‘What makes an issue ethical?’ Most young readers would not be able to answer this question. But before answering this question, a better question is ‘what is ethical?’ Ethics is a set of unwritten rules of moral behaviour and values within communities. This means that these set of ‘rules’ determine whether you are doing the right thing or the wrong thing. An ethical issue is an issue where there is conflict on what a certain person or organization is doing. The actions of the person or organization are evaluated as either right (ethical) or wrong (unethical). There are multiple approaches to avoid all conflict so that no issue arises.  A main consideration is Utilitarianism in which you consider the usefulness of a decision before making it so that it pleases most others. In other words, think before you act. When wanting to seek revenge on someone, it is best to think before you act before something worse happens. An ethical approach would be to forgive the person.

Subjectivism is also a key factor in avoiding conflict, but can also be brought out incorrectly depending on the person’s thoughts. Subjectivism is deciding by your own self-esteem and for yourself, through your own experiences, whether your actions are right or wrong. Deciding for yourself can sometimes be an incorrect decision because some people are unable to tell right from wrong due to their own experiences in life. An example of correct usage of subjectivism would be a person seeing a fight and stopping it rather than cheering it on with other bystanders. Situational ethics is making a decision in terms of the situation. With this approach, the actions seem unethical but the situation that they are placed in makes it ethical. For example, Breaking a window, to escape a fire or assaulting a stranger, in self defence. Without the specified situations, the actions are deemed unethical. A problem with relativism is that it asserts each person has the right to choose what is right or wrong that they can’t adopt themselves.

Relativism is a person’s ‘truth’ which is actually a belief. An example of relativism is hitting a person back because you believe it is the right thing to do. The opposite of relativism is Natural Law in which we believe that every person has an innate behaviour and are born a raised with a correct understanding of human morals. The Catholic Church believes that the Natural Law was adopted from the 10 commandments and without the Commandments, there would be no innate behaviour of ethics because there would be no guide for the first few people to live. The Catholic Church also believes that the ‘innate’ understanding of ethics is God’s creation. In my opinion, I believe that natural law is correct and that we are all born with some understanding of ethical and unethical situations but sometimes it can be personal experiences that make up your mind.

In a pluralist society, it would be complex to make ethical decisions because the society is diverse and what seems normal to some could be very different to others. A pluralistic society is a society which the community are able to legally choose their own ethical views and what ethical beliefs, if any, they wish to hold. It is similar to relativism in a sense that people are able to have their own ethical views but it is different in a sense that the society is allowed to have their own ethical views and few/no laws stopping them. The complexity of this would be that there would be little to no restriction to most people and it could potentially create chaos and possibly continue to the extinction of the human race. An example of this would be choosing to be homosexual rather than heterosexual; the human race would die out in one generation. In a religious point of view, every person has the choice of which religion they wish to believe in and the ethical views that come with it. It would be complex to make ethical decisions because there would be no correct right or wrong, only an opinion of every single person in the society. Although it seems like freedom, the world needs boundaries to survive. To some people murder would be seem as unethical but to others it could possibly be seen as ethical. Seeing murder as ethical is wrong in our society, but in a pluralistic society where everyone has their own choice, the people can choose to think that it is right. Within a Pluralistic society, human rights, responsibilities of individuals and groups of society would be different for nearly every person and wouldn’t even be considered with the same importance that it has today. If there was to be a Pluralist Society, the matter of life or death would be put into the hands of every human being.

The 10 Commandments started of as basic rules for relating to God and to others, but it has gained a greater importance throughout the years. Most of the rules within the 10 Commandments are used for human rights rules and approaches to ethical decision making. It is possible to say that the human race would have eventually arrived at these rules after some time, but with the influence of the 10 Commandments, it sped up the process. I do believe that we would have arrived to the rules eventually to create peace and harmony without the 10 Commandments (even though it would take longer). The 10 Commandments were first created to ‘obey’ God and to keep his creations safe. Most people believed in God and therefore followed the ‘rules’. But the people that didn’t believe in God, they still followed the ‘rules’ because they deemed it to be ethical. If they did not believe in God, why did they still follow ‘God’s rules’? It is because they already had an understanding of peace but had not perfected on how to bring it out, and still in our society today, we still don’t have a solution on how to create ‘world peace’. To create these rules, it would take time and experience throughout your life but it is fair enough to say that the 10 Commandments did help out in solving bits and pieces.

