Updated Tuesday, June 21, 2006        Articles                        Criticism                        Correspondence                 Parody Introduction  This publication serves as our newsletter. Featuring articles of topical interest, important correspondence, reader criticism, and news, it is intended to complement our other websites. To launch our publication, we are including only one sample item from each category. We welcome contributions bearing on moral issues from concerned persons. _____ Articles   June 21, 2006   Bill Gates’s Decision   Gates’s announcement that he will shift the focal point of his attention from software to philanthropy was a surprise to the public. Despite the pledge, clearly aimed at reassuring investors, about remaining Chairman of Microsoft and the gradualness of the transition, this was—and may have even been intended as—a  dramatic gesture, since Gates could have chosen to make the change without a formal statement.   In the media, the news was often accompanied by the comment that Microsoft has been losing ground over the past few years. The reader was left with a vague impression that the move showed parallels with Seinfeld who announced that his series would end at a time when, though still immensely popular, it had reached a plateau, and he felt that from there on the road could only go downhill.   While we can conjecture about the variety of motives that entered into Gates’s decision, his 1994 interview in Playboy should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that giving away the bulk of his fortune  has been his long-time resolve. And this man prides himself on his ability to make long-range plans.   The case of the industrial magnate who at one point starts to distribute his wealth, eventually giving most of it away for humanitarian causes, has numerous precedents, and is perhaps most spectacularly exemplified in Andrew Carnegie. He was ruthless to his workers throughout much of his life, yet devoted himself single-mindedly to philanthropy towards the end of it. Microsoft under Gates’s leadership had the reputation of being fiercely competitive; the lawsuits filed against the company are part of a well-publicized record.   In fact, it would seem that if there is one underlying master trait to Gates’s character, it is competition. Decoding that character is no mean task, by the way; it has been pointed out that he is “somewhat defensive” about his personal life. His public persona is all smiles. Grin may be a better term: a bland, cool, noncommittal expression somewhat reminiscent of Walter E. Newman, it has just a suggestion of the grimace in it, of a warning that he may be making fun of you, or defying you—mocking the world. At one period, he says, he played the class clown. He was likely casting around for the appropriate role that would enable him to cope with his peers for whom being smart and learning-oriented just made you a freak; what gave you status was primarily excelling in sports. In that milieu, to be sure, Bill was a picture of the quintessential nerd.   Building up Microsoft into the biggest company of its class took of course extraordinary ability, a rare combination of technological talent and business acumen. And it was fired by the competitive zeal mentioned above. In the circumstances, the capitalist system enabled him to accumulate his fabulous wealth. Therefore we should not be surprised to find that he votes Republican and, despite the fact that he recognizes the Internet as a potential tool for introducing direct democracy, an advocate of representative  democracy, believing that legislators are an “above-average group” who are “hardworking, intelligent, and interested in long-term thinking.”   It is here that the paradox appears. For as a spokesman of his foundation, Gates pleads on behalf of equality and even makes the rather optimistic assertion that all students have the ability to go on to college. Self-made millionaires are not infrequently fond of declaring that “everyone can be a success” or “anyone could have done it,” but this must be considered patently false if, as is usually the case, by “success” they actually mean getting ahead of others. Their game is in reality apt to be zero-sum.   “Every human being has equal worth,” as Gates has rather eloquently put it. But can all human beings have 125-million-dollar homes, and do those who have make it ultimately better or worse for those who don’t? While Gates’s philanthropic activities are inspiring and deserving of admiration, it still remains a moot question that can be argued pro or con whether on the whole society benefits by permitting the accumulation of such extreme wealth in the first place.   Lester Shepard   May 23, 2006   Key to the Da Vinci Code’s Success   Semiotics teaches that all communication is in code. Solving the code’s message is however a much more onerous and tricky task than it is generally realized, because the apparent or surface meaning of a text, such as obtained for instance by using standard dictionaries, may not reveal its larger context or latent motives and therefore fail to yield its true significance.   “The Da Vinci Code” is a thriller, it contains cloak-and-dagger mystery, violence, and sex, yet those attributes alone do not explain its popularity. The author’s denial of the divinity and resurrection of Christ raises the hackles of religious conservatives, but his book doesn’t owe its success to being scandalous either. It was not meant as a repudiation of religion per se; far from being agnostic, Dan Brown actually professes to be a Christian.   Though the Nietzschean claim that man creates God in his own image certainly does not fit all images of the divine proposed throughout history, religious beliefs are clearly modified by social transformations. It is this that the main relevance and topicality of “The Da Vinci Code” consists in. Traditional Western thought has generally regarded monotheism as an advance over polytheism, and even though the Bible taught that God was of the spirit—and in fact warned against visual representations of Him—the strongly patriarchal culture of the ancient Jews invariably spoke of God in the masculine. This was reinforced by Christian dogma affirming that Jesus was fully God and fully man. The notion of a masculine God, of God the Father in particular, seems however out of place in an ethos where woman’s status has been on the ascendance and motherhood is distinctively honored.   