How to Instantly Tell Who's Evil versus Good

lkwdblds

Crusader
Ted posted the following article by Mike Adams on another thread on ESMB. I thought is was excellent, one of the most interesting articles I have ever read. With Ted's permission, I decided to post the article as a new thread. There is the article itself plus Ted's comments in red ink, which relate the article to Scientology.

The contents of this article encompass a very wide scope and are relevant to many threads on ESMB. I'd be curious to get people's feed back on this article.
Lakey

Now for the article:


Excellent article by Mike Adams, The Health Ranger.

My comments in red.

How to instantly tell who's evil vs. good: the philosophy of 'control' vs. 'empowerment'


Control vs Empowerment, if that doesn't make you think of Scientology, tech vs policy, I don't know what would.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com



(NaturalNews) I get this question all the time from readers: How can we know whom to believe? Who's really telling the truth? Which person should I support for political office at the next election? [Or what is that registrar trying to tell me? What do my donations really buy?]

What if I told you there is an incredibly simple way to tell not only who's good and who's bad, but also how to tell who is pushing absolute evil onto our world?

This method is remarkably accurate, and you can use it right now to assess almost anyone.

It all starts with understanding the spectrum of control vs. empowerment.

Imagine a 10-foot string stretched out on the ground. On the far left side of the string, there is a point we'll call "Control." On the far right side of the string, another point is called "Empowerment."

Let's start with the "Empowerment" side first. This point represents people who primarily seek to empower you with knowledge, skills, wisdom and tools. "Empowerment" represents GOOD because it allows wisdom, skills and abundance to multiply from one person to the next. It recognizes the value of the individual and honors consciousness and free will. [Honoring consciousness and free will. That's your auditor--if he/she is a real auditor.]

On the far left side of the string -- which also represents the political left in America today -- we have "Control." This point represents people who primarily seek to control you: to extract money from you (rob you) [Do not forget the Hubbardian maxim, CONTROL = INCOME!], to limit your freedoms [Yes, disconnection and other limitations too long to list.], to demand your obedience [Yep.]and to use the threat of force to command your compliance [Ah, yes. Do as I say or we will be no friend of yours. You will lose your Bridge, all your friends, EPF, RPF, The Hole, etc. . This philosophy dishonors the individual and downplays free will and individual liberty. [Emphasis mine.] "Control" is inherently evil because it seeks to diminish the power of a large number of people in order to accumulate power into the hands of a few people. [Or, The One.]

(The context of this discussion is, of course, entirely in the realm of dealing with adults. Obviously children should be subjected to certain controls for their own development and safety. That's called good parenting. But to treat adults like children and attempt to control them like a parent controlling a child is unjustified and inherently destructive.)

Examples of "control" vs "empowerment"
A person who seeks to teach others how to garden and thereby grow their own food is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to place other people on government food stamps and thereby make them dependent on government for their food is practicing control and is inherently EVIL. [The beans and rice tactic is inherently evil, and Hubbard knew it.]

A school that teaches students to think for themselves and engage in critical, skeptical thinking about the world around them is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD [But not possible in Scio-World where it's Hubbard's way or the highway. Sure you can think for yourself but not too much and not outside the box.]. But a school that teaches students blind obedience to institutional authority [Institutional authority, that's the church.] while denying them the liberty to think for themselves is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. [Back in the '50s Hubbard sought to refer to himself and Scientologists as doctors to the world, as fixers. He railed against authority. Both positions can be found in the PABs. 30 years later his attitude had shifted. I recall a WISE advice/reference where Hubbard was now proclaiming, "We ARE the admin authority!" justifying all of his policies used in the business world. Do not forget, CONTROL = INCOME. It was all about Hubbard's income.]

A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to destroy entrepreneurship, suppress innovation, punish small businesses and burden private sector job creation with onerous taxes and regulation is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. ['Nuff said.]

A person who seeks to teach others how to protect themselves against violent crime through the intelligent, ethical use of weapons for self defense is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to strip away from everyone else their right to self defense, placing them in the position of defenseless victimization, is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.

