The Three Witnesses showed how three peer-reviewed academic works independently corroborate every contextual claim in the preceding essays — though none of them spotted the link.
That's a word without meaning even out of the context of this discussion. The meaning of the word is all in the mind of the individual saying it, and is not the same as in the mind hearing it. Highly subjective.
Which is why it is so easy to shapeshift, apply to contradictions, there is no "ethic" etched in stone.
First understanding the general systems of ethics, and there are countless, but most fall under three broad systems, Virtue, Kantian and Utilitarian. Virtue and Kantian ethics are systems that most people think of when they hear the word, 'ethic.' The treat others as you would be treated, respect for the individual, etc. Utilitarian ethics is the system that those in positions of authority employ. Greater good. Breaking eggs to make omelets. Ten shall die so fifty shall live. Nations shall fall so global trade shall rise.
I am not an ethicist, nor highly studied in them, others will do a better job of describing the systems more accurately than I, mine is a basic understanding I've explored since 2020. The "noble lies" of the Fauci's were considered ethical. My exploration of the philosophies and applications of ethics systems has informed me that there's an endless supply of studies and papers on "ethical lying," "ethical genocide," all sorts of horrible crimes against humanity have ethicists who made the case that they were ethical, necessary to serve a "greater good." Dangerous bioweapons were mandated injected into entire populations with the full knowledge they were "unavoidably unsafe" and protected from liability with that official designation, all the while authorities boasted they were completely "safe and effective." Ethical lying. Ethical dying. Var. Utilitarian ethics.
The entire field of ethics exists to give those in positions of authority over others a perceived stamp of moral approval to gain the consent of those who their directives harm. Ethicists are more flexible than Olympic gymnasts, more flexible than circus show freaks without joints in their ability to declare anything they are hired to say is ethical. Yes, even including "ethical genocide." Look it up if you don't believe me.
It works all because most people have no clue what the word ethics means when it comes to those entrusted with power. Most people think ethics is how they treat their neighbor Jim Bob, coworker Gilian, their dog Spike, their mailman, their lawn guy, the nameless cashier. And never suspect those in power have an entirely different system of ethics that would leave them and their entire family dead without remorse, ostensibly to save a snail darter. Not exaggerating. The rape gangs and beheadings are ethical - diversity is our strength. Remorse? Ha!
So when I read the word "ethic," now knowing that it means nothing to those in positions of authority and power in a presentation like this I'm left with, "And?" It's meaningless. And those who speak of ethics only care about the utility of the word, not any meaning they want others to hear in their own minds.
The line we drew in school was between deontological and consequentialist ethical systems. Your considerations include much that fits under one or the other. The deontological could include “etched in stone.”
If you wanted to learn more, those are two words I’d start with. But Escape Key’s point about the fungibility of “ethics” in this context is legitimate. Ethicists who wish to be taken seriously would reject such use of the term, I expect.
Using 'ethics' as a tool for population control has been 'refined' over the centuries, just look at organized re-ligion, the re-binding of the State's domination over our minds and creative potential.
"China proves this from the other direction. The People’s Bank of China joined EMEAP — the Executives’ Meeting of East Asia-Pacific Central Banks — in 1991⁶⁴, the year after it was founded. Full BIS membership followed in 1996"
It was at about that time that western banks became less regulated and the rise of debt inflation started in earnest, creating the dotcom bubble. Then, just before 2000, guided by Bush's panic and general incompetence, Greenspan turned the role of interest rates upside down, no longer a barometer of economic risk, direct manipulation of interest rates, generally an economic taboo and only used in the most dire of economic circumstances, was now a mechanism through which the entire global economy could be controlled, using the speed and volume of debt creation into the money supply.
Forming the link between interest rates and inflation.
Or, in other words, with the shackles freed from China, the west was free to gorge on debt instead of increasing productivity. Productivity was suddenly the "old way" that debt issuance was governed. The new way was simply pure interest rates.
This is a great warning about how different ethical systems can be appropriated by a "superstructure" -- to borrow a term from Marx. But I have a deeper issue with what I would term as loose wording -- a point of contention/disagreement. As Aristotle said, there are many ways to go wrong, but there is only one way to get things right.