Christ’s marital status is a related issue. In numerous cultural traditions of both East and West, celibacy was seen as being on a higher level than married life because, for one thing, abstinence from sex emphasizes the spiritual as opposed to sensual aspect of a human being. This view has been gradually undermined, consensus turning in favor of what is considered a more balanced lifestyle, better adapted to average persons and not placing unrealistic obligations on them that they are sooner or later liable to break.   History abounds in Pantheons peopled by both gods and goddesses, and these are frequently shown as united in marriage. Whereas Greek and Roman mythology sets before us a picture of life on Olympus that in many ways mirrors the ordinary human family, Judeo-Christian theology is uniquely alien to that perspective. Today the pressure is on, at least in this country, for religious doctrine to conform to twenty-first century expectations, but contradictions and barriers in our involved social system prevent an honest explicit discussion of the matter.   Along comes Dan Brown with a work of fiction that nevertheless makes factual claims—on the basis on evidence varying from scant to nil—to, most notably, an original feminine deity in the Jewish religion and the married state of Jesus. Both are anathema to fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics, committed respectively to a literal interpretation of the Bible and Church dogma. Yet the type of religion that, according to Brown, characterized ancient Judaism, the early Church, and some secret societies, such as the Priory of Sion, i. e., the type of religion representing his ideals, is consonant with the social views of not only the majority of Americans but probably a great many of those belonging to established churches of a conservative mold. This is the hidden dynamic of the controversy, deciphering the really important code behind the one Brown’s bestseller—in all likelihood spuriously—ascribes to Leonardo da Vinci.   L. S.   May 20, 2006  Low-Income Elderly Hurt by Bush Policies    For some time now, economists have warned of the dire consequences attendant on the present administration’s fiscal strategy. They note that persistent yearly budget deficits, having already led to a gigantic national debt, may undermine confidence in the currency, which is supported by foreign investment in U. S. securities. Tax cuts are seen as a contributing factor.   The Federal Reserve had for long insisted that inflation was tame, but recently inflationary jitters became prominent. They were blamed for last week’s selloff on Wall Street. In fact, the rise in the price of gold over the last twelve months has been spectacular, indicating the quest for a shelter from the falling dollar. The Euro, which had been originally meant to be on par with the dollar, is now worth considerably more, and of late the Japanese yen has also appreciated.  To be sure, the price of oil works to the same effect. The Iraq war and the current conflict with Iran further destabilized the Middle East. Some of the major oil-producing countries of South America have switched politically, dissatisfied with what they consider America’s peremptoriness and unilateralism.   Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have made unprecedented profits that could hardly displease an administration as heavily implicated in oil interests as the present one. The President decries the high price of oil, yet he appears to be paying merely lip service to the development of alternative sources of energy.   Actually, although treasury officials are publicly committed to a strong dollar, many of the administration’s moves are clearly in the opposing direction and are instead even calculated to trash the U. S. currency. Bush has exerted strong pressure on China to devaluate the renminbi. A lower renminbi would doubtless help the trade balance, but it would also contribute to the decline of the dollar.  From official quarters, one hears the oft-repeated mantra that Americans don’t save enough. But the threat of inflation is no incentive for saving. Money invested in savings accounts will gradually lose its value at the present rate of inflation. Affluent people do not invest their fortunes in savings accounts, and in point of fact regard those who do with condescension. For one thing, they put their money in stocks, and investing in stocks generally pays only for the wealthy insider, while the unsophisticated small investor is apt to lose.   A neglected aspect of the inflation that has been engendered by the Bush administration is that it particularly penalizes the less well-off, retired people living on fixed incomes and having their arduously earned life savings in bank accounts.     War Is Good for Business Commentary Read on KGNU fm Boulder County Community Radio 9/13/01 By Joseph B. Juhasz The secretary of state has said that Monday’s terrorist attacks on New York and Washington mean war. The president and commander-in-chief has promised retaliation against the terrorists and those who harbor them. Thus, we are caught up in a series of events greater than any of us, and it behooves us to try to understand these events: the acts of terrorism, the state of undeclared war, the promise of retaliation against those responsible and those who might harbor those who are responsible. In capsule then, undeclared guerilla war against the remaining one superpower; that guerilla war being taken as a state of war by said superpower (us); and the concept of retaliation as the effective means of waging such a war by said superpower (us). It’s about war. When one tries to analyze and understand a war, it is best to look, at the minimum, at