MY next door neighbor believes he is free to do anything he likes. This includes putting his speakers on his patio and blasting the inhabitants of the other 30 or 40 apartments in the complex south of kingdom come. He maintains it's day time and he lives in a free country.
Is he right?
My colleague smokes. I find it offensive but I have to do my job. The company believes that people have the freedom of choice and if I don't like it, I have the freedom to leave. They know I probably won't leave because I need a job. Are they right?
My company won a contract after everybody in the company put in a lot of overtime (for which they weren't paid). The additional profit from the job increased to 200%. All the managers got bonuses but none of the 'lower' workers go paid a bonus. the company says that the workers have the right to go work wherever else they want if they're not happy? Is this right?
Right now I'm a little bit tired of all these 'freedoms.' They don't seem to be working for some people more than others...
Yes, he is, but that doesn't allow him to negate common sense nor does it prevent him from exceeding the boundaries limited by sound ordinances already in place.
Don't know whether or not YOU need a job. I don't know your capabilities. So, I cannot honestly answer this question.
People should not be performing work they are not paid for, if they are employed by any company.
It's probably not in the description of compensation for those lower workers. Managers, usually have a bonus attached to their salaried position. The average "lower" workers do not.
They are allowed to work for whoever will hire them. So, I guess it would be right.
That's what happens when you given into the subjective nature of human perception.
Imagine if we can do each one of us things we like to do without considering others. Chaos.
We are social beings so we need to abide by the written and unwritten laws.
Even those who live in a secluded place needs some kind of restraint. Man can't live alone, there is a need for social interaction, and so we need to comply with social norms etc, otherwise we will be in trouble.
There are some people who are always considerate and think of others and there are a few others who go out there way to cause as much trouble for others as possible. As I see it you can leave your home, you can change jobs but where ever you go you will meet some people who are just intent on making life miserable for the rest of us.
Basically these types of people are anti-social, in the Uk we had until recently an anti-social behaviour law basically aimed at the those who walk the tight line between being a good neighbor and one that isn't. The law was unworkable, what is anti social to one person is ok with the next. Your neighbor thinks it's ok to play loud music, you don't. You still have choices open to you.
And as I was saying. Of course, I have a choice. But my choices, through someone else's use of 'freedom', are to my disadvantage.
Being forced into a disadvantaged choice is hardly a choice, is it? One has to move house (expensive and time consuming), give up a job (difficult to find another), all because one person indulges in anti-social behavior? What sort of choice is that? As I said, one person's freedom as at the expense of another person.
I believe in freedom for all ,but I also believe we should be considerate of others too.Sounds to me like you just have a rude neighbor,he is using the fact that this is a free country to excuse his rudeness.
As far as I am aware noise pollution and OSHA laws are there to ensure the rights of people in close proximity are fairly balanced. Have you made a complaint to law enforcement or your union/HR director/whoever applies? Then that third party deals with the offender rather than you.
However, that doesn't prevent unpleasantness arising between myself and my neighbor. All of these issues can be resolved. However, they are resolved at the expense of the person who is being reasonable. The person who is being inconsiderate wins every single time. In other words, the freedom of some comes at the expense of the freedom of others.
Check local noise ordinances
Check local, state and federal guidelines...sounds like a violation of your right to a safe, non-hazardous workplace. If your company does work of any kind for the gov. they could be liable.
Overtime laws are in force for all fifty states. Start by lodging a complaint w/ the State Labor Board for unpaid overtime. If your company retaliates, it's another violation...but you may want to start a new job search. They should like bloodsuckers anyways.
Others do have rights, and as for your job, the management will do what they can get away with, and you on the flip side of this coin, also are free to do what you feel is right. Go to the labor board, they are great for these kinds of disputes, and you cannot be fired for contacting them. They are great for evening out the unbalance of powers.
As for your neighbor, complain, and get anybody else who is bothered by it to complain too. The squeaky hinge gets the oil.
I read what you said and though it all sounds pretty unfair I don't see anywhere you taking responsibility for the world you find yourself in. You paint a picture of you as a victim and that is the role you will continue to play as long as you refuse to change your own mind. The world you live in and your experience reflects how you feel about yourself. You can't change the world but you can change your reaction to it and in so doing you create a domino effect. Check it out, at least you will be doing something rather than just feeling sorry for yourself and complaining which just gets you more of the same. Offered in the spirit of "Tough Love" let's see how you take it?
I don't see how the initial post warrants your reply. Sophia gave a list of issues where her freedoms were compromised by others excercising their freedoms.
This is a simple enough problem of how to balance individual freedoms and prevent abuse of the excessive use of these freedoms by bullies and ignorant people.
I don't see in the OP where her complaint indicates she feels sorry for herself, angry with the bullies and ignorant maybe.
Later in the thread she caved in to the bullying and condemnation by reacting in a high handed and superior manner, which of course brought the house down. I think her mistake is probably regretted now, and some posters here maybe are a little ashamed of what amounted to a bullying attack on her.
It was unnecessary and self-seeking to add your 'tough love' to an issue already closed and maybe best left that way.
You are entitled to your opinion but I am sure the lady in question can speak for herself that is unless you feel she is too weak and fragile to do so!
I don't see how you have the right to judge my opinion as self seeking or unnecessary as it is just my opinion and last time I checked we are all entitled to one and to express it. You have the right to challenge an opinion but you don't have the right to suppress or judge another's the way you have done here.
I have the right to comment because I did what the 'lady' is complaining that people do not do these days - I read what you wrote ! Not hard.
There was nothing to be added to the thread that had not already been handed out in spades, so your 'kicking while down' was clearly self seeking, and I am entitled to comment on that - do you have trouble taking it ?.
Perhaps, but hasn't he violated your freedoms by exorcising his freedoms? If you think so, call your local municipality and you're sure to find noise bylaws that would have him turn down his stereo.
Yes the 'freedoms' do seem to be for the special people. I don't blame you a bit about being bugged.
Good points, Sophia ... and such injustices and insensitivities make me furious on your behalf. I just wish I knew what the answers are to this sort of stupidity ...
By my experience these kind of free swingers have no manners, no brains and
didn't go extinct, as the other thread on
Neanderthals would suggest.
Well, I've been upset about these things for the past few days. I feel as if I'm the only one sometimes that remembers the words, "Consideration for others."
But thanks, for the input.
I also met someone today and we started talking and the topic came up, and it's not me. It's just that we live in a world which isn't quite the way it used to be.
You are so right. It's all about the rights of the individual, and no consideration of how those rights may hurt other people.
I love watching Meerkat Manor and seeing how those little animals cooperate to ensure the survival of their community. Sometimes I think humans have lost the art!
Marisa, I don't think humans have lost the art. I think civilization has lost the art. It's a cycle. That's why great civilizations peak. Right now, England peaked awhile ago and started going downhill. America, too peaked awhile ago and started going downhill. It happens gradually. At some point a generation has it all (baby boomers). Their children grow up without understanding why certain rules are there. They begin to break those rules. Over the next two or three generations, you have what we have today. In another two generations, this society will be gone. Yesterday, a friend remarked that we are living in the same kind of society that Chaucer lived in. Baudy. Ignorant. etc.
What I find surprising, though, is that not a single person here understood what I was saying. I didn't ask what to do about the situations. I asked whether the people who were doing these situations were right in their actions? Nobody answered that. The reason that is so is because people are losing touch with language and its meaning. People no longer hear what is being said. Nobody saw the deeper connections between these three situations despite the headline tying them all together.
In my school days, any school child would have seen it.