This means that there will always be a multitude of "wrong ways of living" compared with just a tiny minority of ways where things have been put into their proper order. Citing Aristotle again, justice arises when unequal things are treated unequally (and when equal things are treated equally).
In other words, while "any popular or commonplace ethic will do" (because the vast majority of ethical systems, by definition, constitute "wrong ways of living"), it is not the case that "a correct ethic will do."
For example, if individual rights are more important than collective welfare, then they will not be sacrificed in order to gain more in terms of collective welfare. Putting things into their correct order of importance precludes the building out of those systems of control which are meant not for rights, but for welfare, instead.
Popular and commonplace ethics do allow humans to govern wrongly, but a correct ethic would align itself with a correct hierarchy of values (the more important things would no longer get sacrificed to the less important things, as they are with incorrect ethical systems).
Aristotle's Virtue ethic was individualist (anti-altruist/anti-collectivist). It is no accident that Ayn Rand dubbed Aristotle as America's first Founding Father -- although she warned that, because Americans did not whole-heartedly adopt an anti-altruist/anti-collectivist ethic (like Aristotle's), that it would lead to a bleak future.
By loosely saying that "any ethic will do," it is my contention that you inadvertently scoop-up and dismiss with the only thing that can possibly save humanity from looming tyranny: a correct ethic that does not sacrifice the more important things to the less important ones.
in that case i'm not sure what your point is. i'm not speaking about a philosophical 'ethic', i'm speaking of a revolving one set centrally - presently derived from 'science' - used by the nazis, the soviets, and the present 'liberal order' to set standards used for clearing and settlement.
Yes, but that is using one wrong system of ethics after another.
Any of those wrong systems of ethics "will do" when attempting to justify a system of control. An ethic based on man's nature would be an exception though.
Think of how much Keynesian ideas propagated after the 1930s. They did not propagate due to being more correct, but because they were more favored by those already in control.
Incorrect economic systems, like incorrect ethical ones, can all be utilized by the bad guys (any one will do). The bad guys exploit the errors of the systems in their favor.
All of those wrong systems of ethics allow for some amount of top-down authoritarian behavior, but a correct system of ethics does not. Here is how I would word it out:
When I was tracking all the organized deception put out by think tanks supposedly on the Right on how Outcomes Education and state standards actually work, I analogized to a Right Pincer action determined to keep the sluice aimed at the desired direction. The sales pitch for a policy would vary from how an admitted progressive think tank would frame it, but never the actual function.
As part of that research, the Atlas Network of Think Tanks came into view which would fit with this article. In addition, one of the older books I obtained talked about philosopher Leo Strauss as having come to the US on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship.
Also, as an attorney I have been on legal webinars where the term 'soft law' as applied to standards came up. My takeaway from what was said is that soft law is binding, but it is in place at an invisible level for most people encountering its domain.
If you are actually a libertarian think tank, as opposed to a think tank using language on liberty and property rights, would you have people from the World Bank on your Board?
The semantics used consistently turn out not to have the traditional meaning associated with the terms.
Soft law has come up the most in programs put on by either IEEE or the Athens Roundtable. All of this fits with where you are going.
As you have found, using the law may make something binding, but it also makes it trackable if you can see through the semantics and judge language by its function and effects.
"Ethics."
That's a word without meaning even out of the context of this discussion. The meaning of the word is all in the mind of the individual saying it, and is not the same as in the mind hearing it. Highly subjective.
Which is why it is so easy to shapeshift, apply to contradictions, there is no "ethic" etched in stone.
First understanding the general systems of ethics, and there are countless, but most fall under three broad systems, Virtue, Kantian and Utilitarian. Virtue and Kantian ethics are systems that most people think of when they hear the word, 'ethic.' The treat others as you would be treated, respect for the individual, etc. Utilitarian ethics is the system that those in positions of authority employ. Greater good. Breaking eggs to make omelets. Ten shall die so fifty shall live. Nations shall fall so global trade shall rise.
