On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:
I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation details but more generally about the complement to rights in the European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which is why I said so. It was not the best wording.
What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic. or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with similar consequences.
i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english language). you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic. yeah. my ethic is, i can kill anybody i like that gets in my way".
Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.
the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and it is *not internally negotiable*. as in, it is an *objective* measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
? if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition - impossible to have a hierarchy. if you are solely and exclusively responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
*by definition*.
You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. If there were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.
Some people apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.
it's by definition. an-archy *means* - by definition "without having any arch".
For example, Wikipedia has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance, voluntary institutions etc., yes.
More relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. Now, if you don’t want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.
I don’t think our opinions are far apart.
florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the different understandings that you have of certain words which are critical to the conversation. with clarity of the understanding of words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions, even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we say.
but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard / measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer than i have time for, for which i apologise.
Yes, it is a problem with terms.
I am quite happy with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of profit maximization or else I would not be here.
can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read, the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's almost overwhelming.
This is not the first time I heard of it. I will read it.
do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm) would be a good idea? because i certainly don't!
this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start, but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible nightmare scenario.
l.
I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…
thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric vehicle.
utter insanity. they're *literally* deluded.
cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle. got a design concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as "localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).
long story. not relevant to this list.
l.
Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.