A city mayor who seeks to teach his constituents the principles of nutrition and food choice so that they might make better decisions about their diet and health is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a city mayor who demands blind obedience to his selective agenda of banning large sodas or other junk food items is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. (Bloomberg, anyone?)

So, getting back to the title of this article, the way to instantly tell whether a person is "good" or "evil" is to examine their actions on the control vs. empowerment spectrum. If they predominantly seek to control others, they are mostly evil. If they predominantly seek to empower others, they are mostly good. [As DM degraded the tech and tech personnel, as MEST became more important than good training and auditing, as truth was deleted from PR, the organization swung heavily towards evil.]

Be careful to examine peoples' actions, not merely their words. Anyone can talk a good game of "empowerment," but very few actually seek to educate and uplift others around them.

The politics of control vs. empowerment
The political left is deeply invested in a philosophy of control. The left believes in centralized control over the economy, societal control of parenting and children, government control over education, centralized bankster control over money, and government control over health care. [Hubbard was a leftist pretending to support righty policies and actions.]

The political right is invested in a philosophy of non-interventionism. They classically believe the government should keeps its hands off education, the economy, businesses operations and private lives. (Of course, today's political right is actually just as much pro-big government as the political left.)

Libertarianism, by the way, is a philosophy of allowing -- allowing people to make their own fortunes, or mistakes, or personal decisions as long as their behaviors do not harm others. Classic libertarianism means people are free to do what they wish, including marrying someone of the same sex if that's their choice, as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to others around them. Many people mistakenly think they are libertarians but they are actually closet control freaks because they want everyone else to conform to their own ideas of marriage, religion, recreational drug use, prostitution and so on. A true libertarian must tolerate the free will actions of others even if those actions are obviously self-destructive to the individual. [That's the classic auditor following the primary points of the auditor's code to the letter.]

In terms of ethics, "controlism" is inherently destructive because it denies an individual his or her humanity. [Oh, that statement is worthy of discussion!]"Empowerment" is inherently good (or even blessed) because it invests in the individual the power of determining her or her own life outcomes. [I'll buy that!]

The universe is written in the code of conscious empowerment
From a spiritual perspective, the Creator granted humans free will precisely because free will puts control into the hands of the individual, not a centralized power figure. [And there's the organizational conflict within the church: auditing empowerment vs the needs of the organization.] If we were not meant to be free, we would never have been created with free will.

In this way, "controlism" stands in contradiction to the laws of the universe and the existence of free will and consciousness. Thus, the underlying philosophy of the political left is anti-consciousness, anti-free will and a contradiction of the fundamental laws of the universe.

This is why collectivist mandates feel so alien to a free-thinking human being... because control freakism is a violation of self-evident, universal truth. This is also why the leftist / collectivist political philosophy is doomed to fail: It exists in gross violation of the laws of the universe. No human being inherently wants to live without freedom, functioning merely as an obedient peon under a system of centralized control. It feels wrong because it is universally and spiritually wrong.

That is why it [and the church] will fail. And that is why all those who defend individual liberty, free will and individual empowerment quite literally have God and the universe on their side.

In summary, then, if you want to determine whether a person is "good" or "evil" -- in effect, whether they are living in congruency with the laws of the universe -- simply place them on the spectrum of "control" versus "empowerment" and your question all but answers itself.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak." -- Unknown

"Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand." -- Unknown
 

FinallyMe

Silver Meritorious Patron
I agree with the concept, and would love to see more discussion of the more subtle "control" methods that we (I) see all the time in ordinary life. Like the methods used by a paranoid manager/supervisor. Thanks for posting this.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Could you edit this to make Ted's comments in red? Hard to distinguish who is saying what. Thanks.
(If edit time laps, just re-post it with the red included.)
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
The political left and right are both control freaks.

Good vs evil is a very old game.

Empowering - to imbue with power. Hmmm, well, I'm all for people producing, working together to achieve a better life for themselves and others.

"A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD."

Profit is typically achieved by exploitation not empowerment. Show me a major corporation that divides all the "profit" with its employees.

How empowered are those Chinese workers that make all the stuff we buy?

Why is it that millions of US citizens have to rely on the gov't just to eat?