I am not an ethicist, nor highly studied in them, others will do a better job of describing the systems more accurately than I, mine is a basic understanding I've explored since 2020. The "noble lies" of the Fauci's were considered ethical. My exploration of the philosophies and applications of ethics systems has informed me that there's an endless supply of studies and papers on "ethical lying," "ethical genocide," all sorts of horrible crimes against humanity have ethicists who made the case that they were ethical, necessary to serve a "greater good." Dangerous bioweapons were mandated injected into entire populations with the full knowledge they were "unavoidably unsafe" and protected from liability with that official designation, all the while authorities boasted they were completely "safe and effective." Ethical lying. Ethical dying. Var. Utilitarian ethics.
The entire field of ethics exists to give those in positions of authority over others a perceived stamp of moral approval to gain the consent of those who their directives harm. Ethicists are more flexible than Olympic gymnasts, more flexible than circus show freaks without joints in their ability to declare anything they are hired to say is ethical. Yes, even including "ethical genocide." Look it up if you don't believe me.
It works all because most people have no clue what the word ethics means when it comes to those entrusted with power. Most people think ethics is how they treat their neighbor Jim Bob, coworker Gilian, their dog Spike, their mailman, their lawn guy, the nameless cashier. And never suspect those in power have an entirely different system of ethics that would leave them and their entire family dead without remorse, ostensibly to save a snail darter. Not exaggerating. The rape gangs and beheadings are ethical - diversity is our strength. Remorse? Ha!
So when I read the word "ethic," now knowing that it means nothing to those in positions of authority and power in a presentation like this I'm left with, "And?" It's meaningless. And those who speak of ethics only care about the utility of the word, not any meaning they want others to hear in their own minds.
dude are you saying you're against quality education, well-being for all, and clean oceans?
what a loon! who could possibly object to the sustainable development goals?
who could possibly object to 'impact investing' - it's for the common good!
lolz!
The line we drew in school was between deontological and consequentialist ethical systems. Your considerations include much that fits under one or the other. The deontological could include “etched in stone.”
Thanks for that. I appreciate the more studied and versant in the field improving upon what I've gleaned and try to communicate, fill in the holes.
As long as I'm not way off base is close enough for bocce! :D
If you wanted to learn more, those are two words I’d start with. But Escape Key’s point about the fungibility of “ethics” in this context is legitimate. Ethicists who wish to be taken seriously would reject such use of the term, I expect.
Well described Freedom Fox.
Using 'ethics' as a tool for population control has been 'refined' over the centuries, just look at organized re-ligion, the re-binding of the State's domination over our minds and creative potential.
What a system when you see it..
Ethics - Standards - Clearing - Settlement - Outcome (thanks ESC).
We still need to 'save the f.....g planet', though🤑
The followers on to that ‘compassionate conservatism‘ movement are on track to kill at least as many people as communist purges ever did.
It is of course a parody of ethics. It is "ethics". "Settlement" is not fair, it is justified. "Clearing" is laundering. Are we done?
Fascinating stuff, thank you.
But isn't this interesting:
"China proves this from the other direction. The People’s Bank of China joined EMEAP — the Executives’ Meeting of East Asia-Pacific Central Banks — in 1991⁶⁴, the year after it was founded. Full BIS membership followed in 1996"
It was at about that time that western banks became less regulated and the rise of debt inflation started in earnest, creating the dotcom bubble. Then, just before 2000, guided by Bush's panic and general incompetence, Greenspan turned the role of interest rates upside down, no longer a barometer of economic risk, direct manipulation of interest rates, generally an economic taboo and only used in the most dire of economic circumstances, was now a mechanism through which the entire global economy could be controlled, using the speed and volume of debt creation into the money supply.
Forming the link between interest rates and inflation.
Or, in other words, with the shackles freed from China, the west was free to gorge on debt instead of increasing productivity. Productivity was suddenly the "old way" that debt issuance was governed. The new way was simply pure interest rates.
Escape Key,
This is a great warning about how different ethical systems can be appropriated by a "superstructure" -- to borrow a term from Marx. But I have a deeper issue with what I would term as loose wording -- a point of contention/disagreement. As Aristotle said, there are many ways to go wrong, but there is only one way to get things right.
