Personal Code of Ethics

[Iiza Pagan Beech]

I was wondering if you guys have an established code of ethics and if you would like to share any of it.

My first one is "Do not wage war upon the innocent."

Others include remembering there are at least two sides to every story, loving oneself and others, and respecting wisdom when it shows up.

Anyone else care to share?  

[Yanueh]

If you have to lie or otherwise deceive others and/or yourself to defend your truth, that "truth" is not worth defending.

It is no shame to be wrong. It is shameful to maintain a wrongful position when you know that you have been proven wrong.

All evidence must be examined, not merely the evidence that agrees with your current position.

If you believe that humans are a blight that should be wiped out, then you should be willing to lead by example and start with yourself.

Instead of fussing over how cruel and heartless humans can be, one should focus on the fact that you, and others, actually have the ability to care in the first place. 99% of all animal life on Earth is completely apathetic to the suffering of others.

Hijacking a certain area of science that you don't really understand that well (IE, quantum mechanics) to explain your beliefs is a bad idea. Not only is it presumptuous, but it will always make you look foolish in the end.

Consumerism in today's society has gone too far, and must be fought whenever and however feasible.
---Corollary: You most probably do not need to blow up the local Wal*Mart to make your point. Making a domestic terrorist out of yourself does not typically win influence over the masses.

Do not throw away what you would not throw into your own backyard, for the whole world is someone's backyard.  

[Iiza Pagan Beech]

These are very good things to think about. Thanks for sharing!  

[Starlock]

Mhh... I don't feel comfortable posting up the entirety of my Code in the context of this guild, but one of the important points in it relates to the subjective nature of truth and the inability of humans to know Truth (when capitalized, I mean to refer to Absolute Truth, the Really Real, the True Nature of the universe, etc.). I think of this one in particular after reading Yanueh's post and finding myself uneasy with precepts that seem to damn someone if they disagree with a particular vision of truth. We all tend to do this inevitably, but damning someone else's view of the world (and worse, that person themselves)... it leads to the sorts of conflicts that violate the core of my Code. Imagine how much nonsense the world would be spared from if we could simply agree to disagree and understand that our lenses are limited; that we are not omniscient, all-knowing, ultimate authorities of anything. We do not know Truth, we only know truth from our own point of view. A little humility when it comes to truth can go a long way. wink  

[pdguy281267]

Don't be hasty to act it might not be what you truly want.
Think it through in all manner of outcomes and possiblities first.
Never harm another, but do defend from another.

These are just a few of my code of ethics  

[Yanueh]

Quote:

I think of this one in particular after reading Yanueh's post and finding myself uneasy with precepts that seem to damn someone if they disagree with a particular vision of truth.

I'm not referring to knowing "The Truth," but rather things that are known for a fact, IE, that the Earth is round and that the sweet, seedless bananas in the store are the result of human cultivation rather than ex nihilo creation.

There are a lot of people who spread scientific misinformation when by all accounts they should know better by now. If you have to prop your "Truth" up with lies, then why should anyone - including you - take it seriously?

It's one thing to share how you think the universe works, but it's quite another thing to use disinformation to sway other people to your side. For example, there'd be nothing wrong with telling people that your neopaganism is a satisfying path for you, but claiming that there was ubiquitous worship of the goddess in ancient times as it were unquestionable fact, even though you know that the evidence does not support it, would be wrong.  

[Starlock]

Yanueh, facts is another way of proposing a sort of Absolute Truth. Even facts are biased by our nature as human beings. Our cognitive abilities are limited, we tend to be conditioned socially to observe the world in a certain way, and whatnot. We have to be practical of course; we have to have some sort of way of wrapping our heads around things we observe, but I really shy away from calling any of that, no matter how factual, as some sort of absolute standard. I've done a little too much data analysis to believe that gathered data for any project is that perfect. xd

I do see what you're saying though. As someone who is currently a working scientific researcher, it does bug me when I see the current status of scientific knowledge misrepresented by the public. I realize, though, that these emotional reactions I have are NOT the science, they're grounded in my personal values that others don't necessarily share (and shouldn't necessarily share). It's my bias as a scientist. I might think it is "right" but in any ultimate sense, is it? As much as I want to protect endangered species X, does the universe really care? What if species X not going extinct means species Y doesn't evolve? Who the $#@% am I to play god and pretend I know The Truth? Therein comes the humility. Even when it comes to the science I do and the facts I work with. Most of my colleagues are the same way. We don't prescribe reality, we don't prescribe moral and ethical values; we observe and explain the best we can right now and recognize it's fallible.

Not sure if that clarified anything or made any sense. I was having a bit of trouble figuring out how to communicate what I wanted to say. wink  

[Yanueh]

I get the impression that you're muddling what is factually right with what is morally right.

Science does not comment on morality, although it can be used to help us gain more knowledge, which allows us to make (hopefully) better and more informed decisions.

There are those who are so desperate to push their own agendas that they will deliberately deny people this knowledge and/or will feed them disinformation so that if they encounter this knowledge, they will immediately dismiss it without any further thought. Essentially, peoples' abilities to make informed decisions are being sabotaged from the start.

An example of the climate change deniers' propaganda. At least part of it is pure nonsense, and the other part of it skews and distorts the data gathered by scientists. In the recent so-called "climategate scandal," thousands of e-mails were combed to find anything incriminating. Only three letters contained anything that might be deemed suspicious, and all of them were taken out of context or misrepresented to create the illusion that scientists at East Anglia were faking their data, all because somebody doesn't want people to believe that climate change is real and that we're contributing to it. If you have to go that far to convince people that what you say accurately represents reality, then it probably doesn't.

And in this case, if the denialists have their way, there will very likely be very painful and unpleasant consequences for everyone.

Now, in my experience most people who relay disinformation are not themselves aware of it. However, if you trace their information back to the source, you will often find someone who is very much aware that the information is false, but they don't particularly care since it means the money keeps flowing into their pockets or that people keep following their particular brand of dogma.  

[Starlock]

rofl I have no idea; I can't really get across what I'm wanting to say, perhaps because it's so abstract. Maybe another way of putting it is since we're not omniscient and all-knowing, we don't actually know what is "correct" information and "incorrect" information in any absolute sense, so what appears to be misinformation may not actually be misinformed, etc. It's basically a fundamentally agnostic stance with respect to all human knowledge, regardless of if its factual or moral. We accept truths that are most consistent with our worldview and experiences. Obviously we think that our view is more "right" and that someone else is "misinformed" but... really? Really? Are we omniscient, omnipresent, all-knowing beings? Do we *really* know that we know? xd

Ergo, as part of my code, I like to remember that. It keeps me from getting too arrogant (hopefully) and staring down my nose at someone just because their experiences lead them to a different truth than what I've come to. Humility. That's a good word for it. None of this in any way has to work for you, Yanueh. If you understand what I'm trying to get across, I'll be happy. I don't want you to convert to it. lol