These are all signs of a disintegrating civilization.
The answers to the questions were easy. All three actions were wrong because they were all unethical.
Maybe you're underestimating the people who answered this thread.
I mean, it kind of goes without saying that expecting people to work without pay, or thoughtless behaviour without regard to other people's preferences/feelings is unethical.
But amongst those of us who acknowledge this, there are differing opinions as to what do do about it - and that's what makes for an interesting discussion.
On the contrary, the belief in Freedom is so endemic in America amongst young people today that anything goes. To them, freedom has nothing to do with ethics. Don't you think that I would already have reported this stuff to the landlord? Perhaps, the responders were underestimating me?
However, regardless of who was underestimating whom, the thread was about one man's freedom being another man's poison. I distinctly remember being taught in grade school how to answer a question. I also realized that when I went to College in America that 90% of American students went off the point - and that professors allowed them to do so! In the old days, one would have been penalized for going off the point.
It is distinctly irritating to people to be talking about one thing and someone deviating to something else. I don't find it interesting, and I bet many others don't find it interesting either.
Imagine going to a movie and right in the middle of the story, the horror movie you went to see suddenly switches to anime and the starting story is completely forgotten. I bet you'd be frustrated as hell because you wanted to know the answer to the story you came to see.
Also, I didn't cover this in the OP, but only the first situation is my own. The style of writing is one that is used to draw the reader in, rather than to explain that they are hypothetical. I asked the questions because the previous day I was talking to a young man and all he could tell me was that everybody was free to do exactly what they wanted, regardless of consequences to others.
Hmmm... I don't think that what you're describing is a new phenomenon. Although it's true that the vast majority of people aren't taught the difference between real freedom (which necessarily has a corresponding amount of personal responsibility attached to it), and "licence", as practised by the man with the loud hi fi - although maybe a lot of us come to realise what the difference between freedom and licence is after real life has delivered enough hard knocks.
Most people here WERE answering your question. They just weren't doing it in precisely the way you wanted them to.
Gawd, how on earth do you cope with Internet forums then?
Perhaps you should be more upfront with your explanations and clearer about what you want from people in the way of a response?
Okay, I didn't get that most people were answering my question. I think most people, initially, spent time telling me how to handle the situation. Perhaps, I'm missing something? Afterwards, I pointed out what I was saying. Then it struck me that it should be obvious.
Empress, I generally don't manage on forums, and I don't manage in real life conversation either. However, I have learnt something from you and some others here. It appears that the need to be part of the conversation is very strong for some, and that quantity rather than quality is the driving force. That is the difference between an extrovert and an introvert. I just wrote an article about it.
You SEEM to be implying that I (and others here) only replied to you because we're unreconstructed extroverts with a burning need to be "part of the conversation".
Is there a "Use of Ad Hominem" accolade? Perhaps the HP team should devise one.
It's lovely! Maybe the colours could be a bit stronger to drive the point home though
It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw with a man crouched over a keyboard frantically typing away. His wife was standing behind him in dressing gown and slippers.
The caption was "I'm sorry, I can't come to bed yet, dear - somebody is WRONG on the Internet!"
Empress, no I didn't imply that at all. What I said was that the need be off topic just in order to contribute something is an extrovert characteristic. There were both introverts and extroverts responding. If you read my article on introversion and extroversion, you will see the differences in characteristics. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I don't have a need to respond in a conversation just because I want to be part of it. Introverts don't. And it was mentioned by someone else that people responded off topic just because they wanted to be part of it. That thought didn't occur to me. I merely examined why people would do that.
Also, it would be impossible to fit everybody on HP into one category. So, what I have written about is specifically about people who go off topic.
As I understand it, introversion has more to do with the need to be alone every now and then to recharge one's emotional/mental batteries. It doesn't preclude the desire to respond to conversations just for the hell of it/to be part of them. Especially not online conversations as opposed to real-life conversations.
I would hazard a guess that the most prolific online forum posters are probably textbook introverts. Extroverts are probably too busy doing real-world stuff like sports/creating business empires/going to bars or parties.
"Extroverts are probably too busy doing real-world stuff like sports/creating business empires/going to bars or parties." You're absolutely right. I said as much in my article.
However, what I said was that the need to contribute anything rather than stick to point is more an extrovert state than introvert state. Introversion has to do with being internally focused rather than externally focused. It's more important for an introvert to make decisions on what is going on inside him than what is going on around him.
An extrovert would say things in order to make other people like him and accept him. An introvert will say things in order to figure out whether they're right or wrong, informative or something else. It has very little to do with whether there is social acceptance or not.
I'm not sure where you're going with this???
We forum posters here in this thread could all be introverts according to your description. So why did you even bring extroversion into the discussion?
Someone earlier said that one of the reasons people went off point was that they didn't have anything to contribute to what was being spoken about, so because they wanted to be part of the conversation, they said something else - even though it was off point. I merely pointed out that it was a characteristic of extroversion.
I think what is disturbing here is that people begin to debate the examples, when the examples are not the main point. They are only illustrating the point. And the example only stands up to the extent that it illustrates the point. The only thing that should be taken from an example or an analogy is the degree to which they illustrate and clarify a point. Nothing more.
With regard to my saying that something that someone else brought up was extroversion, it's simply an interesting aside, and should have been read that way. It was an explanation of behavior, of why people went off point. They went off point because the need for connectivity with the other writers was greater than any need to explore a topic.
Incidentally, I was just working for a few days at this company. thankfully I don't do it full time, but it has been difficult with the grumpiness around me. Also, not quite sure how to handle my neighbor.
Feel more cheerful now anyway. Thanks.
I was told by the super that you can call the police at any time if they music is too loud. I haven't done it yet...thankfully the noisiest person in my apartment building seems to have moved...but there is someone in the running...but the music only lasts about half an hour at the most.
I did call security after the umpteenth time and the guy didn't get the hint. So have other people. However, he now believes it's only me and he isn't speaking to me. I hate unpleasantness!
I was also responsible for having my last lot of neighbors moved. They used to start blaring out movie at 10 pm and never stop until about 6 am the following morning (five nights a week). Actually, I wasn't the only one complaining. I think what gets me is that these kind of people always think I'm the one that is unreasonable and that they're free to do whatever they like.
Here if you call the police they get a warning, I imagine the second time would be a fine and if they get a certain number they will get evicted.
Yes, some people never think to consider others. Same with the people here who let their little kids stay out past 10pm screaming and yelling during the summer.
here in the apartment where I live, I also called and informed the apartment manager about same reason as yours (three months ago, I think), loud noise and music. It worked, they gave warning to the resident!
I wont mind it from time to time, but when they do that always and in wee hours, that is disrespectful..
To me that is the key. I have tolerated noisy neighbors, even late nights on weekdays, occasionally. Once or even twice a month I can live with, but every day or even once or twice a weed, no. Some people seem to have the idea that the world needs to hear them and their entertainment and need reminders that it isn't so.
Smokers need to have respect for people around them. This doesn't mean never smoke, but limit it to ventilated areas and cut back on the number of cigarettes as much as possible. Non-smokers need to be a little more tolerant at the same time and realize that being within 10' of a smoker will not cause them to keel over dead on the spot.
Overtime. If you are paid on an hourly basis in the US you must be compensated for all hours worked - if you are not you may sue (and will surely win the case if you can prove the work) for treble damages. There are exceptions, but that is the general law. If you are on a salary, however, the concept of overtime does not exist - rather the concept is the you are paid to do a job no matter how long it takes. Laws are complex here, and you may be illegally put on a salaried basis lacking overtime benefits (a fairly common way around OT pay) and that can also be fought.
