Nathan Key

My blog earlier this morning was insensitive to a really amazing wedding and a really amazing friend. I have removed it to honor he and new his wife.

"I am truly sorry that my words were taken as criticism toward you, friend. I was rather thoughtless in posting it. I repent and I hope that you can forgive me."

-Nathan

Here's a visual look at the last two weeks of my blog:

I’ve been getting a lot of hits on my site lately from people searching in Google for the difference between Ethics & Morality. They’re probably getting here to this site because of this post I wrote a few weeks ago. Because of this, I thought that I'd flush out my own opinion on the subject a little bit more today:

Ethics is a term that most people unfortunately use interchangeably for morals. What I mean is that when they say that they want or expect another person to “act ethically” what they’re saying is that somewhere deep inside of them, they believe there is a behavior code that other people are expected follow. This code is based on a number of things- religious beliefs, normative social behaviors, public policy, and cultural beliefs.

But that’s not Ethics.

Ethics is historically the pursuit of ‘the good life.’ It’s an ideal. It’s a theoretical. It’s a utopia of sorts that we hope to move toward as we make our world a better place. Thanks to Mills (although we can see the roots of this ideal as far back as Socrates), ethics is normally used on a macro level rather than an individual one. Basically, his theory of utility says that the highest good is when the greatest amount of peoples enjoy a happy life. Different ethical theories hardly ever counteract this matrix although there are plenty of disagreements regarding the semantics of what good, happiness, and the greatest amount mean.

A little current events application:

When we ask a business to act ethically (if we really mean ethically) we’re saying: “Do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people and make the most people happy as you can.”

Most people assume that this means that no one lies or disregards other people’s money- but in theory, if a business can prove that lying and cheating a bit leads to greater returns for the majority of the people, they might have grounds to claim that they are acting ethically (for the good of all) when they deceive us.

Let’s counteract this understanding of Ethics with a better understanding of Morality (or Morals).

I’ve come to believe that people often use word ethics rather than morals because morality has a religious overtone. Morality obviously elicits images of Morality Plays and other Catholic traditions. And since not all people agree on religious issues, it’s assumed that when we’re discussing the public sector (i.e. business or government) we need to use a more secular term. Now, it’s true the religion does play a big part in informing our morals. Since religious and cultural upbringing play a big part in what values we inherit, it follows that morals (loosely defined as an inherited understanding of right and wrong) tend to be at least tutored by religion if not overtly religious in nature (yes, even for the atheist).

But consider the phrase: “The moral of the story is…”

Take for instance, the old Aesop Fable of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare.’ The hare is expected to win because of his speed, but as the story progresses the determined tortoise overtakes him as he vainly takes a little nap. Victory goes to the tortoise and the “moral” (or lesson learned) is that those who work steadily rather than quickly and haphazardly are the ones who accomplish their goals.

 It’s within this example that I believe we find a much richer definition of morals/morality. Morals are the behaviors and expectations that we place on ourselves as a story or narrative progresses around us. Sure, this is partly religious because we learn from the stories of those who are in a religious community with us- but it’s also very secular.

Today, I drove passed a major wreck on the highway. Afterward, I began noticing all the little “Drive Safely” markers on the side of the road that are placed there after a fatal car accident. Believe me, my behavior and expectation was shaped in that moment. My “Morals” were adjusted and I slowed down a bit. The story/narrative of this road is that recklessness=death.

Let’s go back to the Business Example Again:

Suppose we asked Businesses to act morally in addition to ethically? Suppose we expected that as the story/narrative of history unfolds they should adjust their behavior to match?

From a young age, we’ve all learned that lies are (almost) always found out and the aftermath is generally more terrible than telling the truth in the first place. And if it wasn’t learned at a young age, within the past ten years we’ve seen plenty of businesses that were caught in lies and destroyed by them.

Asking a business to act morally, is to ask them to keep their eyes on those road markers and adjust their behavior accordingly. It’s expecting them to realize that there are certain behaviors (lying, cheating, stealing, killing) that simply don’t end well for anyone. Doing those things might make them a quick buck, but it’s rather short sighted if it ends up destroying their entire infrastructure over the course of time. It makes them like the Hare in Aesop’s Fable.

We need to be more like the Tortoise.

Summary:

Ethics is a theoretical pursuit of the good life (for as many people as possible) and morals are lessons learned and behaviors changed based on the story we find ourselves in. Asking someone (or a business or a government) to act ethically might not yield the results we want if we actually want them to act morally.

I am so glad that I waited to purchase Ben Folds’ Way To Normal until the Stems and Seeds version was released.

Not only does Stems and Seeds provide the Stems for each song on the album, but it also features remastered versions of each song and B-sides that didn’t make the initial cut. In particular, I’ve really enjoyed listening to the B-sides because they remind me of the Ben Folds Five era.

Man, I loved Philosophy and Kate.

