Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gwyneth's avatar

Principles (and ethics) only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient.

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

"Ethics." That word has a much different meaning for many people. Especially for those in positions of authority. Before tossing about the term we must understand that those in positions of power practice Utlilitarian Ethics. Greater good (as they define). Ends justifies the means.

https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/an-introduction-to-western-ethical-thought-aristotle-kant-utilitarianism/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-companion-to-utilitarianism/kantian-ethics-and-utilitarianism/7268C5327E7BBDACB7FB725892538B67

https://justweighing.com/blogs/wisdoms-many-facets/virtue-utilitarianism-deontological-ethics-what-are-the-differences

https://www.microblife.in/what-is-the-opposite-of-utilitarianism

FF - The ethics most of us commoners think of are known as Virtue Ethics or Kantian Ethics when we hear and use the word. Your Shrew Stack today appeals to OUR understanding of what constitutes ethics. Utilitarianism is the ethics conceived of by those who believe they are made of a finer clay than other men. Blue bloods. Who believe themselves wise, dispassionate, calm, cool, capable of making the tough decisions required of leaders/rulers. The ethics of conceit and privilege.

Ends justifies the means, is what is taught in the Ivy's, MIT's, Oxford's, etc, to 'future leaders' like Rhodes Scholars, Taught that leadership requires the cool, unemotional, level-headed ability to make difficult decisions that imperil some for a greater good. Human sentimentality has no place in leadership to them.

The whole, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few (million) eggs" idea of ethics. By "eggs" Stalin meant "skulls":

https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/

There's even a lot of academic study and practitioners of "ethical lying":

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/lying/

And it is under Utilitarian ethics that governments will declare a democide/genocide/iatrocide they commit as being "ethical." Mass murder "for a greater good" is even considered 'humanitarian':

The Failures of Ethics: Confronting the Holocaust, Genocide, and Other Mass Atrocities

Oxford Academic

https://academic.oup.com/book/25587

Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing

Oxford Academic

https://academic.oup.com/book/27663

Genocide: on the edge of an act called mass murder

The Forum

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41312-022-00136-2

FF - That breaking eggs, omelet thing.

They are taught, believe that lies are necessary to govern. That the population is too stupid or emotional to know what's good for them. And if caught in a lie then they'll deflect by claiming benevolent intent, like Fauci and masking, the "noble lie." This is their paradigm, prism they see us and the world through.

Remember, the former Chief Bioethicist at the National Institute of Health, Christine Grady (aka Mrs. Anthony Fauci), proclaimed that Anthony Fauci's leadership during the pandemic was the epitome of ethical medical guidance:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/international-voice-human-subjects-protections-named-nih-clinical-center-bioethics-chief

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-christine-grady-nih-pandemic-policies/

https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/the-house-of-fauci-how-dr-christine

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/18/fauci-wife-authors-paper-supporting-vaccine-pressure-campaigns/

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a32715031/fauci-christine-grady-nih-covid/

FF - And anybody questioning Fauci's ethics or a conflict of interest with her work and his work is just a hater! They are above reproach, ethical beyond question! They'll tell you so in this video:

https://youtu.be/pf2cVoP5mRs?si=Dh1xNxq5yZn1qAEh

About that Fauci character. He has no use for God or any other higher authority. His own personal ethics are sufficient:

https://ijr.com/anthony-fauci-claims-no-longer-needs-church-personal-ethics-enough/

And not just in the US. From the UK "Stalin's Nanny" is now the Chief Behavioural Scientist at the WHO! Susan Michie's "health" leadership ethics are of little comfort for future BS declared health emergencies. Our idea of ethics and her idea of ethics are not the same:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11017119/Communist-British-scientist-dubbed-Stalins-nanny-given-job-World-Health-Organization.html

To declare that authorities, governments, educators, media and businesses haven't been acting ethically isn't sufficient; they believe they have been and operate under their own system of ethics - Utilitarianism. We must attack their *system* of ethics itself if we are to regain our freedom and liberty, our rights we are endowed with by our creator.

Remember, leaders of some of the most murderous regimes in human history believed they held the highest ethics. Nazi Germany was ethical. Stalinist Russia was ethical. Maoist China was ethical. All of the crimes against humanity were considered ethical! Var. Utilitarianism.

Winners write history, though, and they lost, so, their ethics turned into crimes. Or in the case of Mao, excused as, "unfortunate mistakes," "oops, we're sorry for killing fifty million Chinese, we meant well but got carried away." Starts with utilitarian "ethical lying." These examples show that humanity has been here before. And that it doesn't go so good for humanity until we realize that authorities today don't share our idea of ethics. We must bring the debate over what constitutes ethics to a broader audience.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts