China had the longest lasting empire in history and made up the majority of the world's economy for millennia. They did this with a combination of three different ideologies, buddhism, taoism, and Confucianism. Those same three ideologies ended up putting up against each other, and when one of them started to run up against its limits one of the other two would step in and provide a different answer.
In the west we have something similar, the combination of liberalism, christianity, and the Germanic pagan warrior spirit. In assuming that any one of them is unnecessary, you lose critical ideas for the vitality of a civilization.
This also goes to show why Marxism is always destined to fail, because it will not live in harmony with any other ideology, considering itself to be perfectly brilliant. Without a real counterbalancing force, you end up immediately touching extremism. You see that with other ideologies as well.
In the west we have something similar, the combination of liberalism, christianity, and the Germanic pagan warrior spirit. In assuming that any one of them is unnecessary, you lose critical ideas for the vitality of a civilization.
This also goes to show why Marxism is always destined to fail, because it will not live in harmony with any other ideology, considering itself to be perfectly brilliant. Without a real counterbalancing force, you end up immediately touching extremism. You see that with other ideologies as well.
The idiots doing things like gluing themselves to roads are doing so because they're narcissists seeking attention and social validation. That's why they're doing something that'll let them be seen instead of changing their own lives to be less damaging to the planet in their conception.
It has more to do with shame based Asian systems of face than western guilt based systems.
Jesus said to pray in private because those who yell and scream in the streets have already gotten their reward. That's the essence of a guilt based moral system, that it isn't about others it's about your own behavior. "Judge not lest ye be judged the same, dont point out the mote in your neighbor's eye while you have a log in yours"(paraphrased, all of this), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone[...]go, and sin no more" -- all of it advocating what you're talking about. Having a moral code isn't bad in itself as long as it's an ok moral code, but the expression of that code and the emotions behind it matter a lot.
It has more to do with shame based Asian systems of face than western guilt based systems.
Jesus said to pray in private because those who yell and scream in the streets have already gotten their reward. That's the essence of a guilt based moral system, that it isn't about others it's about your own behavior. "Judge not lest ye be judged the same, dont point out the mote in your neighbor's eye while you have a log in yours"(paraphrased, all of this), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone[...]go, and sin no more" -- all of it advocating what you're talking about. Having a moral code isn't bad in itself as long as it's an ok moral code, but the expression of that code and the emotions behind it matter a lot.
For real, if they wanted to give a billion dollars to the government, the government *will* take it.
I know unions are a pain in the ass often. I worked at a union place, in some ways it was draining because you were trapped in such a narrowly defined role.
Even in that role, however, it's possible to use skills other than your primary skill as long as you're selecting properly complementary skills that aren't affecting anyone else's job. Nobody gonna file a grievance because you're doing a job nobody was going to do anyway.
Even in that role, however, it's possible to use skills other than your primary skill as long as you're selecting properly complementary skills that aren't affecting anyone else's job. Nobody gonna file a grievance because you're doing a job nobody was going to do anyway.
What you're talking about in my view isn't the difference between morality and ethics, it's the difference between guilt based morality and shame or fear based morality.
In a guilt-based morality, you're always being watched by God and ultimately it's your business between yourself and God how you are acting.
In a shame-based morality, you're always being watched by others and it's ultimately your relationship between yourself and your clan (or your ancestors, or whatever) and it's everyone's business how you are acting.
In a fear-based morality, you're always following the religion because you're afraid of something terrible happening if you don't, including getting killed.
That's where many of the liberal aspects of western civilization come from, this sort of idea that you will be judged for being immoral by a force other than the community or the state. Then it stops being the responsibility of the community or the state to enforce your morality, it becomes your personal responsibility. Then the role of the state ends up being resolving damages or dealing with harm to others.
Frankly, I totally agree with you in that regard. a guilt based morality is the best humanity has ever created, and that's why I advocate for it in The Graysonian Ethic (which I've been referencing it a lot today). If you behave like someone is watching you'll do the right thing when nobody else cares if you're doing the right thing or when nobody is watching, and that'll mean a lot more than trying to look good when you know someone's watching. Doing the right thing regardless of whether society cares and regardless of being or not being punished is how you end up as the best person.