Of course, you must recognize that suing a company for more compensation, even pay that is legally required, will cost you your job. It may take a few months until the company can cobble up some legally reasonable cause, but you will almost certainly be out of work. At the same time you may sue for back pay for the past three years - that should give sufficient time to find new work while "banking" the OT pay.
You hit on the reason for me deep desire for a death ray gun, a white cat for my lap and why I practice my evil laugh often!
Seriously, on a bad day (tired, ill, injured) when I have to go out it seems like these sorts of people go out of their way to get in my way and I desperately wish for a good death ray gun! Deep down I really am just an evil villain I guess
I'm working on a transmitter to burn out all actively transmitting cell phones in a 10 yard radius. GREAT for movie theaters, restaurants, grocery store lines and heavy traffic.
I bet there would be a big market for that
Im sorry but cell phone jammers have been around for quite awhile and are cheap
http://www.focalprice.com/MX193B/Portab … _US_MX193B
Our freedom also comes at the expense of the people in the military who have protected our borders in the defense of your right to litigate for a noise ordinance.
Happy memorial day.
In the broader context, yes. You're right. And that's why I always have the utmost respect for any person that will be willing to lay down his life for the benefit of others. It is the ultimate sacrifice.
However, the word 'freedom' can be applied to many things. So, where does one draw the line?
How many times have I heard the words "It's a free country!" used to excuse juvenile, boorish, selfish behavior? More than I care to count.
#1 sounds like you're dealing with a Class A jerk. Unfortunately, you can't MAKE someone be considerate if it's not in their nature.
If the apartment complex does not hae specified rules about noise pollution and the manager won't address the problem, then polics could be your best option. I'm not very hopeful that they will do anything, however....
#2 sounds like you are SOL working in this company. They are condoning smoking in the workplace. That is their right (unless there are city or state laws which supercede their rights).
Could you ask to change desks away from the cancer chimney?
#3. Not fair, for sure. But private companies get to make their own employment rules in terms of compensation.
It does sound like they violated wage/hour rules by not paying OT to the workers who had to work overtime to get the proposal out.
As for bonuses -- fairness is not rewarded in business.
It would have been nice (and appropriate) to give something to ALL those who participated in winning the business.
My guess is they are only counting the people who contributed to the "strategy" or "sale" of the business, not those who supported the process. Not fair, but very, very common.
Sorry I can't be more comforting, Sophia!
If it helps, WE lurve ya!
I managed rental properties for many years. We had certain guidelines about noise, parking, etc. Your apartment manager will handle the problem if enough of you complain. However, if no one else thinks the music is too loud, then you might be left to deal with it. There are also noise ordinances in most townships and boro's. Find out what your are and take action if you can.
I believe a law was passed that prohibits smoking in public places, such as your work. So I'm not sure what the problem is in regards to your co-worker being a smoker, unless you simply don't approve to the point that just knowing he indulges is enough to upset you. If it's because he smells "smoky", we really don't have a right to tell people what they can do in their cars, their homes, etc. I have severe asthma. Certain colognes and perfumes send me into an attack. Nothing I can do about it. I don't have the right to tell someone else he can't wear his favorite aftershave because it bothers me. My health problem is my own cross to bear.
About the bonuses not paid: Unless you're salary, in this country you MUST be paid for your time, and anything over 40 hours is time and 1/2. If you're salary, working extra hours is the down side for the "extras" like paid holidays, paid vacation, etc.. received that hourly employees aren't likely to get. I was always looking for the next great manager to add to my staff. So, if anyone had problems with the way the pay scales were set up, I recommended that they do whatever was required in order to move up into management. But you can best believe that managers work way more than 40 hours every week, so the bonuses are incentives to help make the job pay more appealing.
In answer to your question, yes, I think it's "right". The alternatives aren't very appealing to me, such as not having the freedoms to take guided action, not being able to choose my own job, etc..
Terri, thank you. I think what I'm trying to get at here is not the legal action that can be taken and apartment complex rules - but in the unpleasantness that results of one doing so. My last lot of neighbors got kicked out. And I know the person in the apartment before I was here got kicked out. And the guy next to me now looks well on his way to being kicked out. It is the unpleasantness that results from it.
I think in a black and white world, there might be the position that either one has the freedom to do exactly what one likes or one has no freedom at all. However, we live in a world where there are plenty of grays. Many of our laws legislate precisely for that reason.
So, nobody has the freedom to murder. However everybody has the freedom to protect themselves. So, one's man's freedom is always another man's poison.
What I am asking here is where does one draw the one in 'freedom' to do as one likes? Especially, just how far must some people suffer in order to allow other people their 'luxury?"
I seriously sympathise after enduring a random deafening rock noise generating neighbour for 6 months.
Back a few years my radio engineer friend had that problem with his downstairs neighbour. He took home every deck from his shop and carpetted his room with the big speakers, put on a looping 2 minute tape at full volume and then went away for the weekend.
Well, this is the problem when we're dealing with issues of perspective and perception. The only way to deal with figuring out what's "right" is by the standard that the majority rules. I understand what you're saying about the unpleasantness, but that too, is a matter of perspective.
I have some very noisy neighbors who couldn't care less that they are blasting music right over my bedroom at 2 am. They don't seem to care that I work 16 hour days and need my sleep. They don't care that I'm woken up every time some idiot comes pounding on their door and yelling to be let in. I've informed the landlord. He'll either do something or he won't. If he doesn't I'll move. It may be inconvenient for me, but it's really about choice. I can either put up with the noise or move. On the other hand, if he throws them out, I won't be losing sleep over it. They have a choice too. They can start respecting the right of their neighbors to enjoy peace in their homes, or they can choose to risk being tossed out by continuing their behaviors.
The only place we CAN draw the line, was outlined by our constitution. We have the right to pursue our brand of happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another or bring harm to another. We use our legal system to enforce those rights. There is no other way, else we risk opening the door to vigilante-ism. (like that word?)
This reminds me of an old relationship. The way I saw it, it wasn't working out. I wasn't getting what I needed out of the relationship. My boyfriend was totally content. I calmly told him that I didn't think it was working, and then proceeded to let him know what I felt was missing. I wasn't angry or mean. I was very matter of fact. I was not willing to settle for less than I wanted and I didn't feel he could be what I wanted. Time to move on, love only goes so far.
He got very upset. In his own words, he basically said he felt like I was asking him to give up his happiness in favor of mine. I told him not at all. My life was about me, so my choices are about me. His were about him. And I wasn't settling for less. Bottom line, he didn't like the choices, much as you don't like yours. It's unfortunate, but we often can't control what what we have to choose from, but I'm glad we can control the choice we make.
This has nothing to do with perspective. The question I asked was "Is this right/" I didn't even ask what to do about the situation. I asked if the actions of the people involved was right?
I don't think they are. I think the actions in all three cases are wrong. I think there is an ethical basis for making these claims. I'm surprised that nobody has come up with these, and I have to wonder why that is.
You and I will have to agree to disagree. You ask what is right. That is always a matter of perspective. What is right is determined by who is affected and their past experiences with like situations. There is no way to gage what is right vs what isn't right. In our society, we have certain taboos we observe as not being "right." Other societies we view as more primitive, may view our beliefs as being "wrong". For instance, you would never want some 40-something man to have sex with your 13 year old daughter. Yet there are still some African tribes which believe a girl should be initiated by an older wiser male who can teach her the role assigned to her in her marriage. I remember being shocked when I learned that in a documentary I watched about a dozen years ago.