Many businesses today have no real understanding of ethics. They sell products or services to make the most money in the shortest amount of time and have little or no concern for the safety or quality of the services or goods they are producing. For us to move forward in a rewarding way we must reintroduce strong morals to the world. Morals such as doing things to better everyone, making an honest living, and appreciating the things you have instead of being monetarily motivated. Also, we must correct things like stealing from one other and the corruption in corporate businesses that just spread the disease of dishonesty, disloyalty, and lack of care for anyone but themselves. This just causes an increase in inadequate business practices and the corruption of society and family values. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, writes in her book It Takes a Village, that a child is not just raised by his/her parents but by society as well. Regardless if you agree or not with her political views, the concept of society growing together is a fundamental principle of the past that we need to incorporate back into today’s practice. Today’s businesses must see that their actions are effecting future generations to come, and that every business deal is not just a short term way of making money but something that teaches people. We must be accountable to our responsibility to each other . In life, people typically repeat what they have learned from those around them. They think that is how things are done, by learning from those that have gone before them but also by losing the moral fiber that formed those decisions. In the end, CEO’s of businesses should take hold of learning the moral fiber in order to lead to better ethics in both industry and society.

This brings us to the production and quality of products the industries are creating on the basis of making money and not on the safety of the consumer. Companies are just barely passing the safety requirements for cars, toys, food, and jewelry. They don’t try to go above and beyond to satisfy the consumer. They think if everyone is just doing the minimal requirements then people have no where to go but one of their companies. Some are pushing the limit on a product or service that is just not safe. In the world today people are starting to realize that we have the technology to make things better, for example we’ve created more fuel efficient cars, organic foods, and have been able to sustain society without destroying natural resources that are homes to wildlife. As a result, the industries are driven to improve their product to do more than just satisfy the consumer. These things cost companies more money and prevent the potential growth of these companies. On the other hand, driving beyond doing just the minimum can increase life expectancy, protect the environment, and save people and future generations money. But to make it work these industries need to understand that their actions effect the future and present as well as about improving the quality of life and not just making a couple extra dollars because you used filler in a food. Industries don’t realize the things that they add in food, toys, and jewelry can cause brain diseases, cancer, and sickness that can have long term effects and are left at the feet of those who ignored the rule of creating the best product. People don’t understand that spending the extra dollar for a better, healthier future is worth it and it’s not just all about the money. If things aren’t reverted to the traditional way of life then products will eventually just wither away into something with the quality of a prize in the bottom of a cereal box, cheap, small and of no real value.

Society has changed substantially from the traditional ideals. Many people no longer base their lives on honesty, integrity and other important morals but on selfish motivation that has occurred from the corruption of these principles. People based on the change in fundamentals no longer do things for other people but now only think about themselves and how they can make themselves happier. The first thing in improving our society is to teach people that they aren’t supposed to think just about themselves but about others around them. To do this you must start these teachings from the ground up. This means that the new generations to come need to be taught correct morals and values in everyday life. When society focuses on the improvement as a whole, the individual will have a better quality of life. Society needs to work together to improve and renew people more so that the quality of person as a whole will increase, thus creating a better lifestyle as a whole for everyone. In context if we want our children to have a sustainable environment for the future we must teach them how to be an honorable person so that they may pass their ethics down to the children and continue the process of rebuilding society as we know it.

The world needs to completely revamp the way things are done if the future is going to hold a sustainable future that will be good for both our children and grandchildren. We all want something better for the generations to come but most people don’t act on this and they just expect it to happen. To improve the future you must first better yourself and understand that repeating the same action but expecting different results is the definition of insanity. But for this to happen you need to admit that you are part of the problem and say to yourself that you will do what it takes to improve the future so that many people will be able their enjoy lives for years to come. The traditional ideologies in business, industry and society need to be resurrected in a way that we have a revolution regarding the way people go about their day to day activities with a sense of values and not of greed and personal gain. For us to sustain a enjoyable future in which holds morals, we must completely alter our way of dealing with business, industry and society.

I found out his father George Romney had a good repatation and people were giving the son the benefit of
his fathr’s good name but as you will see they are not alike.

George Romney was the CEO of American Motors.AMC was on the verge of being taken over by corporate
raider Louis Wolfson in 1957, George Romney was able to fend him off.
Mitt on the other hand is a Corporate Raider The kind of vulture his father fought hard against.

 George Romney’s belief that assorted interest groups held too much influence in government, and that
only the cooperation of informed citizens acting for the benefit of all could counter them. Mitt 
is joined at the hip with Special interest groups and it’s them that he owes his allegations to not the
American people

George Romney decried the large influence of big business within the Republican Party.Mitt says
Corporations are people and embraces them He has received millions in his coffers for his campaign from
big business and millions more in PACs to smear the names of his opponents

AMC workers  benefited from a then-novel profit-sharing plan. George Romney was one of only a few
Michigan corporate chiefs to support passage and implementation of the state “Fair Employment Practices”
Act. Mitt devastated small communities shutting down their employment selling assets and sending American jobs to foreign countries.