Yes, we sure do have a problem with control - always have, as far back as our history can be read.

Where is that tech that will make beneficent humans hiding? And don't tell me it's old L Ron's tech lakey. We KNOW what that makes, by the fruits it has sprouted over the past 60 years. Show me 1 scilon that has become a leader of the "free world". Just one.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Empowerment vs Control is not a proper "pairing"

Disempowerment vs Empowerment is.

Control is not the issue. Control is a means to achieve an end. One can control to empower, one can control to disempower.

Control the flow of water to generate power. Control the flow of blood by strangulation to kill.
 

Osiris

Patron with Honors
How will you know them ?

"By their deeds you will Know them"

anyone can be a good Fiction writer (some better than others), saying really "good" things

but then when you look at the things they do ...... they say one thing, but do another (basically a lair)

if they preach love & peace & tolerance & honesty, the things they do should not be filled with lies & deception, abuse & hostility,

What they say should mirror what they do ........

(unfortunately it sometimes takes some time to work it out ...... but eventually you will know)
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
The political left and right are both control freaks.

Good vs evil is a very old game.

Empowering - to imbue with power. Hmmm, well, I'm all for people producing, working together to achieve a better life for themselves and others.

"A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD."

Profit is typically achieved by exploitation not empowerment. Show me a major corporation that divides all the "profit" with its employees.

How empowered are those Chinese workers that make all the stuff we buy?

Why is it that millions of US citizens have to rely on the gov't just to eat?

Yes, we sure do have a problem with control - always have, as far back as our history can be read.

Where is that tech that will make beneficent humans hiding? And don't tell me it's old L Ron's tech lakey. We KNOW what that makes, by the fruits it has sprouted over the past 60 years. Show me 1 scilon that has become a leader of the "free world". Just one.

Uh, how about Louis Farakahn?
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Ted posted the following article by Mike Adams on another thread on ESMB. I thought is was excellent, one of the most interesting articles I have ever read. With Ted's permission, I decided to post the article as a new thread. There is the article itself plus Ted's comments in red ink, which relate the article to Scientology.

The contents of this article encompass a very wide scope and are relevant to many threads on ESMB. I'd be curious to get people's feed back on this article.
Lakey

Now for the article:


Excellent article by Mike Adams, The Health Ranger.

My comments in red.

How to instantly tell who's evil vs. good: the philosophy of 'control' vs. 'empowerment'


Control vs Empowerment, if that doesn't make you think of Scientology, tech vs policy, I don't know what would.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com



(NaturalNews) I get this question all the time from readers: How can we know whom to believe? Who's really telling the truth? Which person should I support for political office at the next election? [Or what is that registrar trying to tell me? What do my donations really buy?]

What if I told you there is an incredibly simple way to tell not only who's good and who's bad, but also how to tell who is pushing absolute evil onto our world?

This method is remarkably accurate, and you can use it right now to assess almost anyone.

It all starts with understanding the spectrum of control vs. empowerment.

Imagine a 10-foot string stretched out on the ground. On the far left side of the string, there is a point we'll call "Control." On the far right side of the string, another point is called "Empowerment."

Let's start with the "Empowerment" side first. This point represents people who primarily seek to empower you with knowledge, skills, wisdom and tools. "Empowerment" represents GOOD because it allows wisdom, skills and abundance to multiply from one person to the next. It recognizes the value of the individual and honors consciousness and free will. [Honoring consciousness and free will. That's your auditor--if he/she is a real auditor.]

On the far left side of the string -- which also represents the political left in America today -- we have "Control." This point represents people who primarily seek to control you: to extract money from you (rob you) [Do not forget the Hubbardian maxim, CONTROL = INCOME!], to limit your freedoms [Yes, disconnection and other limitations too long to list.], to demand your obedience [Yep.]and to use the threat of force to command your compliance [Ah, yes. Do as I say or we will be no friend of yours. You will lose your Bridge, all your friends, EPF, RPF, The Hole, etc. . This philosophy dishonors the individual and downplays free will and individual liberty. [Emphasis mine.] "Control" is inherently evil because it seeks to diminish the power of a large number of people in order to accumulate power into the hands of a few people. [Or, The One.]

