Cross-posting: The Ethics of Self Sacrifice

This was originally published at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2018/10/post-no-1229-ethics-of-self-sacrifice.html

I world normally edit out the spiritual/religious aspects of that for this blog, but cannot be bothered doing so today :)

*****

When I hear the phrase “self sacrifice”, or “the ethics of self sacrifice”, I, and, I suspect, many others, tend to think of someone weighing up one person’s life against the lives of others – most would possibly think of a military or disaster situation (or fire-fighting, as was covered in the film “Always” that we re-watched last night), the more advanced would think of a balance of quality of life such as someone who builds their life on having slaves.

In this instance, however, I’m thinking of something else, something that is well illustrated by a story from football (yes, since I’m an Australian, REAL football – Aussie Rules :) ).

As with all team sports, spectators tend to get fixated on individual stars, those who have greater development of individual skills, although they may not be as significant in terms of the team as a whole doing well (Aussie Rules, and, I suspect, most, if not all, other codes have a saying to the effect that “a champion team beats a team of champions”). One of the many balancing acts that coaches have to consider is between focusing on playing their game plan, and taking resources (players) away from that to “shut down” a key opposition player (often a star, but, since coaches are fairly hard-nosed, possibly someone less subject to public acclaim, but important to the opposition’s style of play), which is termed “tagging”. The tagger will do things like punching the ball away from the star, which is a legitimate Aussie Rules technique, or bump the player away from the ball (also a legitimate technique in this contact sport, although subject to rules to reduce the risk of injury).

In the match I am thinking of, almost two decades ago now, a young star in one team was assigned the role of tagging an older star in the opposing team. The older star realised that his young opponent was more important to his team that the older star was to his, so went to a quieter part of the field, which meant the younger star had less opportunity to contribute to the game. The older star’s team didn’t miss his contribution as much, and, as a result of this and other factors, won the match.

So, despite doing very little to actively contribute to the game, the older star made a major contribution to winning the match.

Coming back to this article, this is something I consider when making ethical decisions. In particular, I could have been far more successful in my aims of spreading information about clearing and spirit rescue, non-physical health, strength and well-being, BPM, and psychic weather work, had I signed up to one of the social media platforms.

However, to do so as they currently are would involve sacrificing ethics (I suspect there will be ethical approaches to this in a few decades time), issues such as sacrificing privacy, or contributing to FOMO, distraction, and other problems that have been immediately obvious from the start.

So, every time I considered getting involved in social media, I’ve decided not to.

In terms of making this blog a success, that has been a sacrifice, and since it is my blog and my goal is to be successful, it counts as self sacrifice. Nevertheless, I consider it worthwhile, as to sacrifice my ethics would make whatever I am doing an INHERENTLY flawed product, and there would have been long term spiritual consequences.

This is something that can be seen in politics, where elected representatives make the mistake of thinking something is necessary to do a greater good, and wind up losing everything they were trying to discover when their misdeeds are revealed.

A point that should be made here is that such misdeeds are always known on the astral – apart from the taint in the energy, there is also the Akashic Record.

Conversely, every time we stick to BPM ethics, even if it is not known on the physical, it is known on the astral, and may be used as an example to educate other people during their sleep state, for instance.

No valid, worthwhile self sacrifice goes without dee reward or beneficial outcome – but that may be non-physical (apart from the inherent blessing of not sacrificing one’s soul).

In the physical, things may progress more slowly as a result, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Food for thought :)
(and review the available information on ahimsa, perhaps, with a view to determining why it has such an insistence on non-violence) 

Bigotry

I turned this into a speechwriting exercise (although my sentences are all too long), but it is based on genuinely held opinions of mine.

The freedoms of our nation can be traced back a long way – to the Magna Carta, for instance, which was signed in 1215. That document started to limit the so-called Divine Right of Kings – it started changes, initially for barons, that later resulted in benefits for everyday people. It moved society, over time, away from an imbalance of power towards what we now term “a fair go”.

That word “later” reflects a time of hundreds of years of evolution – of hard work, of improving understanding of our fellow citizens’ circumstances, of passing - and improving - laws.

Together with the faster pace of modern life, the rate of change around freedom has also accelerated in the last Century – most particularly, over the last seven decades.

