“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behi

Ethics as distinct from morals in the face of objective truth

Einstein introduces an interesting argument regarding ethics, the afterlife and the existence of a supernatural being. Such weighted concepts are all constant questions in the minds of individuals, and generate powerful ideological stances on both sides. The immortality of the individual could be perceived as the existence of a human soul that is incorruptible. Ethics is the study and the implementation of what is perceived as just and good which is quite distinct from morals. The crucial point here is one of objective truth in the face of constantly changing society and its make up. There are a number of considerations here: at its most narrow, the quote addresses ethical directions that are taken; but at its broadest, one could accept that a spectrum of truths get closer to objective truth.

The transience of the human person is a fait accompli. Whether the spirit or soul persists is still a contended issue in theological circles. The existence of a soul that can be corrupted by negative thoughts, hurtful actions and the like is akin to the more tenable concept of the human character that adapts the qualities of those around them and what comes from inside. One logical consequence of the non-existence or the mortality of the human soul might be that it does not matter how we act, as there is no lasting justice. In contrast, a large group within society champions the need for ethics so that life can be well-ordered and society can enjoy relative peace. IN this light, ethics seems to be largely a human mechanism for social order. However ethics, as distinct from morals, proposes what is right and just. Morals, on the other hand, are what allow people to choose what is right or wrong, irrespective of what ethics demands. St. Paul complains to an early Christian community that he often does what is hateful to himself which highlights the divide between ethics as informed by humanity and morals which he believes to be regulated by a supernatural and omniscient being.

The question remains whether objective truth persists in the face of a changing societal makeup. That is, as new people grow and are influenced by their environment, do they still adhere to some system of truth that guides how they act and respond in spite of what society says? This is the role that tradition plays in ordering various societies across the globe. Hence, in Papua New Guinea, traditional marriage rites and tribal justice exists alongside an increasingly Westernised government and people. Tradition is the voice that is still heard among the vacillating opinions of the society and in this sense; truth remains objective without human influence. An important acknowledgement here is that ethics continues alongside moral behaviour, in a spectrum of influences that in some way persists in spite of the terminable individual.

It is clear therefore that one impact time has had on society is in elucidating the importance of tradition and objective truths in society. Whether such discussions point society to objective [I meant omniscient!] beings is a matter of discernment.

“Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing”- Abraham Lincoln

Character embellishes the reputation

The character of the individual is understood to be the personal attributes that enable him or her to respond to situations that are both internal and external. On the other hand, a reputation is something one gains from the general public who respond to the actions an individual takes and the inner qualities that an individual has. In asserting that reputation is a shadow seems to indicate that it is a transient thing that relies solely on the perceptions of others. Rather, it is the character that endures beyond the accolades and acknowledgement surrounding achievement. In a broader sense, the character and reputation of people lies at two extremes of a continuum of inner motivations, and both aspects are thought to be essential to living well and purposefully.

The human person develops their character over many stages in their life. Hence, one’s character often takes twists and turns, which is ironic considering it is purported to be the one constant amid a vacillating reputation. The character we build relies in part on the impressions other make on us. Countless parents are concerned, for example, about what role models exist for their children in the community. This concern acknowledges the mosaic-type character we accumulate as we develop. There is generally a point when people being to like whom they feel they have become, and this self-concept becomes a sort of compass point that responds in a particular way in certain situations. To some, this is perceived as maturity. However, it would be underestimating the impact of the rest of our lives to think that the character stagnates. Indeed, to use the metaphor of Lincoln, trees do not always reach a point and then stop growing. Rather, trees branch out form the childhood roots that have been established and thus the character grows. Therefore, whereas our individual characters may well be sourced in a plethora of impressions, these are merely foundations that we develop as we grow.

To extend Lincoln’s metaphor one point further, the more trees branch out, the more their shadow grows. That is to say that the reputation we gain among our peers, colleagues and families grow as we age. Nevertheless, as many actors, rock stars, politicians and leaders in the business community have discovered, this ‘shadow’ can be a shifting asset that gains its ‘length’ as a direct result of the light that is cast upon it. To suggest that reputation is an aspect of humanity that is devoid of substance, however, would ignore how some gain expediency from their reputation to perform good work. Reputation can be an asset. While this may be a extension of a benevolent person’s character, it is useful in itself.

One final point is the fact that both aspects of the human character combine to create a unique individual who, at various times in their life will rely on either aspect to get them through a situation. Therefore, the ‘tree’ and ‘shadow’ exist in a continuum in which is neither is superior to the other.