My point is that I was shocked due to the beliefs I was brought up by within my society. But whatever my shock, apparently the practice worked for that particular society. It was an accepted practice. From their prospective, we are the ones who are wrong for not teaching our daughters the proper way. We could argue the point until we're blue in the face, but we will never come to an agreement because there are two people involved with different backgrounds, differing values, and possibly entirely different belief systems. So it very much IS a matter of perspective.
While your ethics may be shared by some people, I guarantee they won't be shared by everyone. That's because we're all individual's with different points of view, aka: perspectives. And that is why the majority rules. That is why we have systems in place to enforce those rules. And our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms give us the right to litigate and test those boundaries or enforce them as the case may be.
When you start talking of ethics on issues of what's right and what's wrong, you enter into murky waters, because the issue of morality is subjective. This question has been debated for centuries. It's philosophy 101 and there is no correct answer for everyone. When people starting asking questions in search of support for their personal feelings, what they're really doing is looking to validate their feelings.
Why do they need validation? Obviously, they have the feelings they have, for whatever reason. Apparently, their view is the right one for them. Since it is their lives being affected, why do they feel the need to gather evidence that they're "right"?. If I tell you you're wrong, is it going to change your feelings on the matter? Of course not. However, if I say you're right, you can feel safe in the knowledge that your opinions are acceptable to others. What difference does it make in the scheme of things?
You still have your noisy neighbor. You still don't like the choices you are faced with. And you still don't like the idea that your personal needs aren't being met. Unless you and your neighbor come to an agreement about right and wrong behavior on that issue, you will continue to be limited in your choices. Me telling you that I agree that your neighbor is rude isn't really going to make a difference, is it?
You wonder why no one else has come up with the ethical basis on which you believe your questions are founded. As shocking as it may be, it's probably because most people don't recognize what you refer to as an ethical basis. You spoke earlier of the grays which make up reality. Gray is formed by a combination of black and white. Depending on who is doing the looking, will determine the extent of white or black to be seen. By asking for validation of your opinion, you're attempting to make it a black and white issue, leaning toward your opinion, of course. Good luck with that. Ethics and morality couldn't be defined by the greatest of philosophers. It will be interesting to see the final outcome.
Actually, no, you're confusing cultural perspectives with ethics. The current teaching on ethics is incorrect. That's because up to now very few people have actually looked hard at ethics and examined how they involved and what their purposes were.
It's more than possible with our current understanding of human nature, sociology, and the information that is rapidly coming to the forefront with the research on the brain and neuro diversity, to establish a set of ethics that will serve for the entire human species.
Let me give you an example of that.
In most societies, adultery (or murder) was outlawed. Why was that? It was because if one spouse committed adultery, it hurt the feelings of her partner and he might have been driven to such extremes of jealousy that he committed murder.
In other words, most ethics evolved from observing human behavior and formatting rules that prevented destructive behavior. If early tribes (stone age, etc) did not work together as a unit, they very often would not have survived the elements.
Religion is merely the body that carries these rules.
Yes, in different societies, different rules evolved because the situations were different. However, the end purpose of all these ethical rules were to prevent communities from destroying themselves and enabling the greater good for the greater number over the longest period of time.
I do not want people to agree with my opinion, much as that seems like it. I'm extremely objective. However, I do tend to cut silly arguments. The fact that I point out the discrepancies in the arguments and people don't like their fuzzy logic exposed doesn't mean I want to win an argument and have people agree with me.
You're making something person which isn't personal at all.
To get back to the freedom issue. If one person right to do whatever he likes (freedom) comes at the cost of someone else suffering intensely, that is hardly a civilized or kind society. In other words, there can never be such a thing as complete freedom.
There is legal construct that gives people certain choices, within certain boundaries, to act as they would like to. there are also certain social contracts that have been in effect for a long time as they are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. These are, however, falling by the wayside as many have no understanding why these rules were formed in the first place.
Those who teach that ethics are culturally based have not examined how those ethics and traditions came into being and what their purpose was.
If we do not get our act together and hammer our new ethical rules that ensure the survival of civilization and our species, civilization will fall, and the human species will become extinct.
Am I being extreme?
Not at all. Simple deduction.
We have the tools to destroy ourselves. Nuclear warfare. Germ warfare. Whatever. It only takes a handful of crazy people to release these and we're done. We are approaching 7 billion people on this planet and a lot more than a handful are very unhappy people indeed. We call some of them terrorist and others psychopaths, but there are lots of them around.
If we do not ensure a stable environment where most people can live well and be well educated, and where we understand that our freedoms are limited by how they affect others, then we create an environment where increasing numbers of people behave in ways that lead to self-destruct.
It happened in Rome. It happened in Greece. It has happened to numerous civilizations. They come and they go.
For the first time, we have the tools to decide which ethical rules will work for the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time.
Well, well, well,...it seems that we are in much agreement about many things after all, but no, I'm not confusing cultural perspectives with ethics. One can not address the issue of ethics without also considering how morality fits into the picture. While perspectives can be quite literally of a personal nature as in from the knowledge and experience of only that person, they can also embrace a sort of collective perspective, that is one reached by a group in a particular society having based their judgments on shared experiences and knowledge.
And then there is the subject of values. Personal values are the moral and ethical attributes of character we, as individuals, judge to be right. Societal values are the same, only from a collective aspect. Our values are central to who we are; they represent our guide book for living. Our values provide the foundation for judgments about what's important for ourselves and for society in general.
When we speak of ethics, or using ethical behavior, we're referring to exhibiting behavior that is consistent with what we have judged to be right or moral, using our values as the basis for that judgment. When referring to ethics of a society, we need to understand how it came to form its core values. While there are still many countries which rely on religious doctrine to determine what is morally right or wrong, we have seen a pulling away from beliefs founded on such principals.
Most anthropologists and historians agree that religions were primarily formed as a way to explain the mysteries that man was unable to understand. Primitive peoples didn't understand the reason the earth began shaking and spitting fire when a volcano erupted. They came to believe there was something bigger and mightier than themselves responsible. They believed they were being punished for wrong doing by this unseen force. It was fear of repeated retribution that brought them to performing rituals in an effort to appease this wrathful God.
They formed agreements about what types of behaviors were acceptable to their God by relating “good” acts to good weather, bountiful food supply, a comfortable existence. Fear was the driving force of their religious observations. It certainly wasn't because they felt all warm and fuzzy about taking care of their fellow man. Government and religion was connected simply because it was necessary for everyone to follow the same observances in order to protect the entire tribe. If one of the clan didn't fall in line, they were ostracized and left to fend for themselves.
They learned through experience that there is safety in numbers, so they banded together. However, it was about self-preservation, first. They were so concerned about that preservation that they left the injured and sick, as well as the mentally incompetent individuals behind. They didn't extend a helping hand and risk their own destruction.
Religion and government evolved together because they were one and the same. Religious doctrines were a way for a select few to control the masses through threats of retribution by an almighty God. And if that threat didn't impress you, then the governing men would take action.
When we use the terms morality and ethics to refer to a code of conduct put forth by a society, regardless of whether the code is in relation to social etiquette, law or religion, it is being used in the descriptive sense, to describe the set of rules contained therein. Using morality in the descriptive sense usually regards moral judgments as those which override anything and all judgments of a nonmoral nature. It naturally leads to the view that morality is concerned with behavior that a person considers most important and as a guide to proper conduct he wishes everyone would adopt.