(The context of this discussion is, of course, entirely in the realm of dealing with adults. Obviously children should be subjected to certain controls for their own development and safety. That's called good parenting. But to treat adults like children and attempt to control them like a parent controlling a child is unjustified and inherently destructive.)

Examples of "control" vs "empowerment"
A person who seeks to teach others how to garden and thereby grow their own food is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to place other people on government food stamps and thereby make them dependent on government for their food is practicing control and is inherently EVIL. [The beans and rice tactic is inherently evil, and Hubbard knew it.]

A school that teaches students to think for themselves and engage in critical, skeptical thinking about the world around them is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD [But not possible in Scio-World where it's Hubbard's way or the highway. Sure you can think for yourself but not too much and not outside the box.]. But a school that teaches students blind obedience to institutional authority [Institutional authority, that's the church.] while denying them the liberty to think for themselves is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. [Back in the '50s Hubbard sought to refer to himself and Scientologists as doctors to the world, as fixers. He railed against authority. Both positions can be found in the PABs. 30 years later his attitude had shifted. I recall a WISE advice/reference where Hubbard was now proclaiming, "We ARE the admin authority!" justifying all of his policies used in the business world. Do not forget, CONTROL = INCOME. It was all about Hubbard's income.]

A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to destroy entrepreneurship, suppress innovation, punish small businesses and burden private sector job creation with onerous taxes and regulation is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. ['Nuff said.]

A person who seeks to teach others how to protect themselves against violent crime through the intelligent, ethical use of weapons for self defense is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to strip away from everyone else their right to self defense, placing them in the position of defenseless victimization, is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.

A city mayor who seeks to teach his constituents the principles of nutrition and food choice so that they might make better decisions about their diet and health is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a city mayor who demands blind obedience to his selective agenda of banning large sodas or other junk food items is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. (Bloomberg, anyone?)

So, getting back to the title of this article, the way to instantly tell whether a person is "good" or "evil" is to examine their actions on the control vs. empowerment spectrum. If they predominantly seek to control others, they are mostly evil. If they predominantly seek to empower others, they are mostly good. [As DM degraded the tech and tech personnel, as MEST became more important than good training and auditing, as truth was deleted from PR, the organization swung heavily towards evil.]

Be careful to examine peoples' actions, not merely their words. Anyone can talk a good game of "empowerment," but very few actually seek to educate and uplift others around them.

The politics of control vs. empowerment
The political left is deeply invested in a philosophy of control. The left believes in centralized control over the economy, societal control of parenting and children, government control over education, centralized bankster control over money, and government control over health care. [Hubbard was a leftist pretending to support righty policies and actions.]

The political right is invested in a philosophy of non-interventionism. They classically believe the government should keeps its hands off education, the economy, businesses operations and private lives. (Of course, today's political right is actually just as much pro-big government as the political left.)

Libertarianism, by the way, is a philosophy of allowing -- allowing people to make their own fortunes, or mistakes, or personal decisions as long as their behaviors do not harm others. Classic libertarianism means people are free to do what they wish, including marrying someone of the same sex if that's their choice, as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to others around them. Many people mistakenly think they are libertarians but they are actually closet control freaks because they want everyone else to conform to their own ideas of marriage, religion, recreational drug use, prostitution and so on. A true libertarian must tolerate the free will actions of others even if those actions are obviously self-destructive to the individual. [That's the classic auditor following the primary points of the auditor's code to the letter.]

In terms of ethics, "controlism" is inherently destructive because it denies an individual his or her humanity. [Oh, that statement is worthy of discussion!]"Empowerment" is inherently good (or even blessed) because it invests in the individual the power of determining her or her own life outcomes. [I'll buy that!]

From a spiritual perspective, the Creator granted humans free will precisely because free will puts control into the hands of the individual, not a centralized power figure.[And there's the organizational conflict within the church: auditing empowerment vs the needs of the organization.] From a spiritual perspective, the Creator granted humans free will precisely because free will puts control into the hands of the individual, not a centralized power figure. [And there's the organizational conflict within the church: auditing empowerment vs the needs of the organization.] If we were not meant to be free, we would never have been created with free will.

