Can I ask advice from longer standing members of this forum?

If I quote evidence from credible sources, or opinions from people whom I think are wiser than I, albeit through linking to material posted on web sites, am I transgressing some unwritten rule here?

To be accepted, should I confine my comments solely to OLO articles posted and to fact-free personal opinions and petty prejudices?

If, for example, I posted that jails are filling up with white-collar criminals or posted that they are filling up with Christian criminals (or with atheist criminals) because I fantasised that that was the case, would it be more acceptable to forum membership than posting statistics from, say the web site of the Australian Institute of Criminology, http://www.aic.gov.au/ ? (Which does not classify criminals by religious persuasion. Awkward, isn't it, to build cases based on religious prejudice.)

If it's frowned on to use evidence here, perhaps we could give the the distasteful practice of invoking it a name and a measure. I suggest that we call it periclism, after the member who has so bravely unmasked it. The unit of a pericle refers to periclism so egregious that it totally swamps differing opinions with incontrovertible fact, leaving debate barren.

Of course, the millipericle (being one thousandth of a pericle) must be the usual measure in practicle discourse. Most disagreements are closer to that scale.

Short answer to BOAZ: yes.

(Around fifteen millipericles.)

MikeM, in answer to your question. There have been plenty of links posed by various contributers (myself included) during my time on the forum. I suspect that little attention is actually paid to most. You may have noticed the complete lack of response to references to government stats on child abuse on a thread about "reasonable" fear of violence. No one challenged the stats, no one came back and said "I'm really surprised by that".

I tend to ignore articles when the site or the article does not look at all independant. I suspect that most of us overlay our own biases on the concept of "credible" - what we agree with is more credible than what we disagree with. Links are nice if not to many and credible enough for those seeking further understanding but probably useless to change a firm opinion.

On the overall topic - I tend to the view that our approach to ethics is developed during early childhood learning but refined as we grow. I'm still working on better ways of dealing with various life situations and expect that process to continue for the rest of my life. I suspect that those who don't regard ethical behaviour as important will not change their views as a result of a course but such a course may help if and when the person does some re-evaluation of their life. The path to personal growth is different for each of us.

R0bert

Mike,

I've posted on OLO for a while, off n on for a year or so... I think if you are getting into a big thing crediting your info is importent.

I once chased someone for about 10 000 words over links supposedly to war atrocities that had no records any of us could find... my thought was the paerson posted the links along with the stated (fake) atrocity thinking no one would check the link (which was to another atrocity of different no's of casualties in a different year). I thought it was to heavy to let go, war atrocities bin no light subject and worhty of more respect than tossing around like that.

Tho we all know who we may respect may be seen as a crock by others n vica versa.

Dear Mike....
the subject of linked evidence is a bit of a mine field, but still a neccessity. Generally I find 'left' leaning evidence, is voluminous, repetitive, predictable and negative and 'right' leaning evidence is rather selective.

We had this character TIMKINS who supplied link after link ad infinitum, on domestic abuse/family court etc suddenly we see laws changed in the direction he hoped for.. maybe 'SOMEONE' is reading the links :) ?

Most of us select that which suits our purpose, and it is up to the reader to connect them to the issue and weigh it up.

Gun related crime in South West Sydney compared to the NSW state crime rates is a good example. Rather than win or lose that argument, my solution is that each individual should prepare themselves in no uncertain terms for that day when they are asked 'Are you Aussie' ? by some olive skinned individuals; by having their own golf club in their car, and have a basic (but effective) knowledge of how to respond to at least 2 or 3 attackers.

You must love Pericles :) now allocating his nick to a new unit of measure. But Pauls words are worthy of 'mega' not 'milli' portions of time.
Its quite possible from an evidentary point of view in standard document research to compare various writings, such as where Paul is quoted, alluded to, or opposed, over many many sources and time periods to build up a 'balance of probabilities' (speaking from a human view point) and one would be forced by the weight of evidence to conclude "Yep..this is the real deal" or.. to the contrary "Hmmm looks dodgy to me"

But saying "I reject it because I do" is neither scientific nor reasonable :)

Or..as some modern (18c onward) did, take the 'scientific' approach which says "People don't rise from the dead today, we see no evidence for it, THEREFORE Christ could not have risen".

Ok..enough prodding.

MERI.. how u doin mate ? :)

Robert.. welcome to the thread.

Your straw man arguments are entertaining, MikeM, but ultimately self-defeating.

"The unit of a pericle refers to periclism so egregious that it totally swamps differing opinions with incontrovertible fact, leaving debate barren"

Nice piece of writing, of course, but once again displaying your unique ability to avoid addressing the issue by changing the focus of attention away from the topic at hand. Lets call this manoeuvre the martinette, shall we? Elegant, but empty.

I have been trying, but failing, to draw you into a defence of the position you established for yourself some time ago, namely that you are "astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training".

You have used every possible tactic since that time to avoid justifying your stance, choosing instead to resort to schoolyard name-calling.

>>If I quote evidence from credible sources, or opinions from people whom I think are wiser than I, albeit through linking to material posted on web sites, am I transgressing some unwritten rule here?<<

The problem is, the evidence you quote is in itself contentious, yet you present it unapologetically as newly-minted truth, freshly (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor) carved in tablets of stone. As soon as one of these "credible sources" is challenged - that drivel about search engines springs to mind - you stamp your feet like a spoiled child.

Unlike you, I make no claim to knowing the answers. But I can at least think for myself, and if you disagree with me, that is totally fine with me.

But I would just point out that once again, you have avoided the question on the value of ethics training per se. Of course we continue to learn and grow - well, some of us at least - but this is not in itself a justification for setting up a department of ethics. We have a right to know whether our taxpayers' dollars are being spent on achieving an outcome, and what that outcome might be. Pious hopes simply don't cut it.

The study of ethics enable us to not only reason more effectively, but to articulate our thoughts and opinions.

People often behave unethically when unable to effectively communicate with others, eg they may erupt in violent action when unable to articulate anger. These skills cannot necessarily be acquired from our parent’s ‘knees’, any more than other skills.

The better we are at reasoning, the better we are at interpreting the world around us, the better chance we have of determining the truth of a situation.

A comprehensive article concerning this thread is at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLR/2001/13.html

“...Companies are set up and evolve in a way that deliberately pushes at the boundaries of what is widely regarded as acceptable. This is endemic to the capitalist system. The spirit of capitalism stressed the importance, to the economy in general and social welfare in particular, of the duty of entrepreneurs to maximise their profit….

• to appreciate the breadth of the corporate role, i.e. that it extends well beyond profit maximisation;

• to engage in debate about values and application of judgment;

• to see business and management education as a moral endeavour rather than just the transfer of skills and knowledge;

• to deal satisfactorily with increasingly pressing global pressures without compromising local established cultural values;

• to develop the capacity to recognise and articulate the ethical dimension of managerial decisions and to develop an appreciation for the legitimate place ethical discourse has in business;

• to understand that the separation of commercial activities from community concerns is a divide that is not in the best long term interest of a business;

• to explore the systemic causes and consequences of unethical behaviour;

• to identify opportunities to contribute to the broader community;

• to identify the indicators of poor leadership;

• to understand how absence of vision, insufficiency or inconsistency of values, inability to distinguish between power and authority and a preoccupation with self interest lead to disabling outcomes such as workplace morale deficits, loss of organisational and individual purpose, decline in production and profits, diminished trust and erosion of legitimacy.”