two facets: war rhetoric and war profiteering. What is being said; who stands to profit. With regard to war rhetoric, it is always the quest on the part of both parties, to take the moral high ground. Yet, war itself is not on the moral high ground: thus war rhetoric is a fascinating example of the abasement of language-that is to say of propaganda, advertising, and the management of "opinions." The terrorists have said nothing openly, as no one has taken responsibility for these acts. Covertly, one assumes that the rhetoric has to do with the US as "the great Satan." How destroying noncombatants diminishes the power of Satan is unclear. Crusades and holy wars have long histories-but search high or low for successful crusades, even crusades in Europe, and you will see that they do not succeed in eradicating alleged "Satan." The rhetoric being put together by our government appears to frame this, as a war to make the world safe for civilization and unsafe for barbarians. It seems to say that the world can be and will be made safe for civilization by means of organized violence (war) against barbarians: punishment, vengeance, &c. This rhetoric has a long history-yet I do not believe there is a single instance in history where violence has suppressed barbarism if for no their reason, then because the suppression of barbarism by violence is itself barbaric. When a hundred years from now historians will look back to the inception of this war, they will wryly smile at the rhetoric of both sides and mourn the lives lost. They will also look at who stood to profit and who did profit from the war. Who stands to profit from a war-any war? Anyone on either side who has investments in war industries and war materials. Anyone who has investments in these things anywhere at all. German industrialists profited from world war 2 as did Japanese and American industrialists. Confederate blockade-runners and confederate industrialists profited from the civil war-as did northern merchants and industrialists. It is in part because both sides profit from war that neither side "wins" a war: neither Satan nor the barbarians are eradicated-satanic and barbarian investors laugh all the way to the bank while innocents bleed. As everyone knows: war is good business; it is the sure fire recipe for avoiding or pulling out of economic hard times. The real oddity of this war is that all appears quiet on the investment front. When will the stock exchanges open so that we can graphically see who stands to benefit from this war? What causes war? Rhetoric or greed? What Domestic Policies Would I Pursue if I Were President? Commentary Read on KGNU fm Boulder County Community Radio 9/20/01 By Joseph B. Juhasz The hyper-real afterimages of the terrorist attacks upon the United States had not yet faded before the predictable clamor for vengeance and retaliation began. As if two wrongs could ever make a right! Blood feuds are surefire recipes for mutual escalation and annihilation as everyone knows. Yet this is not a moment when a nation should be divided. How can someone, such as I, who disagrees with the current war-program of my government, make a positive gesture that is not divisive? This commentary is an effort at such a constructive act. The title of the commentary is: what domestic policies would I pursue if I were president. What domestic policies would I pursue if I were president? I would use this moment of unity and this national emergency to introduce legislation that would galvanize the country, avoid the threat of depression without wasting men and money on war and munitions, and first and foremost begin to repair the obvious domestic problems that were exposed by the effects of the terrorist sabotage that we have witnessed. The three bills I would introduce would be: 1. The national defense transportation act. 2. The national defense communications act. 3. The national defense energy production, distribution, and conservation act. The terrorists were able to cripple domestic public transportation by crashing four airplanes and without damaging any airfields. This is an intolerable threat to our national security. The cause of this incredible vulnerability is the fact that we have only one means of long-distance public mass transportation: the airplane. The airline system is uniquely susceptible to sabotage and is also grossly inefficient in the use of nonrenewable resources. The national defense transportation act would be designed to develop and put in place profitable long and short-distance mass transportation systems. The aim of the act is to assure that there will be at all times three alternate means of public transportation between any two major destinations in the U. S. This, and the other two bills will liberate the forces of American entrepreneurship, technology, capital formation, and management know-how to deal with problems of the utmost importance without waste of resources, lives, or our precious and non-renewable and ever-diminishing ethical capital. The acts of terrorism not only crippled our public transportation system but also our communication networks. That it was not possible for citizens and public officials to communicate with one another during a state of emergency is intolerable and a grave threat to our national security. The cause of this incredible vulnerability is the fact that our communication systems are not designed to handle peak demands (as you can find out any mother’s day) and that the existing alternative systems do not provide sufficient back-up. For example the cell-phone system is not sufficient to back up wire telephones for peak demands. The national defense communications act establishes the necessary funding mechanisms to develop profitable communications systems invulnerable to jamming or to crashes due to demand. The aim should be to provide service equivalent to one clear channel line for each customer. Our energy production and distribution system was also unable to withstand the challenges of these recent terrorist acts. Lower Manhattan still has almost no power. The vulnerability of this system