Hang on... let me explain Stems really quick for those of you who aren’t familiar with them. Stems are a new thing in the music world where an artist provides listeners with the source files of their songs- vocals, guitars, drums, etc.- split apart so that we can play with each track and create something different with it if we so choose.

In the past, I’ve blogged about Radiohead’s introduction of stems, comparing it with the ‘death of the author’ meme that’s been floating around the postmodern philosophy community. But now that Ben Folds is jumping on board, I'm suddenly filled with a new sense of excitement about the future of the music industry. This could very well be a pivotal point in music history- perhaps more important than the introduction of Rock & Roll and the advent of iTunes.

Stems are so incredibly important because they invite us to move beyond simply listening to music and push us toward interacting with it, too. When we play around with Stems, we get to create something new with songs that we couldn’t have created in the first place. In a sense, we get to “borrow” the musicianship of Ben Folds (or Radiohead or the other artists who are providing Stems) and combine it with our own ideas regarding what a song should sound like.

Besides redefining the role of listeners, there's also the ability to make a lot more money. I'm sure Radiohead and Folds are attracting listeners who might not be interested in their work aside from the fact that they can take it and make it into something they DO enjoy. There's a lot of creative people out there who are willing to drop some money into the coffers of artists who provide this sort of thing.

Third Eye Blind is capitalizing on this idea and using it as a promotional tool. On the social music side indabamusic.com, they've released Stems from a few songs off their new studio album (for free) and invited fans and friends to remix them. The best ones have been reviewed by the band and are possibly going to be featured on an extended release of the album.

In doing this, 3eb created momentum about their new album. Inbada users were able to hear tracks before they were “released” and get excited about it They were also given the chance to truly influence the direction that Stephan Jenkins and his band took the music.

Just as social networking is making music better, I’m really hoping that we can figure out a way to do integrate it into other mediums as well.

For instance, I’ve really enjoyed watching recut trailers of movies. Is there a way for filmmakers to give viewers the chance to interact with their films and make our own “audience cuts?” I would think that big fans of certain films would be willing the pay extra for a DVD with source materials that they could re-edit in Final Cut, iMovie, or Windows Movie Maker (I’d LOVE to re-edit Donnie Darko or BladeRunner).

On a more personal level, I’m wondering if there is a way for me as a blogger/author to provide readers with more interactive texts? I think that the “comments” space is a good start, but I’d love to see it go even further without resorting to “choose your own adventure” type stuff.

I think it takes a bit of humility on the part of the artist to surrender his work to the public. But I don’t think it’s “giving up” the rights to releasing your music, films, prose, etc the way you want to. It’s a really amazing thing to present a piece of art and then see how other people interact with it and respond to it.

Screw copyrights, let’s make something together.

Here’s a paradox for you.

A guy walks into Starbucks and orders a Grande Chai Latte. The Barista gives him a funny look, nudges her friend and he starts looking at the guy out of the corner of his eye, trying (unsuccessfully) not to make eye contact. When the drink is up, she tells the guy that it’s on the house.

He mutters a quick ‘thank you’ and makes his escape out the front door. And as the door shuts behind him, the exclamations begin:

“Oh my gosh, can you believe he was in here?”
“I can’t believe we met him.”
“Was that really him?”

Turns out, the guy was Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby or Buffalo Bill or Mr. Bill or some other famous Bill up on Capitol Hill. And he got his free coffee because of the fame, money, or influence he carried with him into the store. It doesn’t matter that he’s the one person in the Coffee bar that has so much disposable income that paying $3.50 for coffee isn’t even a concern. He still gets his for free.

I use Starbucks as the example, but it’s the same with huge rock bands who are “sponsored” by guitar brands and huge corporations who get freebies from smaller companies.

Why is it that those who can pay sometimes get theirs for free while the rest of us have to scrape and save for everything?

Personally, I think it’s because we’re obsessed with power and influence.

The main reason we bend over backwards to help the rich and affluent is that we’re somehow wired up to go to any lengths necessary to impress those with power and influence.

Perhaps it’s because we want their power and influence, too, and we think that if we do something nice for them they’ll remember us and offer us a job or a pat on the back or something else that will “add value” to our lives. Heck, even having an encounter with a celebrity may make us feel more valuable.

“Honey, you’ll never believe what happened to me today! Bill Cosby came in and ordered a coffee from me! Bill Cosby… man, I love my job!”

Then again…

The rich and influential also pay a lot more taxes- shouldering the weight of education, healthcare, infrastructure, and all the other social services that the rest of us enjoy. Without them, we’d have to shoulder those expenses on our own. Without them, we might not have the movies, products, and services that we enjoy either- after all, they’re the actors, thinkers, and doers that have made western world what it is today.

Perhaps they deserve a free cup of coffee and our appreciation?