In this way, "controlism" stands in contradiction to the laws of the universe and the existence of free will and consciousness. Thus, the underlying philosophy of the political left is anti-consciousness, anti-free will and a contradiction of the fundamental laws of the universe.

This is why collectivist mandates feel so alien to a free-thinking human being... because control freakism is a violation of self-evident, universal truth. This is also why the leftist / collectivist political philosophy is doomed to fail: It exists in gross violation of the laws of the universe. No human being inherently wants to live without freedom, functioning merely as an obedient peon under a system of centralized control. It feels wrong because it is universally and spiritually wrong.

That is why it [and the church] will fail. And that is why all those who defend individual liberty, free will and individual empowerment quite literally have God and the universe on their side.

In summary, then, if you want to determine whether a person is "good" or "evil" -- in effect, whether they are living in congruency with the laws of the universe -- simply place them on the spectrum of "control" versus "empowerment" and your question all but answers itself.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak." -- Unknown

"Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand." -- Unknown

Okay AnonymMary, I did my best to put Ted's comments in red. I hope it worked OK.
Lakey
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
It is really a re-statement of the old "Left Hand Path / Right Hand Path analogy which has been around for hundreds of years.. Right hand path seeks to empower the other person while the left hand path seeks power over the other person.
 
Good and evil are not permanent conditions of people.

People are not always good and people are not always bad.

Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad but treating people as ends in themselves is good.

In other words you don't deceive or fool people or trick people or even use an irrational or purely emotional argument to convince someone to do what you want them to do.

You treat people as the one who should make his own decision based on his values and just give him the information you have.

This is Kant's way of saying empowerment is good and manipulation is bad.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
It is really a re-statement of the old "Left Hand Path / Right Hand Path analogy which has been around for hundreds of years.. Right hand path seeks to empower the other person while the left hand path seeks power over the other person.

and... what inferences, if any, do you make from this analogy?
Lakey
 

Gadfly

Crusader
As regards good versus evil, to me, empowerment and control are a false dichotomy.

Good and evil are entirely relative, to some person or group. To a fanatical Muslim, it is "good" to send a busload of heathens to hell with a suicide bomb. A "good" Muslim fanatic "empowers" young Muslim kids with how to make the bombs.

I agree with TAJ that when you act out of the concerns of the other person or group, to help them, as long as they are not screwing somebody else over doing what they do, then that is "good".

This gets tricky because how any person views good or evil with usually depend on his or her set of beliefs, fixed ideas, philosophy, religion or political leanings. Often some dogma sets the framework for what is considered to be good or bad.

For example, a strict right-wing Christian fundamentalist might consider abortion "wrong", and empower a few friends to bomb the local abortion clinic ( to "help" the unborn fetuses). To them in their minds, they are "good". To them they are stopping "evil". If their assumptions are true, then their choices are correct (of course, the assumptions are not true). :ohmy:

This gets all so tricky, because ethics and morality are mostly relative to what one holds to be true. I don't see that there is ANY sort of absolute ethics or morality, at least not that most human beings will be able to grasp. To arrive at an absolute system of ethics or morality, one will have to make certain assumptions (that others will probably NOT agree with).

TAJ, you say, "Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad but treating people as ends in themselves is good."

Okay, so my next door neighbor is addicted to pain killers. She comes over one night and wants about 50 bucks, and she is willing to do anything (she's really cute too). So, I don't treat her as an end for me, I don't take advantage of her, but I help her from her viewpoint - and give her $50 so that she can get her pain killers. I could try to talk her into what I think she should do, or even trick her into NOT doing the drugs, but per Kant, I should let her make a "decision based on her values", and just give her the information I have or understand.

To me there are so MANY wrinkles in this argument.