has been known and frequently demonstrated at least since the 1970’s. Neither our public transportation nor our communication systems can function effectively without a reliable and sabotage-proof system of energy generation and distribution. That terrorists, saboteurs, or blackmailers are capable of disrupting energy supplies is intolerable, and a grave threat to our national security. The cause of this incredible vulnerability is the fact that just as with our transportation and communication systems, we are over reliant on single energy sources and connections. The national defense energy production, distribution, and conservation act, would provide government investment to develop and utilize of multiple energy production and distribution systems. We need to reduce waste and phase out wasteful transportation, construction, and manufacturing systems. We need to phase-in renewable energy supplies to free us from possible blackmail by terrorists and saboteurs. Together, these three initiatives would do more to discourage further acts of terrorism than can be achieved by hunting down "enemies", it would accomplish this without violence, it would be as good as, if not better for the economy than war is, and it would put us back into moral leadership in the world. It shows that one can do more than complain when one disagrees. Next: how to pay for it? How to Pay for It?         Commentary Read on KGNU fm Boulder County Community Radio 9/22/01 By Joseph B. Juhasz What this country needs is less talk of crusades and blood vengeance and more problem-solving aimed at reducing our vulnerability to terrorism. Less excitable thrashing about threatening vengeance and escalating blood-letting, and more sober and determined reform of a country dreadfully exposed to sabotage and terrorism. Domestically, a constructive beginning would be to use this moment of unity and this national emergency to introduce legislation that would galvanize the country, avoid the threat of depression without wasting men and money on war and munitions, and first and foremost repair the obvious domestic problems that were exposed by the effects of the terrorist sabotage that we have witnessed. A three-pronged approach would include: 1. A national defense transportation act, 2. A national defense communications act, and 3. A national defense energy production, distribution, and conservation act. Together, these three actions would provide alternatives to airlines and the car for transportation, provide a communications network that couldn’t be crippled by over-demand or sabotage, and an energy production, distribution and network which when coupled with conservation would assure that neither sabotage nor disaster nor blackmail could cripple our country. I have earlier outlined the details of such programs. In this commentary I shall concentrate on the ways in which such programs could be funded. If due to the crash of confidence in the American economy there is the threat of economic decline, the way back to health is not by pouring money into bullets or thinning out the ranks of the unemployed by drafting them into the army but rather in priming the pump for recovery. Investing in new transportation infrastructure will make the country more competitive--but these investments cost money. The answer to the funding problem lies in creating a national defense transportation tax for the life of this emergency which places a surcharge on means of transportation according to how energy intensive and vulnerable they are. Further, this tax should be dedicated to the rebuilding of alternative transportation systems. The tax needs to be "geometric" in nature--thus driving a vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon, for example, should no be twice as expensive as one that gets 30 miles to the gallon--but rather four times as expensive. Diving to work solo in a car should not be ten times as expensive as taking a bus, but rather 100 times as expensive. You get the idea: tax waste geometrically--create alternatives--build new profitable infrastructure--increase security. With regard to the national defense communications act, this infrastructure is easily paid for by taxing advertising on television and print media--particularly the advertising of harmful and wasteful products--and the taxing of commercial broadcast media at their true market value--charging for the use of the public airwaves. Further the exemption for sales tax enjoyed by dot com's should be lifted. Finally, senders of junk e-mail solicitations--currently outlawed--should face fines that could be yet another source or revenue. Together these revenue streams can easily pay for the profitable investments in a secure communications infrastructure. Finally, the funding of a national defense energy production, distribution, and conservation act needs to address the horrific waste exposed in part by the recent California energy "deregulation" fiasco. While our energy production, distribution and conservation systems are woefully out of date and dangerously un-redundant, our infrastructure of wasteful and relies on conspicuous consumption of misdirected energy. Why do we build buildings that need central heating and air-conditioning? Why do we allow inefficient home appliances and office layouts? We saw that with even existing poorly designed buildings California could save more than 10% of energy use without any pain as supply went down and pricing went up. We need to tax energy use in a geometric fashion. If you have the same number of square feet of usable space as your neighbor and consume twice the energy, you should pay four times the amount that your neighbor pays. The money generated from this national defense tax will be more than sufficient to create a more efficient and therefore more profitable, safer, and better world. Last, but not least, a severe tax with severe penalties on war profiteering!                                                            _____ Criticism Of the numerous critical responses we have received, we start with this commentary sent by a thoughtful college student. About group selection -- It seems to me that gs means that a person will act to propagate the genes of the group even if it is not to the advantage of the particular individual.   Species selection just means a larger group.  What confuses me is that it seems that if there is gs then people will act altruistically or tend to do so because they are programmed to do so by evolution, in the same way a large percentage of men vigorously pursue sex.  I see people generally being rather self serving.  Also, I see substantial institutions (religions, at least) in our society which are dedicated to instilling and reinforcing more generous behavior.  I think people have to be pushed towards more altruistic behavior at the behavioral and cognitive levels.Unless I have gs wrong and it just means that some of my genes will be preserved if I sacrifice myself for people who are similar to me, or the whole species.  It seems to me also that people are willing to sacrifice themselves for belief systems or ways of life, regardless of the genetic advantage, but I don't know the theory on that. I'm having problems with the word "altruism."  It seems to me that most of the time people are getting something out of whatever they are doing, like Mother Theresa finding meaning in helping the suffering.  I mean, we're not like eusocial insects exactly. "Compassion" I think applies whether you get something out of it or not, and I think universal compassion is actually a logical position to take. D. W.   _____ The comment and criticism below were in response to the section on leadership (7.5) in Issues in Applied Ethics. Found your applied ethics piece intriguing. I am an entrepreneur involved in my 4th start up situation. I have been a strategic planning / leadership consultant since the early 80's and familiar with much of the literature you cite. My theoretical leanings are toward self-empowered work teams. I like to believe the best in others and strive to encourage them to reach higher. HOWEVER, my experience as an entrepreneur teaches me otherwise. I think you believe this skill might be evolutionary, and you might be right, but I'm not so sure that adequately explains people's differences in nature. I'll share with you several observations. Most of the rhetoric about self-empowerment is reserved for large corporate America, because (a) the organization's infrastructure is developed to the bureaucratic plateau and therefore can withstand a fair amount of deviation before destabilization and (b) it tends to be largely trivial in that a suggestion to go to a flexible lunch hour and cost-cutting measures, while it certainly dramatically impacts the entire organization, tends to deal with low-vested points of view (of little cultural consequence). By contrast, a small business that encounters treachery among its principals is usually destabilized and goes out of business before the finer points of ethics can get addressed. That is, the stakeholders "run for the hills" in the face of the barbarians. I have experienced an extreme amount of macro-cultural resistance to self-empowerment approaches in situations where those options are open and available. Now that I have been out of the self-empowerment crowd since the early-90's, I see a trivialization of those points of view in other camps. At first I thought it was out of fear of the unknown. Now I'm not so sure. I think non-empowerment types know another aspect of reality that may be founded on more than ignorance and brutishness (which I think conversely, is the way empowerment types trivialize their philosophical enemies - liberals and conservatives?!). Empowerment types think this reality will diminish through education and information. While I'd agree on certain aspects of the issues. I don't think it's that simple. There are underlying character and formation issues that need to be addressed... issues I don't think the education and science communities think are relevant... issues that may be the Achilles' Heals of their conceptions. I'm going to generalize for the sake of shortness. I find "corporate types" (of every philosophical stripe) are often fish out of water in an entrepreneurial environment. They seem to forget their business ethics and drop into a lower level on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. What I see from them is a lack of personal character that enables them to choose right from wrong on the prima fascia evidence rather than on what the corporate bureaucracy will let them or not let them get away with (internal vs. external foundations of identity). An interesting psychology develops. The rules of the game have changed in the lightly structured entrepreneurial environment. With the cushioning support structures gone, they start looking for guidance and support and assurances and "warm fuzzies" from the entrepreneur (his new leader). He forgets all the superficial "empowerment stuff" to which he gave lipservice. It's now survival baby, and in most cases he doesn't feel the entrepreneur is doing enough for him. The entrepreneur hasn't changed. He's still scrapping and working to make a go of the new business. He doesn't have time to "tell the guy what to do." He wants to give general direction and then depend upon him to decide himself. This is the point that I think I take exception to your theories (although admittedly I haven't read all your work) based on my practical experience. What I see is that self-empowerment bred corporate types are paper tigers in the entrepreneurial environment. They have few forward-looking visionary ideas (beyond changing the lunch schedule and saving a nickel on telephone costs). When they are expected to create and en-vision once they've "spent their idea wad," an ugly thing occurs. They turn on the entrepreneur. They blame his lack of leadership. They almost never take responsibility for their own discomfort. They almost always blame the entrepreneur (it's largely a face-saving measure because otherwise this failure will look bad on their resume - which they usually conceal in future resumes). And, they usually