This means that there will always be a multitude of "wrong ways of living" compared with just a tiny minority of ways where things have been put into their proper order. Citing Aristotle again, justice arises when unequal things are treated unequally (and when equal things are treated equally).
In other words, while "any popular or commonplace ethic will do" (because the vast majority of ethical systems, by definition, constitute "wrong ways of living"), it is not the case that "a correct ethic will do."
For example, if individual rights are more important than collective welfare, then they will not be sacrificed in order to gain more in terms of collective welfare. Putting things into their correct order of importance precludes the building out of those systems of control which are meant not for rights, but for welfare, instead.
Popular and commonplace ethics do allow humans to govern wrongly, but a correct ethic would align itself with a correct hierarchy of values (the more important things would no longer get sacrificed to the less important things, as they are with incorrect ethical systems).
Aristotle's Virtue ethic was individualist (anti-altruist/anti-collectivist). It is no accident that Ayn Rand dubbed Aristotle as America's first Founding Father -- although she warned that, because Americans did not whole-heartedly adopt an anti-altruist/anti-collectivist ethic (like Aristotle's), that it would lead to a bleak future.
By loosely saying that "any ethic will do," it is my contention that you inadvertently scoop-up and dismiss with the only thing that can possibly save humanity from looming tyranny: a correct ethic that does not sacrifice the more important things to the less important ones.
> a correct ethic would align itself with a correct hierarchy of values
a 'correct' ethic isn't dictated top down.
Yes, that's (part of) my point.
in that case i'm not sure what your point is. i'm not speaking about a philosophical 'ethic', i'm speaking of a revolving one set centrally - presently derived from 'science' - used by the nazis, the soviets, and the present 'liberal order' to set standards used for clearing and settlement.
Yes, but that is using one wrong system of ethics after another.
Any of those wrong systems of ethics "will do" when attempting to justify a system of control. An ethic based on man's nature would be an exception though.
Think of how much Keynesian ideas propagated after the 1930s. They did not propagate due to being more correct, but because they were more favored by those already in control.
Incorrect economic systems, like incorrect ethical ones, can all be utilized by the bad guys (any one will do). The bad guys exploit the errors of the systems in their favor.
>They did not propagate due to being more correct, but because they were more favored by those already in control
that's my point. and they funnel present 'ethics' through financial settlement for enforcement.
the 'ethic' itself doesn't ultimately matter. it could be enforced 'silly hat thursdays' using the same mechanism.
I'll try restating my point in succinct terms:
All of those wrong systems of ethics allow for some amount of top-down authoritarian behavior, but a correct system of ethics does not. Here is how I would word it out:
"Any ethics will do ... except one of them."
When I was tracking all the organized deception put out by think tanks supposedly on the Right on how Outcomes Education and state standards actually work, I analogized to a Right Pincer action determined to keep the sluice aimed at the desired direction. The sales pitch for a policy would vary from how an admitted progressive think tank would frame it, but never the actual function.
As part of that research, the Atlas Network of Think Tanks came into view which would fit with this article. In addition, one of the older books I obtained talked about philosopher Leo Strauss as having come to the US on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship.
Also, as an attorney I have been on legal webinars where the term 'soft law' as applied to standards came up. My takeaway from what was said is that soft law is binding, but it is in place at an invisible level for most people encountering its domain.
'soft law' is typically enforced through secondary measures. capital market access, clearing conditions, taxonomy compliance. what did you observe?
> Atlas Network of Think Tanks
never heard of them. they present themselves as a libertarian think tank, from first glance?
> Leo Strauss as having come to the US on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship
colour me shocked!
If you are actually a libertarian think tank, as opposed to a think tank using language on liberty and property rights, would you have people from the World Bank on your Board?
The semantics used consistently turn out not to have the traditional meaning associated with the terms.
Soft law has come up the most in programs put on by either IEEE or the Athens Roundtable. All of this fits with where you are going.
As you have found, using the law may make something binding, but it also makes it trackable if you can see through the semantics and judge language by its function and effects.
So mucho policio,… it’s hard to see the shackles oh!
Great piece. Blackstone's Formulation always comes to mind reading these things...