil fuels. We cannot reverse millions of years of geological evolution in one century without an impact on the environment.

And it’s hardly the case that “capitalism appears to be the system which works best”. As Safina so aptly put it, “nearly every just cause is a struggle between the good of the many and the greed of a few”, and capitalism requires an owning class and a working class with wealth significantly concentrated in the hands of the few while the masses suffer. As an economic system, it is unjust and unsustainable because it is based on no moral foundation.

Pointing out that multiple crises are looming is not “scaremongering” but prescience, and looking to foundational causes - i.e. a moral failure of society - is the only sensible and constructive approach.

Perhaps your “gall” so clouded your vision that you missed the entire point of the essay.

Robert Birdsong, Have you read “Dark Ages America, The Final Phase of Empire” by Morris Berman?

I swear, everything you wrote could have come out of that book. Berman discusses the moral or ethical faults of America that resulted from a virtually unchecked society of consumerism. With decades of a military/industrial complex designed for empire coupled with an economic system designed to both makes us stupid and blind to what we’ve become personally, as communities and as a whole societal system, we’ve reached a point of no return.

The vast majority of the American population isn’t the least interested in looking inward at our country (it gets in the way of consuming). Yet, somehow there is at least evidence of the perception that all is not right. Opinion poles of recent years show large disgust with Congress, The President, corporations and the media. Somewhere in our psych we’ve come to decide the system (politics/media/corps) isn’t working or has become something not desired. 

But on the other hand there is such an addiction to consuming that people can’t seem to stop. It’s quite possible people can’t find a way to change the system, so they shop til they drop out of trying to feel good about themselves since they don’t feel good about the society we’ve become.

Individualism reigns over community. It’s what we are suppose to be according to the advice of the elites and the endless advertising. We are constantly told to make ourselves happy (by purchasing things) and only occasionally to help others (but this is usually via the donation of money). Spend money, send money…is our societal anthem.

jon b,

Given that you completely missed my name, it’s not surprising that you would miss the essense of my critique.

But I’m glad that you thought my ideas similar to Berman’s rather than to classical Marxism. While I’m not familiar with the breadth of Berman’s analysis of the modern crisis, I suspect that my perspective is both broader and deeper.

More like Glendenning, Quinn and Jensen, my critique begins with the shift from hunter-gatherer (Garden of Eden) to settled agricultural lifestyle (exile and cultural imprisonment).  Modern American imperial consumerism is but the latest (and most pernicious) manifestation of our fall from grace.

The root of the problem is not just moral (as Safina suggests) but spiritual and existential. Once we chose to separate from the Source (the web of life), we began to wander aimless and empty and filled the void with lust, greed, arrogance - all the great sins.

The continuance of the human race will require a shedding, not just of consumerism and global corporate capitalism, but of civilization itself. We need to become “savages” again (Lat. silvaticus: of the woods).

Posted on behalf of Frank U. Farmer, who was having technical difficulties posting…

Ethics is defined as a system of moral values, but morals may vary among organized religions. I like to think of ethics as values that would be valid across all ethnic, religious, and cultural lines. I have over the years, with like minded others, put together a beginning system of ethics called The 13 Basic Ethical Standards of Behavior. We believe there are no internal contradictions in this system of values which can be peer reviewed here:

http://www.freedom-universe.org/values.htm
http://www.freedom-universe.org/consent.htm

One course of action that anyone can participate in to take back power for “we the People” is to go to http://www.ni4d.us, spend the 10 minutes to listen to (or read) the presentation for The National Initiative for Democracy, then vote for or against it. 50 million yes votes by registered voters will make it the law of the land. Here are the first two paragraphs:

“The National Initiative for Democracy is a proposed law developed by The Democracy Foundation, over the past decade, along with a plan to get it enacted by the people (not by the government) creating, for the first time, a government “by you, the people.”

The National Initiative includes a constitutional amendment and a federal statute that equips the people with the central power of government, lawmaking. As lawmakers, the people in every government jurisdiction of the United States become a new Check in our system of Checks and Balances designed to control the abuses of government.  Representative government remains unaltered except for the partnership established between the people and their elected legislators.”

I am seeing more and more people becoming interested in having their voices heard as I continue to visit sites like Orion and read the comments on articles like this one. Unethical behavior is being confronted by people all over the globe as they learn to use the inter net as a resource and a forum. The National Initiative will allow our voices to be heard on the national level, by slowly overturning the special interest legislation enacted by our so-called elected representatives for the benefit of corporate lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions.

Each time we vote we force voter fraud to be more blatant, and therefore more likely to be subject to criminal prosecution. One method I have been using to curb political greed and corruption is to not vote for any incumbents. If it is apparent that a candidate is spending huge amounts of money to get elected, I don’t vote for them. We can enact term limits by voting in new inexperienced people. My thinking is that we cannot do any worse with new politicians than we have now with people who are already experienced in how to behave in deceptive greedy ways.

I am open to gracious discussion/debate on this or any other subject, and I am willing to clarify the intent of any of the 13 behavioral standards, as well as the Law of Mutual Consent.

Warm regards,

F.U. Farmer
.

Scott Walker believes that morals vary between religions, but that is true if one considers only the details. At the core of every religious tradition is the same single precept: Do (or do not do) unto others as you would have then do (or not do) unto you.

Hillel, the great 1st century BCE Hebraic teacher, when asked to recite the whole Torah while standing on one foot, said “That which is hateful to you do not do to others. All the rest is commentary.”

Unfortunately, there is much “commentary” in Walker’s 13 ethical standards of behavior, as they are decidedly biased toward western culture.

Rationality is not idolized in indigenous cultures the way it is in the modern West. In fact, indigenous cultures - those that existed in harmony with the web of life for tens of thousands of years - are heart-based, not head-centered, and the mystery of inherent contradiction is recognized as foundational to all life.

Equality is a very modern ethic that would appear alien to most pre-modern or non-Western cultures. Traditional Tibetan society, considered one of the most spiritually evolved, is highly hierarchical.

Western, nominally democratic culture is a highly arrogant and self-centered one which continues to dominate all other cultural traditions with its imperial hubris. Universal ethics is far simpler than Walker would like to believe.

Yes, we should have acted years and years ago instead of cramming all the solutions now when it might be too late. And yes, the ones who are innocent, who are less to blame for these environmental issues are suffering a lot more than the ones truly responsible.

Interesting article.

I am not sure what I think about the shame and sacrifice model.

I think that thinking and discussing about doing anything out of “shame” and “sacrifice” is problematic.

To make people feel bad does not always motivate them into action.

And if they are motivated into action, the action they take is likely not sound and sustainable action.

I think this is the core problem of the environmental movement and its approach.

Concepts of shame and sacrifice are principles which some people find repulsive.

I do.  This is what I found was the key issue that turned me away from doing “environmental advocacy” work.

Advocacy work that is based on shame, sacrifice, should’s, and have-to’s spawn anger, resentment and grief.

The search for me in the past several years is to find a way internally (personally) and externally (for others) to inspire and motivate action out of love and pure joy and a sense of cherish-ment for the planet and those you live with and in and amongst us.

That sense of action our of pure joy and love and cherish-ment (I just invented this word) is what I think is really truly necessary for truly positive action.

I am not sure how to get everyone there yet.  I am still working on being there myself.

These are just my thoughts.