No matter how kind, considerate, and thoughtful one might perceive their personal code of conduct, certain qualities might be in direct conflict with another societal sub-group. For instance, a society might have a morality that takes accepting the traditions and customs of the society, including accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty to the group, as more important than avoiding and preventing harm.
“It is possible for a society to regard morality as being concerned primarily with minimizing the harms, e.g., pain and disability, that all human beings can suffer. Such a society might claim that their morality, in which minimizing the harms that all human beings can suffer is the primary concern, is based on some universal features of human nature or of all rational beings. Although all societies include more than this in their moralities, this feature of morality, unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality in all societies. Because minimizing harm can conflict with accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, there can be fundamental disagreements within a society about what is the morally right way to behave. A society whose morality contains all three of these features may be criticized by philosophers that accept a normative account of morality if in any situation it allows purity or sanctity to override avoiding or preventing harm. Those who accept a normative account of morality, e.g., Bentham and Mill, which takes the avoiding and preventing harm element of morality to be most important, criticize all actual moralities that give precedence to purity and sanctity when they are in conflict with avoiding and preventing harm.” This is a direct quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I happen to agree with it, wholeheartedly.
I could debate this issue until judgment day (pardon the pun) but there's no point because all of it is subjective to individual perspectives. Your original post was in regards to three scenario's asking if the outcomes were "right." I ended my first reply with a resounding yes to all three, after providing my personal prospective as background information to how I came to my decision. Yet, your follow up comments stated that no one had answered your question
You said I was making this personal. I really don't care one way or the other if you have a noisy neighbor or don't get paid for extra work. My second and third response was in reply to your dialog. I mean you absolutely no personal harm, but I'll speak straight with you. There's really nothing personal here. We simply disagree on the subject. Our mutual resolve to stand firm in our convictions doesn't make me feel less informed or intelligent than I believe I am. I'm not insulted because you don't agree with me. That wouldn't be logical because, after all, I don't even know you. And frankly, because of a lack of personal relationship I could care less about your opinion of me. It's just not that important in the scheme of things.
Let's take a look at the title of your post..."Your Freedoms Come at my expense..." You didn't say, "Our freedoms come at others' expense..." The second choice calls attention to the fact that we as a whole are imposing on each other and possibly causing harm, while the first clearly screams...hey you guys, get off my toes. So instead of presenting your case with an attitude of concern for all, it comes across as you're inconvenienced by other's exercising their ideas of freedom...one's which you do not agree with.
You ended with a comment about how you're tired of all these "freedoms" because they seem to work more for some than others. The message is one of being inconvenienced and feeling like you are on the short end of the stick. Wah, Wah, Wah, I'm not saying that was your intention, or a true depiction of the reality. I'm saying that the structure of your message implied that you were complaining about life's inconveniences and turning them into a cause for changing an entire population's behaviors.
You've also stated that the current teachings on ethics is "all wrong", followed up with an explanation. Your explanation doesn't hold water. A great many philosophers have debated these issues for centuries, presenting may valid yet opposing theories, observations and ideas. Some of the greatest philosophical minds have written dissertations on the subject. By saying no one has taken a hard look at ethics up until now, you are essentially negating some of these peoples' life's works and equating their entire careers as not having contributed to society. Have you done no research on your topic? Discussions and exchanges of ideas in regards to ethics and morality have been the center of philosophy since Ancient Egyptian times. You can't possibly believe such great men were simply blowing hot air with no real understanding of their subject. And incidentally? There are many types of philosophical viewpoints having to do with the subject of morality and ethics. Personally, I'm an ethical relativist. What philosophical term would you apply to yourself?
Terri, thank you for taking so much of your valuable time to write a solid response.
I want to deal with one very valuable point that you brought up here and that is that I said, "Your freedom comes at my expense." Surely an experienced reader understands that I'm speaking directly to the reader and that it applies to all readers. There's not just one reader here. There are many. When that is realized, then it is not personal but meant for the group.
I find myself caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. In previous forums I have written in a very impersonal way, careful to be sure that it couldn't be interpreted in any personal way. What was I accused of? Oh, of being aloof and thinking that I was better than others because I used better language than others did. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
The bottom line is that all of us are responsible for what is currently happening. No man is an island. Strangely enough, in a media rich world, a lot of the way we function has to do with our understanding of issues - and much of that goes back to language.
Okay, now I want to move on.
You once more came back to ethics being cultural. Yes, currently, they are. I'm thinking of moving beyond that, though. And I think we all need to be thinking about that.
In order to move beyond it culturally, we need to understand what they are and how they came into being. Then we need to understand how our species function as a whole and create ethics that take us into the future.
Let me break that down some more. Some of us Christians, others are Jews, and others are Islamic. Still others are atheists, Buddhists, and many more isms. So where is the common ground? The common ground is the human brain. Interestingly, the brain has evolved to believe what it is told repeatedly and the more it is told that, the more it believes it. It doesn't have to be true; it just needs to be repeated often enough. That is why advertising is so powerful. It is also why people mostly take on the religion of the culture they were exposed to. Yes, there are people that are not as easily 'socialized' by they are the exception, not the rule.
I believe with our present knowledge and technology, if neruo-scientists, psychologists, sociologists, religious leaders, philosophers, etc.,got together, it is possible to mesh out a set of ethics that will work globally.
These might include:
1. Do not murder
2. Do not consider war unless own country is being invaded or about to be invaded.
3. Every person has the responsibility to learn a skill that gives a viable living.
4. No business is allowed to make excessive profits when the people at the bottom of the pyramid are not earning a livable wage.
It's difficult to explain these concepts in a few words but I've written about them. You can find some more of what I've written here.
<link snipped, no self-promoting links>
I think that it's time to move beyond the excuse that because we come from different cultures, our understanding of right and wrong is different. While I understand that in a historical context, we are currently living in a global village, and that is simply not as true as it used to be.
Another thing, I'm constantly told how diverse America it is. Believe me, it has nothing on my home country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/count … 071886.stm
India is another country with enormous cultural diversity as are quite a few I can think of.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/c … 154019.stm
I don't see people living in tribes or mud huts the way they do in countries where diversity means actually living very differently. In America, everybody goes to the movies. Nobody pays for their wife with 'labola', etc.
I mention this because there seems to be the perception that because I'm effectively setting a standard, I must be unaware of diversity. I would go as far as to say I have lived in and witnessed more diversity than most.
Thank you for your response.
Surely an experienced writer understands that when speaking directly to the reader, and that what is being written applies to all readers, she must write in a way that can be understood by all readers exactly as intended.
Experience differs from person to person. I, personally, only read excellent writers who are able to express themselves precisely, leaving absolutely no room for misinterpretation.
Oh - am I off point? I'm an extrovert.
This is a writers' site. Writers are readers. Well, at least good writers are readers. There was nothing wrong with what I wrote. I know that some are trying to find something wrong with what I wrote.
The real issue is that I hurt some people's feelings and that's a big no-no for some.
I really don't have time to reply to this anymore.
You must thing what you want to think, believe what you want to believe.
Sophia, natural conversation does tend to change course. Are you aware of this?
You opened this thread in such a way that people should be drawn into it. Once a few had kindly responded and began a conversation rather than a discussion (because there was practically no conflict of opinion), you suddenly attacked them for not paying attention and going off point as though they were all complete dunderheads who had never received a proper education (unlike yourself), showing absolutely no consideration for their feelings. Worst of all, it was you who steered this thread towards conversation rather than discussion. Reading it through to that point, it seems as though you intentionally lured them into a trap where you could look down at them and sneer at their apparent stupidity.