As with the preceding centuries, this last lifetime’s worth of work has seen hard work, improved understanding, and passing and improving laws.

As an example, the importance of women being able to freely contribute to our economy, to the richness of social life, and to the rewards of personal freedoms, has become fairly widely accepted.

It is not uniformly accepted – even by some women, and there are thus, for instance, still some apologists for domestic violence, or for restrictive or harmful versions of supposedly loving marriage, and even for slavery.

Slavery. Human trafficking and slavery is a problem that is still with us, more than two millennia after the Indian Emperor Ashoka [see Note 1], of the Maurya Dynasty, banned it. It has changed its forms and features, however, as the world has changed. We no longer see as many people in physical chains, but the chains are still there – financial, emotional, or cultural. Laws have and are changing, and will continue to change, to address this changing evil.

Evil. LGBT people are no longer openly and frequently described with epithets that basically mean evil – some reprobates still do, but they are a backward minority, and are seen as such, just as decent people do not see slavery as acceptable. Morally and spiritually, it is the “fair go” denying discrimination, and the personal debilitations of fear and hate that discrimination is so often founded on, that are what is evil – not being a different race, or LGBT, or a slave.

Actions which counter the evolution towards greater freedoms are also likely to be evil – and there have been such actions, including violent revolutions that impose despots, reactionary social movements (including social media trolling and support for rape culture), and campaigns against fairer laws or education to improve our understanding.

We evolve. Anything that stops that evolution, or perverts it into something harmful, is morally and spiritually evil.

Our views on LGBT people have evolved as our understanding has grown, and our laws have also evolved – albeit a little more slowly. We now go beyond negative freedoms for LGBT people, such as the freedoms from discrimination, fear and violence, to ensure positive freedoms for LGBT people –notably, the recent freedom to receive official recognition of loving relationships and families.

To some extent, this also reflects the development of freedom for all society. We no longer consider it enough to have the negative freedom of freedom from fear and oppression, a process that the Magna Carta was a key step in, but we also want the positive freedoms (the Australian “fair go”) of freedom to have opportunities and a decent life – for us, our children, and our other loved ones.

A key part of this evolution is debate, and the increased understanding that comes, often not easily, from listening.

As an example, while many people oppose active discrimination against women, or other races, without that debate and listening, they may not understand that the circumstances of women and other races, in comparison to the dominant, socially powerful groups, is similar to the old imbalance of power between King and subjects.
Another, at times particularly nasty, example of a false equivalence is thinking the men's rights group that are really about maintaining male levels of prestige, or excusing violence towards women, are the same as women's rights movements.
In fact, trying to equate evading the loss of an unearned favouritism as the same as a social minority group gaining equal access is a generic category that covers a lot of examples.

And yet gaining that understanding is crucial in successfully making the move from negative freedoms, the freedom from active harm, to also fully realising positive freedoms – which is when we, and all society, begin to realise the rewards and richness of true and genuine inclusivity.

A “fair go” cannot happen when such blinders are in place, tethered to our (mis)perceptions.

Those blinders may include not realising the pervasive subtlety of social imbalances, whether between King and subject, or dominant group and social minority, a pervasive influence imbued by the bedtime stories our families, peers and influencers whispered to us as we fell asleep when we were children.

Doubt that? Consider any of the notorious Kings and Rulers of old. How different would they have been, if they had received an upbringing free of exclusion and privilege, one where they were taught to care for and respect others as part of a democracy, rather than being brainwashed into seeing themselves as different, Divine, and without limited in their exercise of power? Would Louis XIV have been so careless with the lives of his subjects who were building the Palace of Versailles if he saw each of them as valuable, possibly even his equal? Would George III have triggered the American Revolution if he had not been so focused on preserving his “Royal prerogatives”? Would Wilhelm II have so glibly plunged the world into war if he had been raised free of the toxicity of hyper-masculine Prussia?

More recently, consider the rethinking of colonialism, now that we realise the harm that it did – such as the destruction of India’s economy [see Note 2], and the devastation the West imposed on China when it violently imposed opium.

On the other hand, when Russia freed her serfs in 1861, agricultural productivity nearly doubled, nutrition improved and industrial productivity increased – the Russian GDP grew by around 18% [see Note 3]. The liberalisation of China’s economy last century brought financial improvements [see Note 4] – although I would suggest they were limited by the continuance of authoritarianism. More recently, a number of articles have been published on the economic benefits of increased diversity on companies’ performance.