It is clear therefore that the character of people grows and extends and casts a shadow. This shadow may well shift and vary according to the light cast on it. Nonetheless, these two aspects are useful concepts of the human person.

“There are two ways to live your life: one is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein

Einstein identifies a dichotomy both in the individual and also in the society. This could be interpreted as the spiritual and the rational side to people or the belief of destiny. However, this idea also goes further and applies in the field of education and interpersonal relations that is in the mindsets we adopt. A final consideration here is the acknowledgement that agnosticism and uncertainty apply to many individuals and that their view is also valid.

Einstein was ain intrinsically y curious personality which despised authority and lauded the ability to change the paradigm in our way of thinking. Interestingly, there was also an ethical side to Einstein and a belief in some omnipotent being that inscribed all possible laws into the individual. Having come across many people he had certainly experienced the rational and spiritual dispositions. Rational people may be scientifically-minded who believe that everything can be reduced to a set of principles. Hence, it is no surprise to the rational person that society continues to advance in technology and knowledge. In contrast, there are those who cannot accept that there is a finite depth to anything and to an extent this is true of people and how the relate and form societies. Charles de Gaulle is once quoted saying “…how can anyone conceive of a one-party system in a country that has two hundred varieties of cheese?” To these people, life is a continual journey in which few things are certain. Neither mindset is superior, but both are present in humanity.

A broader appreciation of Einstein’s assertion is that some people are naturally more curious than others. The Myers-Briggs classification system separates some people on their level of intuition or judgement in situations. This is an acceptance of the different approaches people adopt to life. In the realm of education, Australian society has gradually considered the variety of preferences among students. Vocational-type training is receiving much support in encouraging people to find their way in a society that still emphasises the need for higher education. Higher education is a necessary cog in society, however, the higher the degree of specialisation, the more difficult it can become to communicate this benefit to society. With a realisation of different learning types comes a more equitable society that embraces the individual. In addition, relationships can succeed or fail on the grounds of our outlook on life. A rational minded person will frustrate the wondering and impulsive ‘spiritual’ sided person. An appreciation of variety is a sign both of maturity and self-confidence.

A final point here is the widespread ‘societal-agnosticism’ or uncertainty in society. “Agnostics’ can be thought of not merely as people eschewing religious belief, but also as those who are unsure whether rational or spiritual ways of thinking work. The rise of Eastern mysticism in Australia seems to highlight a spiritual vacuum in the world in which material possessions do not satisfy. However, the view of agnostics is valid in that the journey of life and discernment takes time. Self-discovery is often the key to living life well.

To conclude, the dichotomy of persons is clear both on an individual and collective level. The uncertainty of people does not make their life’s journey meaningless. The acknowledgement of this is a helpful tool in acknowledging the diversity of people and nations.

PS

I think this essay question wanted the responder to focus on how people live their lives. Instead, I just looked at different personality types. So this isn't very well done in my mind! - Mick Smith

“Mediocrity doesn’t mean average intelligence, it means an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters”- Ayn Rand

Rand here attributes plain mundaneness to have a more malicious core. He asserts that jealousy and a lack of motivation is the source of idleness. This is true to an extent of the individual and the society. He also states that average intelligence couple with malice is a path to apathy. On the other hand, society must acknowledge those in society who are disadvantaged by circumstance in which ‘mediocrity’ as it is perceived has not been engendered by brooding feelings. In a broader sense, society as a whole experiences mediocrity which can consist of either passive laissez-faire attitudes or a spiteful resentment of authority and systems [sic].

Apathy is viewed as a plague to the individual drive to succeed. It is especially eschewed by parents and teachers who are custodians of the young and are loathe to see a life wasted. Indeed, even the late Pope John Paul II warned young people against mediocrity, but more importantly, not to be fearful. Thus, it is clear that such lifestyles are generally shunned. But for the mediocre individual, resentment and spite may well foster habits which lead to underdeveloped potential. The result is a person of average intelligence in every sense of the word. It is most likely an inwardly-directed self loathing that laments the fact that their own efforts to become better people have failed. What is probably lacking in these lives is an acknowledgement of their importance, primarily through parent, but also through peers and society in general. Hence, it is to a large extent a fault of a person’s environment that engenders a mediocre state that may eventually see the individual failing to love. Again, it is a failure to love and nurture that leads to raw potential.