In a guilt-based morality, you're always being watched by God and ultimately it's your business between yourself and God how you are acting.
In a shame-based morality, you're always being watched by others and it's ultimately your relationship between yourself and your clan (or your ancestors, or whatever) and it's everyone's business how you are acting.
In a fear-based morality, you're always following the religion because you're afraid of something terrible happening if you don't, including getting killed.
That's where many of the liberal aspects of western civilization come from, this sort of idea that you will be judged for being immoral by a force other than the community or the state. Then it stops being the responsibility of the community or the state to enforce your morality, it becomes your personal responsibility. Then the role of the state ends up being resolving damages or dealing with harm to others.
Frankly, I totally agree with you in that regard. a guilt based morality is the best humanity has ever created, and that's why I advocate for it in The Graysonian Ethic (which I've been referencing it a lot today). If you behave like someone is watching you'll do the right thing when nobody else cares if you're doing the right thing or when nobody is watching, and that'll mean a lot more than trying to look good when you know someone's watching. Doing the right thing regardless of whether society cares and regardless of being or not being punished is how you end up as the best person.
I'm surprised that you'd say that, because cross-training is quite common in some fields. For example, skilled craftsmen might cross-train because for example a millwright holding an electrical ticket can fully complete a job that might otherwise require both an electrician and a millwright to complete.
Absolutely. And the thing is, skills aren't a linear path. For example you might think that you'd go into engineering work and you would never have to be an artist, but an excellent engineer has to learn how to connect with non-engineers. You can be an absolute God at converting a building design into mathematical models that you put into the LaPlace domain in order to determine whether resonance is it will cause a building to eventually fall over, but if you can't explain to people exactly why they should be listening to you, it doesn't matter if you're right.
In Plato's Republic they talk about how a person with one skill is better than someone with many skills, but often skills synergize and you can be much better with multiple skills at a lower level than if your skill at a specific thing is much higher but exclusive.
In Plato's Republic they talk about how a person with one skill is better than someone with many skills, but often skills synergize and you can be much better with multiple skills at a lower level than if your skill at a specific thing is much higher but exclusive.
You can say that, but that strikes to the core of what I've been saying.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
My interpretation is that morality is the specific code of rules you live by, where ethics is more intellectualized and can represent principles for deriving morality but not necessarily morality itself.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
This reminds me of our earlier discussion about the family and I was talking about men becoming "worthy" of having a family.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
I know that at 30 (a decade ago, incidentally) I really ended up taking stock of what I'd achieved in my life. Thankfully I'd had some good luck and worked hard and could say I was proud of what I'd achieved, but a lot of people hit 30 and it was a reality check that they'd wasted that decade.
One reason why I wrote the chapter of The Graysonian Ethic called "Think ahead" where I talk about how each decade of life might go based on two different paths you decide to walk is to show that choices matter a lot, and you might not care when you're young but you will someday care a lot about those choices.
One reason why I wrote the chapter of The Graysonian Ethic called "Think ahead" where I talk about how each decade of life might go based on two different paths you decide to walk is to show that choices matter a lot, and you might not care when you're young but you will someday care a lot about those choices.
Krita is free and open source and has a stablediffusion plugin so you can run a self-hosted AI image generator. It's as good as anything I've seen online and doesn't have stupid word limitations like many of the sites I've seen.
Look here jack, I'll take you behind the woodshed and tell you stories about having hairy legs!
vxworks isn't open source at all, and a lot of the stuff it runs on wouldn't even be considered a computer by anyone but specialists. For example, it runs a lot of grid equipment and it's at the core of many PLCs.
That's a pretty useful statement if the difference is meaningful to you.
I'll tell you, if I'm building something with unistrut that needs to be somewhat corrosion resistant, I'd choose aluminium because it's lighter than stainless steel.
I'll tell you, if I'm building something with unistrut that needs to be somewhat corrosion resistant, I'd choose aluminium because it's lighter than stainless steel.