I found a really funny book this morning. So, if you're job hunting (or know someone who is), check out this book for a much needed break from writing cover letters.

I went to a website yesterday at my pastor’s prompting and was instructed to enter my annual salary. Based on my yearly earnings, I’m apparently in the top 1.43% of the world’s richness scale. After showing me how many people in the world live significantly below my own standard of living, they politely asked me to consider giving some of my “new found riches” to others who are in need.

It was a pretty cool thing and a good reminder to be generous.

However, it got me thinking about the fact that if someone else here in the United States, making minimum wage, took the test- they’d probably pop up on this indicator as one of the richest people in the world, too. But they’re struggling. Really struggling. They’re probably wondering if they’re going to be able to pay their rent and eat (and still have enough left over to leverage transportation to and from work.

Someone making the same yearly amount in a third world (or even second world) country would be the king of the neighborhood. OK, maybe that’s a bit of a stretch, but they wouldn’t be wondering where their next meal is coming from. You see, richness is relative.

This makes sense to anyone who has gone between cities/states/countries and realized that the a gallon of milk is a dollar in one city, four dollars in another, and ten cents in the third. And if all prices in the market are congruent to the milk- a person living in the city where milk costs four dollars per gallon is going to need to make 40x the amount that the person makes who is living in conditions where the milk only costs 10 cents per gallon.

Person one would need to make 40 dollars for every 1 dollar made by person two (or to put it in annual salaries, person one would need to make $80,000 a year to be considered in similar living conditions to person two making $2,000 a year).

Perhaps in dollars and cents, we'd consider person one to be "richer" than person two. But in quality of life, they’re technically equals. They both have the same buying power with comparable to their income.

This is why it’s hard to just make a blanket statement that one person is richer than another or that someone making a certain amount per year has an obligation to help out another person making less. If we’re not careful, we can end up guilting those who really don’t make a lot into feeling some sort of unachievable burden to help out those who may actually be comparatively similar to them in economic terms.

Instead of merely looking at raw data, you really have to look at disposable income rather than simply how much is made per year. Once you’ve done that, it’s a lot easier to coach people on generosity.

And I'm pretty sure this is why Paul said- "Let each man decide in his heart what he should give." Otherwise, it's just too complicated when we try to impose a mandated amount on anyone.

I'm testing a new site layout. Let me know what you think.

Dear Congress, Federal Reserve, and Mr. President:

I hate to say "I told you so."

But really... what do you expect a business (who obviously doesn't know how to manager their assets) to do with "free money" you've printed up and given to them.

I personally don't think you have any right to hand out money to businesses in the first place- but why are you suddenly surprised to find out that they are lining their own pockets with our wealth?

That's what they've been doing all along.

It doesn't take a lot of intuition to realize that they're going to continue to do so until someone lets them suffer the consequences of mismanaged funds. You should have let them FAIL put that money back in the hands of the people who actually need it. Or better yet, used it to pay down our national debt. What sort of message are you sending businesses and families when you don't even know how to balance your own budget.

Thanks for listening (even though you never do).
Kindest Regards,

Nathan

Liberals often use "Quality of Life" as a reason to keep abortion on the table.

Conservatives often use the "Quality of a Life" as a reason to keep capitol punishment on the table.

* * *

The former assumes that no child should be born into a family that can't provide for her needs- whether they are financial, emotional, or physical (especially in the case of disabilities in the child).

I have a hard time with this line of thinking, because even the poorest of the poor would rather be alive than dead and even children and adults with disabilities want to be alive. So, when we make an assumption that it's OK to terminate a pregnancy because someone isn't able to provide the kind of care a child needs- I wonder if that's really a fair reason.

It's especially odd that this sort of rationale is provided primarily by progressives who are usually in favor of government programs that support those who are in need. If Libertarians or Republicans made the vow that we should terminate pregnancy rather than give them money and help, I might at least understand the principle... but as it stands, I don't think it makes sense. Even orphan kids in third world countries fight to stay alive.

They'd rather be hungry than dead.

* * *

There's a similar thing that happens when we assume that a man should be put to death because of actions he's committed.

Just as Liberals assume that a child's world cannot be redeemed if they are born with a disability or into a home that doesn't want them- conservatives believe that some people are beyond repair because of what they've done. They believe that because of certain actions a person is better off dead than alive.

They dismiss rehabilitation. They see only vengeance.

* * *

I think both of these prove that people tend to value circumstances rather than LIFE itself. It's a shame, really, that we treat life with such disdain.

And I truly hope that Liberals AND Conservatives get it right soon, because both of these perspectives are just inches away from genocide.

Once we cross over into assessing quality of life and who has the right to live or die based on circumstances, we're thinking just like Hitler did. He decided that the world would be better off without certain races, religions, and people predisposed toward certain sexualities. He wanted to make the best of the world, even if it meant a little blood on his hands.

Let's hope we're not guilty of the same thing.