What would enable a higher morality or ethics to come about might occur IF there was an accurate understanding of what a person really IS, as a mind, as a spirit, etc. If each of us is 1) just some result of accidental evolution, where consciousness is some by-product of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain, and when we die that is it, then attitudes and choices will differ than if 2) Man were actually some more-than-temporary entity who traversed a great many lives and existences. If the latter were "the truth", then right and wrong would align with THAT set of facts. If there is a God in Heaven like some Christians think, and you wil go to Hell if you are "bad", then choices will again be very different. Determinations of good and evil always depend on the belief system held by any person or group. I am curious TAJ, have any philosophers tried to come up with a system of ethics that transcends that problem - that it is often so relative, based on the fixed ideas and assumptions of some person or group?

The problem is that the "set of facts about these great truths" is almost entirely OPINION. And thus, there are a great many different ideas of what "right" and "wrong" is. The Muslim fanatic sees western women in mini-skirts as "evil". And many in the west see women in long clothing that covers their entire body as "evil".

Hubbard was onto something when he talked about "mores" and "social habits". The determination of good and evil has much to do with those factors.

TAJ, I do agree mostly with what Kant said, but I see that there can be exceptions. Generally, I would say that acting to expand the awareness, understanding and knowledge of another, as applies to some relevant matter, concern or situation, is usually a good thing. Acting with trickery, lies, deceit, manipulation, control and force, to make others act or behave to benefit YOU, would be "evil". But I can conceive of situations where deception and trickery would be the right thing to do.

As Leon said, it often comes down to the right-hand versus the left-hand path. It is "love" as desire and a need for sensation versus unconditional (higher) love for others. It is concern for inflow versus giving (as outflow) and with no concern for what you get back "in return". Some notions of this "higher love" transcend "exchange" entirely.

This "good" versus "evil" thing is something that great minds have been pondering for centuries. One day I should give it more than a passing thought. :confused2:
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
I remember something from $cn about how control is good because it gets everything going in the same direction and makes forward progress possible. The analogy was made to good control over a car (driving) rather than bad control (crashing).

I've always had a problem with that. Now I understand why.

BTW, when good people get together on a project they tend to decide things based on consensus -- that which works for everyone.

But many people take the attitude that SOMEBODY has to be in charge. If there aren't societal rules to determine who's in charge (such as Kreng Jai in Thailand) they might have to argue it out first. But in my humble opinion, believing that SOMEBODY has to be in charge is not necessarily the right approach.

Helena
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Good and evil are not permanent conditions of people.

People are not always good and people are not always bad.

Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad but treating people as ends in themselves is good.

In other words you don't deceive or fool people or trick people or even use an irrational or purely emotional argument to convince someone to do what you want them to do.

You treat people as the one who should make his own decision based on his values and just give him the information you have.

This is Kant's way of saying empowerment is good and manipulation is bad.

The Anabaptist Jacques

On your first sentence, I don't think the OP article suggests that people are always one way or the other; that point is not at issue.

Line 2, where Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad would be something I would take issue with. I like the concept of a win-win situation where everyone involved in an endeavor ends up being more empowered. Henry Ford pulled this off early in the 1900's. He wanted to sell lots of automobiles to the working man so he double wages from $2.50 a day to $5.00 a day in his factory. By empowering his workers, they were able to return the favor and empower him and help him achieve his dream. Meanwhile the workers fulfilled their dream to be able to afford a car, which prior to Ford could only be purchased by the wealthy. Most of the other manufacturers had to follow suit and match the wages so both the company and the public prospered from Ford's action.

The action when first taken, was rather risky, many people assumed it would bring his company to ruin. He had the ability to see deeper than his detractors could. Taking that one big gamble and having it succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams was sufficient to make him ultra rich and guarantee him a place in history.

I agree with the last 4 lines of your post.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
I remember something from $cn about how control is good because it gets everything going in the same direction and makes forward progress possible. The analogy was made to good control over a car (driving) rather than bad control (crashing).

I've always had a problem with that. Now I understand why.

BTW, when good people get together on a project they tend to decide things based on consensus -- that which works for everyone.

But many people take the attitude that SOMEBODY has to be in charge. If there aren't societal rules to determine who's in charge (such as Kreng Jai in Thailand) they might have to argue it out first. But in my humble opinion, believing that SOMEBODY has to be in charge is not necessarily the right approach.

