MOGO in daily life

Posted on February 21, 2007 by zoeweil

What does it mean to do the most good and the least harm? How can this become a guiding principle, and how can one always know the answer? After all, we can’t predict the future; we can’t know every detail of every effect of our choices, and it can be awfully difficult to balance our own desires against the needs of others. It’s easy to rationalize decisions that may be most good for us, but which may not be the most good for other people, other species, or the environment.

Whether we want to buy something from a company that exploits workers, harms animals, or damages the environment, take a less than eco-friendly vacation, or start a lucrative, not-necessarily-helpful-to-others career, if ‘most good, least harm’ is our guiding philosophy, we’ll be faced with the conflicts that sometimes arise between our desire to be a positive influence in the world, and, well, other, less noble desires.

The trick to allowing MOGO to become an effortless guiding principle is to realize that it’s impossible to lead a perfectly MOGO life, but it is possible to lead a life in which one’s personal desires more often than not match one’s ethical values. The reason this is so is because it is deeply rewarding and satisfying to lead a life aligned with one’s values, and that’s what MOGO helps us do. In other words, by making MOGO choices, we improve our own life as a matter of course.

What MOGO challenges have you faced? How have you resolved them?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Human v. Animal rights

Posted on February 12, 2007 by zoeweil

The L.A. Times had an article (http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept) about the conflict between animal protection advocates and those supporting ritual slaughter of bulls in South Africa. It boils down to this (from the beginning of the article):

“Thousands of animals are killed every month in South Africa in tribal cleansing ceremonies, and rituals marking births, deaths and weddings. To many people, these rituals lie at the heart of their identity, a tradition that brings peace and harmony in life. But animal welfare advocates say the rituals are often cruel, and that bulls are speared in the chest or neck to make them bellow before they die.”

This is just one of many examples of conflicts between changing ethical norms and cultural differences. Whether the debate is over female genital mutilation, child labor, women’s suffrage, whaling, or land conservation, we will undoubtedly continue to face conflicts between what growing numbers of individuals and socities believe is immoral and what specific cultures consider traditional and acceptable.

What’s the MOGO way? When the debate turns ugly, when those critiquing practices that they consider cruel or destructive are called imperialists and racists and those defending their cultural traditions are called backward and immoral, where can we find the tools and the path toward a solution?

We need to listen to each other respectfully with MOGO as our goal. Cultural traditions and religious practices run deep. But when those who support and perpetuate ritual practices or cultural traditions that may have negative effects are asked to share the value of such practices, much is revealed about the underlying purposes and needs that the acts fulfill. And when those who oppose such practices as being cruel, destructive, or unsustainable are given the opportunity to voice their concerns, much is revealed that casts doubt on the value and ethics of certain traditions without criticizing the underlying needs and purposes. If we can listen to each other with respect and openness, the possibility arises that these underlying purposes and needs might be met in other, less destructive and cruel ways. If we focus on solutions that work for everyone, inviting all the stakeholders to voice their positions, we create the possibility to grow, change, and make new and better choices we can all embrace.

I’m curious what solutions and ideas you have for this, and other such conflicts. I hope you’ll post your ideas.

Zoe

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Money and MOGO

Posted on February 8, 2007 by zoeweil

While last week’s United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was widely circulated and discussed, The American Enterprise Institute’s offer to scientists of $10,000 to critique this global warming report was a blip in the news. In fact, when I heard about the report – casting little doubt that current global warming is a serious threat caused by human actions – the fact that a powerful think tank, funded in part by Exxon-Mobil, was offering cash to scientists to critique the report seemed to me to be the real news. Yet, what was real news to me did not seem to register in the media very much. That day, my family happened to be heading to New York from Maine – an 8-hour drive with Sirius satellite radio to fill me in on details. I channel-surfed for hours, yet not a single news station, other than a brief mention on NPR, reported on what to me is blatant corporate bribery of scientists. The Fox channel spent quite a lot of time debunking the panel’s report, but I never heard them mention the American Enterprise Institute’s cash offer. Here is a brief clip I found online today:

“NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.”

I’m imagining those scientists tempted by the American Enterprise Institute. I like to think there are not many of them who would sell their integrity for $10,000. If they disagree with the panel’s conclusion that humans are causing global warming, and we have much to worry about in the future if we don’t curtail it (and a very small percentage of scientists feel this way), then they should speak up, not for cash, but for truth. But the vast majority of scientists in the field have not come to such a conclusion. Let’s hope that none would sell their soul for cash. Let’s hope they would do the most good, and the least harm, and speak up not only about global warming, but also about the danger of bribery – how it makes people wonder if what is most good for themselves (a big chunk of change for their own pocketbook) outweighs what is most good for the planet and all who reside here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 437 other followers