get lots of support for their point of view because the fact is, most people think like he does. A group-think co-dependency if you will. (The entrepreneur become the bogy man for the insecurities of both the guy who couldn't make it and the group that listens to his reasons for failing.) In conclusion, I see a paradox. On the one hand self-empowerment is a goal to which we must continually strive. However, I guess I don't believe en-visioning is possible for the majority of people. While it is certainly possible, it seems entirely foreign at almost a genetic level for many people. They just can't do it consistently, despite years/decades of encouragement. Therefore, en-visioning has levels of scale, and at each level, someone must become the catalyst and focal point. The leaders? I think so. Seems to me your issue is more along the lines of how that task is carried out, and shouldn't be on whether it is needed. I do believe that many people, despite having a good education, are actually not capable of many original ideas and must look for ideas to follow. I see this a lot as an outsource contact to companies like AT&T. The bureaucratic "leaders" must suck/borrow/steal/cajole new ideas because they, by nature, have none/few. What they've mastered is a hierarchical system, not personal creativity. Personally, I think/wish creativity upon people. However, these desires on my part are often thrown back in my face because these people resent the  situations where you have encouraged them to step out and they've fallen flat (and they are loathe to give you creative credit). They may do it once or twice in life, then realize they WANT to follow and not lead. This is where you rightly point out, leadership becomes an issue of style over substance. But to argue against leadership on the basis of these models is off the mark. Leadership isn't the issue. There, unLeadership is simply cloaked as leadership. We need to raise the bar on our definitions rather than allow the idea and need to be defined by the overly-hierarchical points of view. Also, it seems that leadership style and approach is more your issue. The Shepherd vs. Rowdy Gates. In my experience, some of these preferences in people come down to personality types and preferences. Leadership can be exhibited in each type and circumstance, but the nature and attributes of that leadership is more granular. I see leadership issues like a shattered hologram... still maintaining the attributes of the whole. There are hierarchical elements when it comes to designated authority issues, AND there are conciliar elements when it comes to getting cooperation and execution. We need to distinguish power, authority, influence and skill. It's not either / or. It's hierarchical conciliarity. Order with consensus. Authority with competency. Influence with skill. Hierarchical in that we need a center and a catalytic spark to our en-visioning, but also Conciliar in that without the cooperation of the body corporate, nothing gets done. In the past the model has been skewed to hierarchy. Let's not now make the mistake of swinging to a chaotic ultra conciliar model. We need both. M. McK. _____ Is there really such a thing as a correct measure of a man, woman or child? Are we all not caught in a sea of movement that places us in unpredictable and sometimes volatile circumstance? Is there really any point or moment in our daily migration as individuals interacting with other individuals in constantly changing economic, social and natural circumstance that a man can be measured? Neither the man nor his circumstance are a static condition. It would seem measurement would only be possible if indeed nothing moved, but then what would life be? Indeed, from the time a human being is born he is being shaped and educated by the conditions that surround him. He grows emotionally and intellectually, each moment of his existence passing into yet another moment, taking all that was before him, and drinking in all that awaits him as he moves along. Each moment is a shared link to someone else. How a man is educated as a child will affect him as an adult, and yet there is a suggestion that this man can be measured by his own merits. Even how the man processes information, and what he is capable of learning, is part a genetic capability, part the vision of those who raised him, part the economic circumstance, part the country that he grows up in, etc. Can anyone aspect of this man's being actually be measured as his own? How much of what he is can he really be responsible for? And yet by the standards of the day, this man feels responsible for every single second he lives and every single word or deed he does. The human being is born into a system of events, for which he himself has no power or capacity to control or change. What then can be the 'correct measure' of this man? dj Correspondence Our correspondence archives contain hundreds of letters. Many of these concern human-rights violations and counseling in personal problems that we deem inappropriate for publication here. To begin with, we have selected the following items, mainly to provide a representative sample of other types of inquiry we receive. _____ Subject: Count me in... I agree with your perspective, principles, and ethics wholeHEARTedly and with mindful deliberation. But, what can we as individuals DO to foster, facilitate, educate, and bring about a world where these values are allowed to healthfully manifest? It is like Gandhi v. Hitler and the latter's machine seems to be on auto-pilot. I'm frustrated. Over. Mike M. _____ Dear Lester: Yes, I agree we need a new 'template for order', and I agree also that nationalism as we have known it in the past will soon fall to ruins. So where will men go when all hope in the old systems is gone? As I look at Russia, Parts of Africa, India, etc., I see no real solution being offered from the existing United Nations or any other Government, which indicates to me the need for alternate models for order. And if we do not elect to participate in the development of a new model for order, then to who do