Society has a duty to support those who are weaker or disadvantaged. In Australia, the primary motivation in doing this comes from a realisation that the group is only as strong as its weakest members. Hence, by empowering the disadvantaged, society as a whole will prosper both economically and within its borders. To label an individual as mediocre may well ignore the basic lack of support or resources available to that person. It is dismissive to state it comes solely from jealousy of one’s betters. This is especially unjust if society has created those circumstances which lead to emotional or material poverty such as with the accession of workplace legislation. Maslow’s hierarchy predicts that if an individual’s needs are not met, then the individual will not move on to higher things. Hence, mediocrity may ensure. It is clear then that all too often mediocrity is misdiagnosed and that the need for societal support is alive today.

Lastly, the way in which society approaches issues can lead to an apathetic society that others look on. Indeed, Australia’s human right’s standing has been repeatedly in question in the last decade. The attitudes we adopt to problems and to others can well indicate the state of ethics. Einstein once stated that “weakness of character is [sic, he actually said becomes] weakness of character”. That is to say, the laissez-faire attitude of society leads to mediocrity which, while not malicious, but not helpful either. On the other hand, an active protestation of responsibilities such as criminal behaviour is a more dangerous form of apathy that degrades society.

It is clear, therefore, that spite and envy are not at the source of mediocrity but it is a failure to love. Society has a duty to those in troubled circumstances. The wider society must also be aware of its own attitude to others.

PS

I think this was a terrible attempt!!! - Mick Smith

Come my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world- Tennyson

Tennyson encourages us all as a society and as individuals to collectively seek a new world. He values ambition and drive which does not accept the state of the world, but actively seeks to change it. Time is an important aspect here in revealing the facts about embracing change. Another factor is the innate human desire for progress which can be modelled by the scientific process. In a broader sense, however, the society at large suffers from a collective myopia which prevents it from seeking a new world and often it takes movements or disasters to awaken us from the stupor of the mundane.

One aspect of time addressed her is that it is constant and unending. Hence, human society will never cease in embracing change and proactively instigating it in their lives. Those who refuse to change are often view with pity as other will say they lack the foresight to enjoy another world. As time progresses, various barriers arise that challenge the advancement of society. A good case in point is the since forgotten threat of Bird Flu which could still affect people on a pandemic scale. Such an outbreak is justifiably feared in the threat it poses to the progress of humanity. In the sense that is it never too late, it often require people to challenge their idleness and surmount their self image to embrace change. Steven Herrick writes poem after poem on stories of amelioration because of the desire for a newer world. It is quite clear that with unlimited time, progress is inevitable.

The scientific process can often be divorced from its societal role. Aldous Huxley once asserted that the scientific process and its pursuit of knowledge is an ethical activity. Thus, scientists around the world are perennially involved in the progress of humanity, in seeking another world as it were. Where science can fail, however, is on the basis of communication of facts and discoveries to the society which remains largely ignorant of the significance of their work. As the media often quips, 2006 was the year that politicians and governments around the world discovered global warming. The exasperating issue here is that scientists have warned of these global-scale threats since the early 1980s. The disparity between observation and communicating the threats to thw world indicates an inner unwillingness to seek a new world until absolutely necessary. It may well be the case that global warming may still be combated with incumbent technologies, but it highlights the human condition of idleness that plagues and punishes society.

The mundane or the status quo is a prevalent aspect of Western society. Ironically, progress exists alongside an acceptance of how things are and the notion of change is often an odious voice, that we persecute those who pronounce it. George Bush senior addressing the Earth Summit stated that the “American way of life is not negotiable”. Now, although this statement may be exactly what the public wants to hear, it does nothing to acknowledge the shared heritage and future of our planet. Indeed, such intransigence is an enemy to the need and right of people to seek a new world. As society moves towards the 22^nd century, one must not be fooled in thinking that things will always remain the same. Our planet has a history of altered powers and social directions and it would be myopic to ignore that.

It is quite clear that seeking a new world is a timely and necessary pursuit. What must be overcome is the societal-inertia and mindset that things remain the same. The role science has to play is in better liasing with the public and seeing itself as an ethical pursuit. Finally, our leaders must realise the danger of soporific policies that ignore the common future of humanity.

Nothing changes your opinion of a friend so surely as success- yours or his-

The way we feel towards our close friends is continuously modulated by his or her achievements in life. This aspect of human relationships is an important consideration when examining one’s response to another’s progress. On another level, however, the degree of individual maturity will either elicit jealousy or genuine appreciation for that person. In a broader sense, Western Society esteems success as a model that inspires others and generates many positive elements. Success can be taken to other levels, creating jealousy.