Helena

Helena, it sounds like the empowerment of all people in a society is the antidote for believing that SOMEBODY has to be in charge. If NOBODY is in charge then there is anarchy which leads to chaos. I believe the American Founding Fathers were on the right track. Simply stated, for usage in the real world, they devised a system which attempted to empower each citizen to a collective state sufficient for the citizenry to vote in leaders who would further look out for the common interest.
Lakey
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Would the world not be a better place if we just concentrated on improving our own character and ceased to concern ourselves with that of others? We all change ... some people more than others and there's a huge gap between 'good and evil'.

If I felt someone was trying to 'empower' me I'd probably suggest that they go and practice elsewhere (thank you very much) and if someone attempted to 'control' me (in a bad way) they're almost certainly wasting their time.

I'll empower and control myself and I'll do my absolute best to take very good care of the people close to me, while they do their own empowering and controlling of themselves and that is as it should be.

If I really needed to know if someone was 'good' (ie if I was hiring staff) I'd have to resort to instinct ... and then keep a good eye on them and have systems set up so that if anything was going 'wrong' I could get onto it ... fast.






:happydance:
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
and... what inferences, if any, do you make from this analogy?
Lakey

Well . . . . ? ? ? No particular inferences. Perhaps it is a little ore succinct than your opening post. If that is a merit, I don't know. Yours is more expansive and detailed so that is a merit too.

Whatever you want.
 
As regards good versus evil, to me, empowerment and control are a false dichotomy.

Good and evil are entirely relative, to some person or group. To a fanatical Muslim, it is "good" to send a busload of heathens to hell with a suicide bomb. A "good" Muslim fanatic "empowers" young Muslim kids with how to make the bombs.

I agree with TAJ that when you act out of the concerns of the other person or group, to help them, as long as they are not screwing somebody else over doing what they do, then that is "good".

This gets tricky because how any person views good or evil with usually depend on his or her set of beliefs, fixed ideas, philosophy, religion or political leanings. Often some dogma sets the framework for what is considered to be good or bad.

For example, a strict right-wing Christian fundamentalist might consider abortion "wrong", and empower a few friends to bomb the local abortion clinic ( to "help" the unborn fetuses). To them in their minds, they are "good". To them they are stopping "evil". If their assumptions are true, then their choices are correct (of course, the assumptions are not true). :ohmy:

This gets all so tricky, because ethics and morality are mostly relative to what one holds to be true. I don't see that there is ANY sort of absolute ethics or morality, at least not that most human beings will be able to grasp. To arrive at an absolute system of ethics or morality, one will have to make certain assumptions (that others will probably NOT agree with).

TAJ, you say, "Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad but treating people as ends in themselves is good."

Okay, so my next door neighbor is addicted to pain killers. She comes over one night and wants about 50 bucks, and she is willing to do anything (she's really cute too). So, I don't treat her as an end for me, I don't take advantage of her, but I help her from her viewpoint - and give her $50 so that she can get her pain killers. I could try to talk her into what I think she should do, or even trick her into NOT doing the drugs, but per Kant, I should let her make a "decision based on her values", and just give her the information I have or understand.

To me there are so MANY wrinkles in this argument.

What would enable a higher morality or ethics to come about might occur IF there was an accurate understanding of what a person really IS, as a mind, as a spirit, etc. If each of us is 1) just some result of accidental evolution, where consciousness is some by-product of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain, and when we die that is it, then attitudes and choices will differ than if 2) Man were actually some more-than-temporary entity who traversed a great many lives and existences. If the latter were "the truth", then right and wrong would align with THAT set of facts. If there is a God in Heaven like some Christians think, and you wil go to Hell if you are "bad", then choices will again be very different. Determinations of good and evil always depend on the belief system held by any person or group. I am curious TAJ, have any philosophers tried to come up with a system of ethics that transcends that problem - that it is often so relative, based on the fixed ideas and assumptions of some person or group?

The problem is that the "set of facts about these great truths" is almost entirely OPINION. And thus, there are a great many different ideas of what "right" and "wrong" is. The Muslim fanatic sees western women in mini-skirts as "evil". And many in the west see women in long clothing that covers their entire body as "evil".