I know some of the Hubbers you attacked; they are excellent communicators whether in writing, conversation or duscussion, their responses always apt.
Your behavior on the forums is often inappropriate. If this is the way you behave in your off-line life, I can imagine you have problems with the majority of people you encounter, whether your neighbor or colleague.
So, that is what I think -- and I really couldn't care less if you want to know or not.
Okay. Now you're making me laugh, not in derision I assure you. I simply find it amusing that you are arguing my points for me and I don't think you realize it. “...I'm speaking directly to the reader and that it applies to all readers....not personal but meant for the group.”
Well what the hell am I, chopped liver? In this instance I am the reader, therefore one of the group to which you are addressing. You just made my point. As a reader who has no personal knowledge of you or any of your idiosyncrasies, I am not at liberty to apply any other meaning to your words than the meaning inferred by your choices of words. It wouldn't be fair or just, for me to assume you meant anything beyond what you wrote. I can only take away an understanding as it is defined through your words, the writer.
Damned if you do or damned if you don't? What does it matter? You have a specific message to convey, one you obviously believe is true and accurate from your perspective. How people receive your message will depend on the nature of your message, the content, and the implied tone through choice of vocabulary and phrase. When verbally communicating with another, we have the luxury of watching the facial expressions and mannerisms of the speaker. Our visual perceptions help us to determine the nature of the message. Is the person exaggerating, lying, being honest, etc... When we have to rely on the written word only, through the writing voice of someone with whom we've had no personal experience to help us make our determination, we can only take our cues from the text and sequence of ideas being presented as best as we are able.
You stated that in the past you've been accused of “being aloof and thinking that I was better than others because I used better language than others did.” Really? You truly believe that your accusers are only concerned with your shining use of vocabulary and sentence structure? They're jealous because you speak/write better than they? Simply making such statements gives the reader the impression that you are a self-righteous, pompous, and conceited individual with no basis for your puffed up opinion of your skills. There is definitely a tone of condescension in such a statement. To cut to the chase, you're telling people that you're better than they based on your own theory. Since you aren't able to present concrete evidence to support that theory, it is actually nothing more than a personal opinion and doesn't carry any weight with your readers.
Here's a very important tip to remember: As a writer with an idea or message you wish to pass on to your readers, it is YOUR job to convey the message in a manner consistent with achieving your desired result. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If people are misunderstanding your messages, the the failure lies with you and your delivery of the chosen information. It certainly isn't the readers' failure. You are the one with the desire to pass on an idea. It is up to you to find the written formula for conveying your exact meaning in a clear and concise manner that the reader can not mistake for something else. If you are unable to do this, I would venture to say your skills are not of the caliber you claim.
On the subject of ethics presently being cultural and the need to start thinking about moving beyond the cultural limitations: I am very alarmed by your ideology. You speak of breaking down barriers and coming up with agreed upon ethics which will work on a global level. You believe the answer is through the human brain. I became quite alarmed when you mentioned technology and neuro-scientists in the same sentence.
Yes, there have been great advances in technology and neuroscience, especially in the areas of uses for neuro-imaging and psychopharmacology. But these advances have given birth to a whole new category of ethical studies and debate...neurethics. Our technology has brought us to the abyss once again, a sort of repeat of the same types of concerns we have been dealing with and debating over genethics.
One of the hottest topics of debate in the neurethics arena has to do with “brain enhancement.” Our knowledge and technology has brought us new understandings of the way our brains process information. Because of this new knowledge, we now have a wide range of drugs capable of treating diseases previously believed untreatable. Using drugs to slow down the progression of Alzheimer's Disease, or Parkinson's Disease, or to correct stunted growth in a boy would seem to be honorable uses of pharmacological substances. But there is a rapidly growing role of psychophamacology in every day life. Society's conceptions about mental health and what consistutesnormalcy is being manipulated by these pharmaceutical companies manufacturing mood altering drugs that promise to bring welcome changes in our perspectives. Peter Kramer called it “cosmetic psychopharmacology.”
The question of ethics enters in connection with how these psychopharmacological brain enhancements affect how people think and feel. By granting these substances on a wide scale, we are essentially interfering with cognitive liberty. Pharmaceutical companies convince people they have a necessity to feel better than their present level of contentment by implying that passing symptoms of mild depression, etc should be treated. Then they supply the treatment via their brand, which is designed to suppress certain functions of the human brain while enhancing others. Basically, we are allowing these companies, with the consent of the physicians, to design the function of someone's brain. That person is essentially receiving a chemical induced lobotomy.
Our new found knowledge has also led to a resurgence in psycho-surgery in the treatment of mental illnesses, as well as neurological illnesses based on deep brain stimulation. These surgeries are permanent, and can not be reversed. While the traditional researchers and experts in these areas employ their knowledge and skills in the quest for positive therapeutic results, the US military sponsors research in this area, as well. The only military uses for this knowledge are apparently aimed at enhancing the capabilities of soldiers.
There is a rapidly developing ability to correlate brain activation with psychological states and traits. It has been suggested that brain imaging can be used to detect intentional deception. Through use of brain imaging technology, researchers have found correlates of psychological traits like personality, intelligence, attitudes toward different ethnic groups, and even a possible predilection for violent crime.
We're now entering into an era where protecting one's privacy will also mean protecting one's mind from being plundered of its secrets.
The bottom line...we truly are entering into a world where mind control can be established once an individual's brain function is read for “unwanted” traits, and then the proper drugs and/or surgery ingested or performed to obliterate that trait, while also enhancing others. This is about rewiring an individual's thinking processes as well as altering their emotional centers. It is dangerous and no longer the stuff of science fiction. We may be facing a very real threat to the annihilation of individuality on more than a cultural level, but on a physical one as well.
As for living in a global village...I'll fight tooth and nail. I live in the United States. I don't want to be seen as some extension of a bigger world enveloping culture. I much prefer the troubles associated with large amounts of diversity. Exposure to it allows us to stretch our minds and learn tolerance, as well as acceptance of differences observed. To continue to evolve as human beings does not mean that we must give up our individuality in favor of some watered down version of human existence that never risks affront to another.
Evolving intellectually and spiritually is about recognizing differences, allowing those differences and having a mutual respect for others. It is not going to come about by setting up rules that we insist apply to everyone, regardless of the personal and cultural losses of those whom the standards devised may slight. That is conceited, self-gratifying behavior being marketed by those who believe their view is the answer for everyone.
"Simply making such statements gives the reader the impression that you are a self-righteous, pompous, and conceited individual with no basis for your puffed up opinion of your skills."
I reported you.
you reported me because I told you how readers might receive your claims???? I did not accuse you of such, I pointed out how it may come across. My, you are an angry woman. Had I seen this more recent post, I would not have bothered to email you in private to ask you to remain on HubPages. Perhaps I should post our emails???
Then you're not one of the 'experienced readers' you refer to in a previous post on this thread? I understand Terri Meredith's message perfectly well, and there's nothing in it that should give you cause to report it if you've understood it correctly.
I find the "globally-agreed on" thingy a bit disturbing as well, probably for much the same reasons that you do.
The only thing I would take issue with is what you said in your last paragraph, above. I believe that there are some "rules" and rights that should trump others, for example the right of people to marry of their own free will should trump the right of their parents to forcibly abduct them and marry them off to some stranger in another country. Someone's right to life should trump the right of their relatives/spouse to carry out an "honour killing". Etc. Etc.
You can carry tolerance too far.