we look? There will be enough people participating in the despairing conflicts that we can be assured our participation will not be required. Rather the need of ourselves is a willingness to advance a framework for lasting peace and set forth an open invitation to anyone longing for the same. Thank you for your response, and I'll look forward to continuing the dialogue. D. J. _____ Dear Sir, I am an undergraduate from Singapore doing an assignment on Ethics and I felt the need to tell you that your essay blew me away. Thanks for expanding my horizons. James _____ Dear Dr. Shepard, I wish to ask permission to use your New Ethic article in a course I teach. J. C., Ph.D. _____ The following response from Professor Elliott Sober, co-author with Professor David S. Wilson of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, bears on an important point raised in section 6.9.1 of New Ethic. Dear Mr. Shepard, I don't have anything against species selection. I discuss this in the last section of my 1984 book, The Nature of Selection. My views have not changed, really, since then. Elliott Sober _____ I am writing to thank you for this excellent article and informative site. I am requesting permission to circulate the article (with all credits given to the author and information about your site included). We are dealing with a very difficult situation locally. This article would be an excellent resource to help guide the decision making. I look forward to your response. M. O. Alberta, Canada _____ Hi! I’ve just ‘stumbled’ on your page, http://www.ethics1.org which talks about 'New Ethics'. Although I have not read the entire content, I am already interested. However, it has been my practice to look for any information about the author of what I am reading. I would like to grab this opportunity to ask you of who you are, things like this. I am a computerese from the Philippines. Thank you. randy-e _____ Thanks a lot, Lester. I am starting to read the pages i got from your site. randy-e _____ I am certainly interested in this topic... it has been haunting me since the time I've been exposed to the violence and chaos, disunity and "barriers" cause. Typically those of social, political, and religious barriers.... In detail, they are the racial and discriminatory segregation of people's unknowing tendencies, the political borders and systems with extreme nationalism, and the nature of certain religions to isolate and appeal against other religions by threatening destruction. A Concerned Citizen of the Earth as a Whole... D. T. Tokyo, Japan _____ Is it justifiable for a country to commit genocide if in the end it is for the country's well-being? What does murder do to a country's society? Why is murder bad if we are talking out of the limits of laws? Please, i would really like some of your comments for my controversial issue paper. If you can answer these questions with some of your beliefs, that would mean the world to me. David J. _____ Your information has been an extremely beneficial asset to my paper. Thank you so much for taking the time to write back. David J. _____ I am teaching an undergraduate ethics course at Georgia College and State University this fall, and I would like to use some of the material and links that you provide. Is it possible and, dare I say it, ethical for me to do so? I look forward to hearing from you regarding this question. Sincerely, Dr. C. K. Robertson Ethics and Interdisciplinary Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia College and State University Milledgeville, GA 31061 _____ Re: Individual counseling Hi there! I am trying to establish an Ethics Committee in my hospital. Are there any categories or guidelines to follow (knowing that this committee will be discussing medical research from an ethical point of view in order to approve research projects)? Thank you, abbey _____ Re: Individual counseling: i've got a question. How will the internet/world wide web/technological impact affect the ethical values of teenagers and children in the next 20 years’ time? What will they be like? on the positive side and also the negative side. Thank you very much for your reply. _____ To Mr. Juhasz and Mr. Shepard: My name is Michael R. and I'm a Senior at Merlo Station High School, Beaverton, Oregon, and I was wondering if I could ask one--perhaps both if time were to allow--of you a few questions in regard to the New Ethics for a journalism class I'm taking this quarter? If I could that would be most appreciated, if not I understand that you may be busy. Thank you for your time. Michael R. Issue No.165 of  Issues in Global Education, published by The American Forum for Global Education (www.globaled.org), an organization assisting school systems, state departments of education, and colleges and universities, has prominently featured our United People website, recommending that the principles indicated in it be applied as instructional strategies in middle/secondary schools. We are reproducing the first two pages of their publication below with their permission.    _________  I am a doctoral student with the University of Phoenix. Yesterday I came across your website and I wanted to compliment you on a the creation of a great tool. I read all of the posted material and am feeling quite enlightened. I am completing my dissertation on the Executive Women's Decision-Making as Defined by Women in the Context of Leadership. I was wondering if you could direct me to information or studies that have specifically evaluated/researched the way women make decisions that facilitate organizational growth.  BTW I told every member of my cohort about your site.  Francine D. Kemp _________    Hello,  Just stumbled across New Ethic while searching for a commentary about competitive sports. (Your piece is exactly what I was trying to articulate). Is this site still functioning? The commentaries seem to have stopped in 2001.  