One of the other problems that can occur when debating discrimination is that symptoms of discrimination may be given false equivalence.

An example of this is objections to women having favoured access to sports facilities (so they can exercise free of the intimidation of harassment), which focuses solely on the issue of access, and ignores all the other problems, discouragements, and disadvantages that women experience in such environments.

Perhaps the solution here is to stop focusing on the symptom, and start looking at motivation and manifestation - including in legal cases.

Motivation is fairly straightforward. Any active form of discrimination is based on either hate, fear or ignorance. Courts are well capable of assessing motivations, and do so in many, many circumstances – for instance, in discerning whether a killing was murder, manslaughter, or accident, and when considering or challenging expert opinions around such matters as fitness to stand trial.

To claim that courts are incapable of looking at motivation is an evasion of a possibly uncomfortable truth - possibly personally (or politically) motivated, rather than founded in law, and that is an action unworthy of our legal system.

What could be considered more “passive” forms of discrimination, the sort of thing disguised as “cultural’, for instance, is a manifestation of either inculcated ignorance or systemic problems.

Again, our courts are well capable of dealing with both, and have done so with, for instance. the Royal Commissions into indigenous deaths in custody, banks and the finance sector, and child abuse.

Going back to the mid-1800s, the High Court in India ruled that you do not change a discriminatory situation by simply removing the active form of discrimination. There are many flow on factors, such as access to education and opportunity, to dress “acceptably” (showering and washing clothes is, for instance, a particular obstacle to employment for the homeless), or be able to commute, which also need to be addressed to address the imbalance between dominant group and social minority, an imbalance so redolent of the old imbalance between King and subject.

To enable courts to do this will likely require further changes to laws. The United Kingdom has started inching towards such changes with an enquiry into misogyny – an enquiry which was recently and quite rightly widened to include misandry.

Such changes to laws, if implemented through a robust debate in a democracy, are likely to be a good step towards getting to grips with the fundamental problem that we dance around without naming it: bigotry.

Notes:

1. See https://www.wisdompills.com/emperor-ashoka-buddhist-ruler-banned-slavery-animal-cruelty-implemented-gender-equality/

2. As I understand it, India’s share of world GDP declined by around 20% - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj.

3. Markevich, A., Zhuravskaya, E., The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom: Evidence from the Russian Empire, American Economic Review 2018, 108(4-5): 1074–1117

4. Maddison, A., Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run (Second Edition, Revised and Updated, 960-2030 AD), Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ISBN: 978-92-64-03762-5 © OECD 2007 

Postscript

I’ve thought of another example of a false equivalence: equating a peaceful inclusive march (they’re not always peaceful [e.g., when the so-called antifa or anarchists are involved]) with an inherently threatening right wing march about keeping power. The key issues here are NOT the marching or self expression, it is the motivation: inclusivity and unlocking access to resources on the one hand, vs. shutting down sharing and maintaining existing, restrictive, counter-productive holds on power on the other. The failure to recognise that inherent difference is a major flaw in our courts, our media, and our society as a whole.

In fact, if we had been dealing properly with the issue of motivation, would we be having such a problem with neo-nazis now? Would women still be struggling for equitable access to power? Would genocide still be happening?

Victoria pushes for a start on silicosis by measuring the problem (a journalism exercise)

One of the important principles of modern governance is using evidence to guide decision making. Victoria’s Andrews Government has acted in accordance with this principle by proposing the urgent establishment of a national registry and review of the current standards to reduce the risk of stonemasons contracting silicosis.

Silicosis, a term first used in 1870, is an occupational lung disease “caused by inhalation of crystalline  silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in the form of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs. It is a type of pneumoconiosis”.

Victoria’s Minister for Health will raise the issue at today’s meeting of the Health Council of the Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG, a governmental cooperation and coordination organisation). Victoria will also supplement its existing Worksafe silica inspection program by introducing a notification system, to ensure data on silicosis is captured at the point of diagnosis.