Absolutely in agreement there! But I was discussing how a code of universal ethics can't satisfy all. I certainly wasn't implying my own personal code would condone such practices. I'm an American. I expect anyone who comes to this country to abide by the rules set forth in our constitution. It explicitly addresses rights and lack of rights in relation to bringing harm to another.
However, I am not in favor of Americans going into someone else's country in an effort to impose our national code of ethics on their society. If their majority asks for our presence....that is another matter.
Thank you. Read your post asking where everyone has gone about an hour ago. Though I've been here for a year, I was sort of MIA for about 6 months due to other pressing obligations. I don't think I had a chance to meet many of those you were referring to. Anyway....welcome back
I guess living in an apartment, these kind of issues would arise.
It is their freedom also, whether you think it's inconsiderate or not. Unless they're playing above the noise ordinance laws, there's not really anything you can do besides to let them know it gets to be a bit much. They may say those complaining are limiting their freedoms also.
The funny thing about freedom is so many don't like others freedom if it doesn't line up with theirs.
It reminds me of the bumper sticker I see at times, coexist..
or the song Karma Police.
Of course its right, lets all give some music to our neighbours, and make the world a little better!
Nothing better than a single family detached home and big developed basement and with lots of distance to the next house and some really high fences and tall leafy trees.
I could never handle the smells and noise from apts again. Of course the ultimate escape is to settle on your own acreage which I have sometimes considered doing.
"So, what I have written about is specifically about people who go off topic"
So what exactly is the topic? Could never quite figure it out.
The problem with freedom in America, is that it is not equally shared by everyone. There are certain things that some people can get away with, that others can't.
For example. Corporations sitting on top of billions in profits, getting additional billions in handouts from the government. While the person who is next to homelessness can barely get the government to approve their piddle amount of food stamps so they can eat. Or get help paying their rent and bills.
Corporations (like Banks) who get billions in bailouts, and then turn around and sock it to their customers, and sending their accounts to collection or mile high interest rates, while they do nothing to correct their financial abuses of a system that they created to screw everyone but themselves.
And who is our so-called free government standing behind? Not the average person who is barely living day to day. No, it's all their rich pals, who are the main reason this country is so far in dept. Where they only care about people who have money, and the rest could all drop dead, and they could care less.
Then they will turn around and have the nerve to say, those people have the freedom to better themselves. But, don't mention all the roadblocks the rich put in to keep that from happening. If everyone was rich, we would not need them, and that scares the crap out of them.
So, to reply to your original post Sophia. Some people decide to take their freedom to the max out of justified bitterness of a country that could be a lot better if the people at the top really gave a crap. Something as simple as smoking a cigarette becomes an issue, as most people assume it is their freedom to do anything they want, so when someone says they can't, it just pisses them off and makes them want to do it more. Especially when they see that what applies to some, doesn't apply to everyone. Like Paris Hilton's 45 mintutes in jail on an 18 day sentance, in the front door, and out the back. Then paraded in front of the media on the 18th day to make it look like she actually served the time.
Shows you who really has the freedom in this country.
The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. I cannot afford to go to most restaurants. In that regard I have no freedom. Get down to it if money is freedom,
I have mot much freedom at all.
yes, I am flat broke, and on the verge of losing everything, and might end up homeless next month. Where is the freedom in that?
A bunch of us were saying how great it would have been if the rapture actually happened. Then those of us who are "left behind" can take advantage of all the great stuff that would be left behind by those who were raptured by god. That's how much we value our freedom. But, we all agreed that knowing how much selfishness there is in this country, there would be hell of a lot of people sticking around to spoil all the fun!!
To my experience most people don't recognize a point and if they did wouldn't understand the importance of sticking to it. They are not trying to learn anything.
Threads are a community discussion. If the discussion changes topic, then that is what happens. [Shrug].
Don't worry Sophia, I won't reply to any more of your posts just in case I don't answer it the way you want it to be answered.
You can't expect conversation to be as static as you want it to be.
"For the first time, we have the tools to decide which ethical rules will work for the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time."
Can you explain what this sentence means as I do not understand it.
What are the tools you refer to ? Who are included in the greatest number?
I chose not to have neighbors. I can't see the need for them!
I don't mean to undermine someone else discomfort but I really think we should be more tolerant of other persons and learn to compromise.
1. The man with the music on the patio; work out something, you play your music when I'm at work or during certain hour and I won't bother you. So you bear the 'noise' for a few hours and he do without his music for another few hours'.
2. The smoker in the work place. If the office does not have a no smoking rule, there is hardly anything you can do. Try talking to him, tell him in a nice waythat his smoking affects you and you are kindly asking him not to smoke while you are around him.
3. Most large business and corporations do not pay out bonuses to employee under the supervisory level. You just have to accept that. So long as you are paid what you agreed on then just don't complain.
"MY next door neighbor believes he is free to do anything he likes. This includes putting his speakers on his patio and blasting the inhabitants of the other 30 or 40 apartments in the complex south of kingdom come. He maintains it's day time and he lives in a free country.
Is he right?"
Partly. It's also true that the guy in the apartment next door has the right to get a good day's sleep, or watch All My Children without it being drowned out. If someone asks the guy to turn his music down, he should do so without complaining, because the neighbors also have rights. If his need for loud music is that important, there are many excellent cordless headphones available.
"My colleague smokes. I find it offensive but I have to do my job. The company believes that people have the freedom of choice and if I don't like it, I have the freedom to leave. They know I probably won't leave because I need a job. Are they right?"
Partly. People do have the freedom of choice, but you also have the right to choose not to smoke. If you're breathing this guy's 2nd hand smoke, your decision not to smoke has been changed for you; your right not to smoke has been usurped. Perhaps your place on employment could work out a "smoking section," with smokers all seated together, so the nonsmokers can avoid breathing the 2nd hand smoke as much as possible.
"My company won a contract after everybody in the company put in a lot of overtime (for which they weren't paid). The additional profit from the job increased to 200%. All the managers got bonuses but none of the 'lower' workers go paid a bonus. the company says that the workers have the right to go work wherever else they want if they're not happy? Is this right?"
Yes, it's right, but it's also true that the 'lower' workers have the right to get together and tell the company, "You know what? Going forward, we'd like to be included in the bonus structure." If the company says no, then the 'lower' workers have the right to say, "Okay, fine. We're all walking off the job. Good luck meeting your deliverables without us; and by the way, we're going to make sure everyone knows why we walked off the job and why they shouldn't work for you." This is called 'collective bargaining,' or 'unionizing' and some folks would like to convince us that we don't have the right to do that. But we do.
Obviously not true, or else you are saying I have achieved the impossible, in which case I thank you immensely for the unneeded but pleasant ego boost.
In that case, you should be demonstrating much greater respect for my education and that of some of the other posters who have contradicted you, and I absolutely will expect it from you in the future.
In many cases, perhaps. However, based on previous conversations that you and I have had elsewhere, I know that you are more aware than you have revealed here that even the best of writers need to have an outside eye edit their material - to help them see how it appears to someone other than the person in whose mind it originated.
You have been told by multiple highly intelligent and creative people here, sometimes kindly and sometimes bluntly, that your posts have not communicated what you intended, yet you persisted in saying that it is everyone else's fault (or the fault of their education).
You cannot possibly mean what I have bolded. The words that have only one or two meanings are in the minority, not the majority. A limitation on meanings often boils down to context, but even within a given context there is indeed variation in interpretation. There – I have given you the opportunity to achieve the impossible too.
WOW – I do believe that everyone here could agree with you on that.