Hubbard was onto something when he talked about "mores" and "social habits". The determination of good and evil has much to do with those factors.

TAJ, I do agree mostly with what Kant said, but I see that there can be exceptions. Generally, I would say that acting to expand the awareness, understanding and knowledge of another, as applies to some relevant matter, concern or situation, is usually a good thing. Acting with trickery, lies, deceit, manipulation, control and force, to make others act or behave to benefit YOU, would be "evil". But I can conceive of situations where deception and trickery would be the right thing to do.

As Leon said, it often comes down to the right-hand versus the left-hand path. It is "love" as desire and a need for sensation versus unconditional (higher) love for others. It is concern for inflow versus giving (as outflow) and with no concern for what you get back "in return". Some notions of this "higher love" transcend "exchange" entirely.

This "good" versus "evil" thing is something that great minds have been pondering for centuries. One day I should give it more than a passing thought. :confused2:

First off, in the example, you giving the neighbor $50 would be wrong if it was against what you thought was best.

You simply tell her that you do not think it is the best thing for her so you will not do it.

As far as a philosopher who took right and wrong out of the range of morality that would be Kant.

In his "Critique of Pure Reason" he basically asked if in a rational world based on science, is there a place for moral law?

His answer was his Categorical Imperative. That stated: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

For example, if you want to break a promise you made to a friend.

The categorical imperative (categorical means in all cases and imperative means what you must do) tells you to imagine a universe were everyone broke promises.

You will see that this would be a very undesirable world to live in. In fact, promises would be useless.

This, of course, means that even little white lies are unacceptable, because a universe made up of people lying would be very undesireable and unworkable..

Then there is a dilemma, for example, if an angry man is coming to kill his wife and she is hiding in your house, when the man asks you if she is hiding in your house the categorical imperative tells you not to lie to him. But it doesn't prevent you from taking action to prevent him from harming her.

But his point is that one should act in a way as if the whole world will act the same way.

His "Critique of Pure Reason" covers much more than this too. It is probably the most significant book in philosophy outside of Plato's Republic.

It is a bitch to read and you must have a good Kant glossary because he uses words in a very particular way and often mean something entirely different than their common uses.

For example, words like Reason and Transcendental have a different and particular and precise other meaning than how other's use it.

I would recommend a good lecture on it first.

The Great Courses have several, the best one I have found is the course called "The Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida" by Professor Lawrence Cahoone. It is a 36 lecture course and he has two lecture on Kant that explains it better than anything I've heard so far.

There is also another 24 lecture course called "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know it" by Professor Stephen Goldman which has an excellent lecture on Kant too.

A third important course that covers Kant is "Mathematics, Philosophy, and the Real World" by Professor Judith V. Grabiner. She has two lectures on Kant in a 36 lecture course.

I would recommend viewing all three courses before attempting to read Kant.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
On your first sentence, I don't think the OP article suggests that people are always one way or the other; that point is not at issue.

Line 2, where Kant breaks it down to using people as a means to your end is bad would be something I would take issue with. I like the concept of a win-win situation where everyone involved in an endeavor ends up being more empowered. Henry Ford pulled this off early in the 1900's. He wanted to sell lots of automobiles to the working man so he double wages from $2.50 a day to $5.00 a day in his factory. By empowering his workers, they were able to return the favor and empower him and help him achieve his dream. Meanwhile the workers fulfilled their dream to be able to afford a car, which prior to Ford could only be purchased by the wealthy. Most of the other manufacturers had to follow suit and match the wages so both the company and the public prospered from Ford's action.

The action when first taken, was rather risky, many people assumed it would bring his company to ruin. He had the ability to see deeper than his detractors could. Taking that one big gamble and having it succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams was sufficient to make him ultra rich and guarantee him a place in history.

I agree with the last 4 lines of your post.
Lakey

I think perhaps you misunderstood what I said about Kant.

By using people as a means to your ends he is referring to circumventing their freedom of choice. This would imply duping or tricking or manipulating people to get them to do what you want then to do.

Henry Ford certainly didn't do that. He got his workers agreement and cooperation without tricking or duping them.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top