Recent media reports have highlighted this problem’s occurrence in manufacture of kitchen benchtops from artificial stone, which has a substantially higher silica content than natural stone, and described it as “the worst occupational lung disease crisis since the peak of the asbestos disaster”, with predictions of another 300 cases in Queensland “by December”.

Exposure to asbestos fibres can cause the untreatable lung disease asbestosis or the cancer mesothelioma. One source indicates 10,000 Australians have died from mesothelioma since the 1980s, with a further 18,000 - 25,000 deaths predicted over the next four decades. Hospitalisations for asbestosis have ranged from “62 in 1997–98 to a maximum of 147 in 2004–05” (from here). The use of asbestos was phased out in 1989 and banned entirely in December 2003.

Some Australian guidelines on managing the risk of silicosis date back to at least 2012. The US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns that “Respirable crystalline silica – very small particles at least 100 times smaller than ordinary sand you might find on beaches and playgrounds – is created when cutting, sawing, grinding, drilling, and crushing stone, rock, concrete, brick, block, and mortar”, and lists the manufacture “stone countertops” as one specific example of such activities. OSHA implemented a rule on this in 2016, and one US state implemented a rule in 1998.

Wikipedia states that silicosis:

“(particularly the acute form) is characterised by shortness of breath, cough, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin). It may often be misdiagnosed as pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonia, or tuberculosis.

Silicosis resulted in 46,000 deaths globally in 2013 down from 55,000 deaths in 1990.”

and

“Protective measures such as respirators have brought a steady decline in death rates due to silicosis in Western countries. However, this is not true of less developed countries where work conditions are poor and respiratory equipment is seldom used. For instance, life expectancy for silver miners in Potosí, Bolivia is around 40 years due to silicosis.”

Another historical occupational lung disease is “black lung disease”, or “coal worker's pneumoconiosis”. Unlike asbestos, where health risks have been known since 1899, and silicosis, black lung was not well understood until the 1950s. Wikipedia states that “In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990”.

Comment: Improved data collection certainly facilitates the possibility of improved management of a problem, but the necessary actions still have to be taken at all levels of government.

(Had I been doing this in reality, the Wikipedia quotes would be replaced by comments from experts.)

A speechwriting exercise: Working together for a better world

(Inspired by TEDx Verona talk “Speak like a leader”, Simon Lancaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGBamfWasNQ) ... and something from Wayne Swan)

Life is tough; life is a struggle; making ends meet has never been further away.

When life is so hard, it is so appealing, so attractive, so tempting, when someone promises to take the load off, to make it all go away, to make life as easy as it once seemed to be.

It is so appealing that we all become vulnerable.

We risk becoming like someone dying of thirst in a desert who sees the mirage of an oasis.

We could be that person dying of thirst on an ocean, who drinks salt water.

We could be like the alcoholic who turns to a lighter fluid, out of desperation.

Lighter fluid is great for lighting, but not for quenching thirst.

Giving responsibility to specialists with greater skills, like doctors or tax accountants or engineers, is good - in their fields. Giving away responsibility for our quality of life, on the other hand, is not.

The truth is life is complicated.

Running a modern economy, with all its connections to other world economies, is complicated.

A government for millions, with all the measurement and management and accountability, is technical, tedious, and incredibly challenging.

And taking our part in the slow, lengthy, sometimes tedious path to making our lives better is also incredibly challenging.

But it is the only way to be sure that we have a real chance of an improvement to our lives that lasts longer than an election cycle, that our children get to inherit a better world than we did, and that humans will still be here, in a meaningful way, in a million years.

This prospect is terrifying – it requires skills that we fear we do not have, it requires us to muster reserves of energy when we’re already exhausted, it requires us to persevere past disappointments.

But we’re not alone.

Others also want a better life for themselves, for their children, for the world.

Allow ourselves to admit the possibility of goodwill in ourselves, the possibility of goodwill in others, and the possibility of working together with good intentions, and we can share our energies and skills, and help each other through the hard times.

We need to collect ourselves and to collectivise, before we can collect our gains.

It won’t be easy: allowing goodwill requires listening with a willingness to learn and to change, but that is the first step in making the world a better place.

(This verges on the sort of writing and speech that I deliberately tend to avoid or minimise – I prefer to present the principles / arguments, and let those “speak for themselves” . . . which relies upon the audience having enough nounce to see through rhetoric-rich responses.)