Just curious. Thanks,  Alana   We appreciate constructive comments and suggestions. The authors may be contacted by email. Parody   June 14, 2006   El Bushliki Trip a Surprise to Himself   President el Bushliki didn’t learn about his trip to Washinghbad until it was over, if then. This was explained to a select group of journalists by presidential adviser Ben Tartlett, a former employee of the Groove Counseling Bureau of Hexas. Actually, Ben whispered the info in question by turn into the ears of each newsperson attending, and it would seem that what he said to each of them was also different. This of course greatly contributed to the confidentiality of the matter. Additionally, all those present had to swear on a copy of the National Inquisitor (Will Wackley Jr.’s scholarly publication) to be careful not to accidentally write a true word in their accounts of the briefing. Ben protected his own identity by referring to himself as “Fartlett.”   The circumstances of the visit are therefore now crystal clear. President el Bushliki was disguised as a nun while sound asleep and launched in the shape of a rocket from an underground silo. The rocket was flying backwards to befuddle radar installations. Upon his arrival in Baghwashton, he put on dark glasses and a toupee. Prime Minister Malibush, having been repeatedly thwacked on the head with a saucepan by his favorite cook (one of our secret agents, to be sure), was in a deep coma. Even so, the meeting had to be terminated after 23 seconds, as Bushliki snored so loudly aides became concerned the Irmaqi premier might emerge from his blackout.   Just to keep things on the safe side, this morning’s presidential news conference was held by a Bushliki double, after having been announced that it had been canceled. Some passholders nevertheless insisted on entering the auditorium anyway. This resulted in a friendly fistfight between them and security. Five persons were transported to hospital with minor to major lacerations, under the cloak of strict secrecy. They underwent plastic surgery to make them unrecognizable. On the way back to his home, the President escaped injury when his limousine was accidentally demolished by a car driven by his wife. In his turn, Premier Malibush went on Irmaqi state television, declaring that his encounter with Bushliki had profoundly inspired him. “I glimpse the brightest prospects for Armorican democracy,” he said, “under President Bushliki’s leadership it may even attain the level we have achieved here in Irmaq.”   L. S.     Hell Seen Softening Stand From Our Special Correspondent   Well-informed sources here confirm that President Brush’s recent speech on introducing freedom and democracy to Hell has created considerable apprehension in the lower circles of Inferno. They point out with some relief, nevertheless, that the President did not use the term “axis of evil” in referring to the Lucifer administration. On the other hand, they admit that Brush’s charge concerning the presence of WMDs in the underworld is no trifling matter. “We determinated this” the President had said, “through unimpeachivious Pentagoon intelligence instead of relying on the CIA this time, so the thing is convertible... incontrovertebral. Well,” he added somewhat testily, “if you don’t know what I mean, I do, and that sufficates. These nerds give me words to read I can’t make out. After just three drinks.” The Brush address, applauded with warm wing flappings by the audience at the exclusive College for Macaroni Penguins, also faulted Hell for its inefficient coal-fired furnaces. “They are very pollutating, of course starting no later than 3006 we expect them to convert to alternatival sources, but for the present we recommend oil.” I contacted government offices here and was granted an interview without delay. Mr. Lucifer, I may report, was effusively polite. “We want to do our best,” he said, “we are inviting a sales representative of the EXCON company to discuss the furnace conversion business.” for democracy and freedom,” he told me, “we are amenable to change. We will set up a committee to see if we can adopt the methods used at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And we will give you unlimited time on our TV net for infomercials where doctors can recommend the brand of underpants to wear while your rear end is burning. Since we have eternal fire, they can anticipate steady earnings. Popups, interstitials, phony contests with prizes that will never be awarded, email scams, what have you. Hell’s walls will be plastered over with posters showing our damned souls sitting in boiling cauldrons slurping Coke with delight. There might also be an ad campaign with the theme ‘Roasting in Hell for Fun and Profit.’ All that can be arranged.” I wondered why all this affability. At length I found an influential Black House demon who under strict anonymity confided in me the following. “The plain truth is, Lucifer and his cabinet are scared out of their wits. It’s not just the prospect of a nuclear attack on us, for which our antiquated defenses are ill prepared. The boss [he meant Satan] is worried that something might happen to Brush or Crumbsfeld or even people like Fat Robberson, Hennitwit, or O’Wily, and they will be sent here! We are holding prayer vigils that the Almighty may grant them long lives.” Undeterred, I checked back with Mr. Lucifer. Without mentioning the name of my informant, I confronted him with the above assertions. I ascribe it to his frayed nervous state that after a while he broke down and, nearly sobbing, admitted, “Yes, I dread that Brush and his cohorts will eventually wind up here. I with my whole staff will of course take to our heels. But to the rank-and-file devils who remain he is going to declare that Hell is in a state of war, he will have the telephones tapped and spies looking into every bloody nook and cranny. "I can’t say it’s gonna be real hell. It will be a lot worse than that.” “So much for the future,” Lucifer continued. “Right now, I have been stupid enough to sue for negotiations, and Brush wants to send me Condolneza. I will have to sit down alone with her in a room… holy smoke, the very thought gives me shivers. I never know what to expect from that woman, she smiles, but why does she have such big teeth?”