The irrevocable nature of the drive to form relationships is based upon attraction to another’s qualities or the desire to be associated with a particular individual or group. That is to say, we choose our networks to satisfy our needs on a personal and societal level. Therefore, when one succeeds, we will naturally feel some emotion. We may vicariously benefit from the fame or prestige of another, or we may even become jealous of the successful party. To state that this is only human misses a deeper reality. This reality is that often the motives for forming relationships are often self-seeking in which case there will be a negative response. Needless to say, the plethora of personality types will create a variety of situations, each varying from the motivations of the individual. Nevertheless, success is not the only thing that alters our opinion.

Behind the event of success lies a certain drive, focus and determination that leads to achieving a particular goal. What may result in the admiration or jealousy of another is not the realisation of success itself, but the personal attributes that make it possible. Hence, what changes our opinions of our friends is their personal growth and stepwise mastery of themselves. Winston Churchill once stated that success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. Indeed, Samuel Morse was flanked by multiple electronic failures in the attempt to develop the Morse code. In these low points, friends often abandon their colleagues in the attempt to avoid the vicarious trauma. It is when they finally succeed, that there is guilt at their lack of faith and admiration for the strength of character that persists in the face of hardship. The change of opinion, therefore, belies a deeper self-loathing which we direct towards the successful person, persecuting what we fear- the realisation that we have been mediocre in the face of opportunity.

The third aspect of this issue is Western Society’s perception of success and the successful. Indeed, fame and fortune are treacherous paths that often turn on those who manage to pass through the threshold of luck or skill. While success brings material and emotional substance, it also can incite an urge to bring that person down. Often, the media machine feeds off this desire of the common person and will output copious gossip stories that will create wealth fuelled by jealousy. Indeed, if the status quo is surmounted, it challenges us as a whole. The question must be asked whether society will ever free itself from this negative attribute. Unfortunately, it would seem that the human condition is to eventually eschew those who make it, and their state is changed forever.

It is clear therefore that success does play an important role in modulating the level of friendships. There are other levels at which the human mind acts which makes it increasingly difficult to accept. Unless society matures, it can only expect to view successful people as someone other than human.

The difference between a smart person and a wise person is that a smart person knows what to say and a wise person knows whether or not to say it. Quo

The ‘wise vs. smart’ argument has been anonymously brought to the table by some associate in university circles. This person obviously values prudence and discretion over the correct thing to say. This is a difficult challenge in any situation, both knowing the correct thing to say, but then processing the judgement to determine whether to verbalise it. However, it is clear this person has ignored the multiple levels of intelligence or ‘wisdom’ which do not lie solely in words but in vision, in actions, in empathy and in service. This broader appreciation of wisdom is beneficial in creating a more equitable society. Moreover, this issue applies in conflict resolution, in business and the workplace as well as the scientific field which highlights the need for discretion and vision.

On the face of this difference between smart and wise is simply a matter of timing and of prudence. This hides obvious truths in that wisdom is not merely an act of speaking but it is an entire process involving listening, maturity and a degree of experience. Knowing what to say when someone approaches you with a problem is not an easy task either. Marriage counsellors, for instance, build their careers on knowing what to say and framing their words in such a way as to instruct and soothe a troubled spirit. A successful marriage counsellor is not labelled ‘smart’ for their counsel, but the term wise is closer to the mark. There are many cases in which prudence and discretion will allow one to assess the situation more holistically.

The author of this quote has oversimplified the matter of intelligence and wisdom in restricting it to the domain of talking or not talking. Rather, the wise person can also be good their hands, can recognise patterns in statistical data, can fell empathy towards individuals and groups in crisis and the like. Clearly, it takes all sorts to create a society that is self-sustaining in caring for the needs of people. The family unit, too, can be responsible for oversimplifying the notion of wisdom and intelligence. Praise may be generously head on those who perform well in their studies, whereas the mellow composition is ignored. IN all, a more equitable society requires a greater respect for the individual talents and intelligences of the society.

In the context of conflict resolution, there is a great need for prudence and discretion. Furthermore, discretion is one of the key issues in patient-doctor confidentiality that avoids great distress to many parties. IN the business world too, there is a need to be discrete with trade secrets and strategy. The rationale behind this creates bases on which to build competitive advantages. The importance of discretion also applies to the scientific field in which intellectual property is guarded jealously.

It is clear therefore that the ‘wise vs. smart’ argument is oversimplified and applies to narrow situations. Truth in this case is sacrificed for the sake of humour. In order to develop on the ethos of fairness, governments and families alike must appreciate the talents of all people. In all aspects of wider society, however, it has been shown that discretion, while not simply limited to speaking, has an important place in maintaining important states of being.