But our interpretation of what is being revealed would definitely differ.
No, the real issue is that some people have hurt your feelings, and you have responded defensively, apparently in agreement with the notion that "the best defense is a strong offense."
I have read and reread the "Freedom" thread, and there is no way – based on your posts, not on the posts of others – that I can believe you intended the OP as a discussion starter, rather than as a personal thread. I suggest that you read your own first page-and-a-half of posts in that thread, without preconceived notions of what you now want it to mean, after the fact.
And yet, that is precisely what you have not done. What you have done when others have told you that you wrote something incorrectly was to respond, "Oh I'm sorry. Forgive me. Let's put it down to you being an idiot with an inadequate education. You are probably under the age of 60 and you probably grew up in the culturally un-diverse USA. And the world is going to hell as a result of the fact that you cannot read my writing. I am seriously concerned"
For me, the enormous irony of these threads of yours is rather breathtaking. You argue insistently on the need for ethics in human interactions, and yet what do you demonstrate?
The irony is humorous, yes, but also appalling and saddening.
(meaning I wish I could have said it as well )
Thanks, Rafini! You're quite an inspiration, you know! It's good to see you back in the forums. I hope life is going well for you these days.
You're so sweet! I don't have very long - summer classes start next week! Taking two classes this summer - dangnabbid Academic Advisor talked me into taking Psychology! lol (kinda helped that I remembered I wanted to disprove Maslows hierarchy of needs, )
How are you?
Ohhhhh I'll be right behind you trying to disprove Maslow, although I am not actually sure I know enough about him as a primary source to have a valid opinion. I just remember trying to read one of his books once, and I honestly couldn't get past the first page. Of course, the fact that I was trying to read it while waiting on my son at his gymnastics class could have been a big part of the problem.
I'm really not doing too terribly. Ups and downs, as always, but generally landing right side up, hooray!
What else are you taking this summer?
I'm also taking the first of two Algebra classes (both online)
The only thing I know of Maslow is that ridiculous hierarchy of needs! lol I'm fairly sure that's what led to my depression in the first place (along with learning about Utilitarianism) I recognized how each applied to my life, and according to each, I'll never be happy or successful, and I'll never reach actualization (although, shazwellyn believes I have at least once ) When I was a child it depressed me - today, it makes me angry that people believe it.
I'm with you - watching your sons gymnastics class would've been much more important!
Have fun with the Algebra! I actually enjoy math, but it has been ages since I've had to use anything more than arithmetic and the simplest bits of algebra.
Keep us all posted on the Maslow "hunt." I'll be curious to see/ hear the outcome.
Well, it's getting late here, so I'll say goodnight. See you later!
Hard to disprove Maslow as such - he only gives information that is a view from one direction. Arguing that it is not a useful way to look at that information for other reasons might make some headway
...hijack!....watchya doin' up so early/late?
Is the middle of the day here ! been teaching this morning and later today and just home for lunch.
Must be early morning for you I guess - so you will be playing online hookey at work then ?
There comes a point at which I would rather sabotage myself than carry on with this kind of nitpicking one more minute. By that I mean I would remove every single hub that I have written over the psst five months.
I'm really sorry that the fact that it worries me that the standards of my youth in the 50s no longer apply. I know that I am far from the only baby boomer that sees the loss in ethical living as frightening.
I also know that the standard of education has dropped so badly that, according to some research some two years ago in California, 95% of 4 year university students cannot write a grammatical sentence. In addition, about two months ago, I was in the presence of a high school teacher who was told that she had to teach her kids grammar and said she didn't know what to do because she hadn't been taught grammar at school and had no idea how to teach it. This from a girl with a four year university degree.
I cannot talk to people who are bent on doing their best to ridicule me because I have pointed out that some missed the point of what I had written.
When the standard of language has dropped so badly that people are defending what is indefensible and when my character is attacked, then quite honestly, I have no desire whatsoever to be part of the community.
I will remove myself and my work from hub pages. The few pence I receive isn't worth the sniping. And I've informed hP management.
You told on us? Are we going to git a whuppin'?
Take your ball and go home if you expect everyone to play by your rules. I happen to have a couple of extra balls anyway!
...posts were getting long....let's try here...sounds good - but what is the 'pickled stuff'? ha ha ha...and.....did you cook?....so 2 questions for ya, while yor munchin' away on lunch...
Sophia, you have ridiculed those who responded on your threads. So the karma thing does work.. I saw that coming with your original post. Think of your intention when you first opened this thread. It wasn't to open discussion.
You yourself said, what people skills?
Did it work as you planned? Can you control the outcome? Why would you want to if you truly wanted discussion? But your intention was to control the outcome, making sure those who responded in a way which you didn't intend are ridiculed for their lack of education and intelligence?
Reaction or discussion?
and who is angry? I don't see anyone angry but yourself.
Anger as a tool, a form of manipulation to get people to do what you want? And you're genuinely concerned about civilization going down the tubes? I hope these thread responses can somehow allow you to see the errors in your intentions and methods of interacting with people..
You talk about the lack of ethical living. In these cases you stated...these people are in the minority. Most people take the feelings of others into account and try to live ethical lives.
Don't always assume that people are incapable of thinking just because they don't care to get into deep conversations on an Internet forum...
I too have neighbours who blast their music, usually in the early hours of the morning. I have to sleep with ear plugs, but the noise still manages to get through. And I can no longer sit in the garden because of the constant noise. As to smoking, I am surprised that this is allowed. In the UK smoking in the workplace has not been allowed for some time. Smokers have to leave the building, even in the rain, but it is their choice, if they want to continue to smoke.
Sorry, the only bullying I saw was from the OP in another thread.
I mentioned that she became excessively harsh. I am not defending her here, just saying that it appears to me have got out of hand with aspects of bullying, maybe on both sides, and it is best left to disappear is all. Passers by adding a few more kicks to the dead body does nobody any good.
Freedom and liberty are very fundamental rights.
There's a simple answer to your question.
Everyone would have the freedom and liberty to do whatever they want. Someone should have the right to inject crack cocaine into their eyeballs if they want!
But a persons freedom and liberty only extends to the point where it does not trespass on another individual's freedom.
For an example: a person should have the freedom to breathe fresh air without cigarette smoke. So if another person wishes to exercise their freedom to smoke, they are within their right to do so as long as they don't restrict or 'impinge' on another persons right to breathe smokeless air.
Therefore it is up to everyone to make sure that we do not restrict or inhibit other peoples freedoms!
Unfortunately their are a lot of ignorant people around all to eager to assert their right to freedom to do whatever they want.
But if they are 'free' to trespass on other peoples freedoms, then you are free to trespass on their's, considering that we are all equals!
by marcel2857 years ago
I see a lot of people trying to push their beliefs onto others, and a lot of people being dissed for their beliefs. A. Everyone has the right to believe what they want. B. That's fine and dandy, but you don't have the...
by thirdmillenium7 years ago
........and take risks to start a business of your own with likely returns that will be beyond your wildest dreams?
by Marlena Oechsner5 years ago
"I'm very punctual." That was my response when a woman asked me why I am a good worker during a phone interview. "Okay," she responded, "but what would your current supervisor have to say about...
by John Holden5 years ago
I've just been watching a programme on UK TV.One of these where the boss man of a company goes undercover to find out how his employees really tick.The company runs holiday camps, caravan parks even. One camp that he...
by PrettyPanther5 years ago
I recently quit my job working for a company that was engaging in practices that are perfectly legal in this state (but not in some other states), but that take advantage of the poor. The owners were raking in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.