Starting in 1956, George Romney headed a citizen-based committee for improved educational programs in Detroit’s public schools. George Romney started out in moderate living conditions and worked hard for what he achived. Mitt was born with a silverspoon in his mouth and like so many other children of rich parents he’s a spoil brat with no empathy for people which is why he has no remorse for all the misery he’s cause workers and Why cheating and lying come easy to him (voter fraud, etc)

They say the “Apple doesn’t fall far from the Tree” but in this case the apple has rotted

Many people make their ethical standing grounds based on their religion, for example many Christians use scriptures from the bible to distinguish whether animal experimentation is ethical or not. Some interpretations of the bible support the use of animal experimentation for the benefit of humankind. Genesis 1:26 reads:

 “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”(New International Version)

This verse from the bible reads literally that humankind has the right over all other animals on earth, and thus experimenting on animals at their expense for our benefit is acceptable and ethical. However another verse; Matthew 6:26 reads

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”(New International Version)

From this verse it can be deduced that, humans – god’s creations – have no more value than that of animals which are also one of god’s creations. This verse suggests that though we may have ‘right’ over animals, their life is worth no less than our own, thus it is unethical to experiment at the expense of animals lives for the benefit of humankind. Conclusively there are countless standing grounds that can be made in regards to religion, both supporting and opposing animal experimentation

Another commonly argued value is humanity, ‘Dictionary.com’ (2012) defines humane as:

“Characterised by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.”

Humane practises are directly related to ethics in regards to experimentation on animals, as the controversial aspect of animal experimentation is the humanity of the act. Most people would agree that if the treatment of animals in animal experimentation were completely humane, then it is ethical, however views on humanity can vary from individual to individual.

Some may argue that if animals do not endure pain and suffering then the treatment is humane and animal testing can be carried out this way. On the other hand it is also argued that many tests involve qualities such as irritation which can be painful and these are not prohibited from practice. Others may argue further opposing animal experimentation that an animal kept in a cage for its whole lifetime is inhumane in itself, and thus unethical.

Another commonly argued point in regards to animal experimentation is the necessity for it, which in itself is very controversial. New chemical compounds are being produced everyday for varying purposes, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and everyday health-care products. All of these chemicals have to be sold in a way so that it is consumer friendly, for example mixed into petroleum jelly and other mediums and “fillers” these products are then sold at supermarkets or chemists, however if a new product was found to be poisonous and highly toxic to children months after it was released the damage could be catastrophic. This is where animal experimentation’s necessity can be argued.

However this is a broad statement, in many specific cases for example, irritation tests for pesticides, detergents and shampoos are carried out by exposing the eyes of conscious rabbits (Animal experimentation: cruel and unnecessary 1997), can definitely be argued and unethical, as new shampoo (cosmetic) has an insignificant impact on the health of future generations, however the testing is obviously inhumane. Once again different concepts of what are more important and what is humane continues to cloud the ethics surrounding animal experimentation.

Many activists wish to ban Animal experimentation or at least protest it, due to the fact that there is inadequate “policing” of humane and inhumane acts, which have been and most likely are still being committed, however companies have been able to sell products confidently because of animal testing and there has been nil to minimal cases of products causing illnesses or having effects unknown prior to the dispatch of the products to the shelf.

There is however a way to reduce the cruelty in the practice of animal experimentation by further increasing efficiency of experiment design and altering experiment design to prevent the need for inhumane acts on animals and reduce the required number of subjects, this is a new and popular idea when it comes to animal experimentation, and many believe that reform be needed to settle ethical issues surrounding animal experimentation.

It may also be argues that there is no substitute for accuracy and validity by direct logical testing; disregarding and humane treatment must be disregarded for a guarantee of confidence in products sold to the public.

Finally, as discussed there are many ethical issues surrounding animal experimentation, the humanity of it, the necessity of it, how animal experimentation is being practiced and how it could be practiced.

Confidential information

relieve a member of their professional duties in accordance with the rules of ethics terhaap accounting principles.

influence the members to always comply with applicable laws.

conduct a review of professional practice (review quality) seotrang members under its authority.

preclude a member from filing a complaint investigation of complaints or comments made ​​by the body established in order to enforce disiplinn association members.

Professional fee

Fee scale

Member Fee The amount can vary depending, among others: the risk of service komkpleksitas assignment that is given at the level of expertise needed to perform these services

Contingent fee

Contingent Fee is a fee that is set for the execution of professional services without a fee to be charged.

Aesthetics and ethics in fact almost no different. Discuss ethical behavior of human actions (good and bad). While discussing the aesthetics of something beautiful or not. Aesthetic goal is to find a generally accepted measure of what is beautiful and not beautiful. What is clear in this regard is the work of human art or about the universe.

As in ethics which we are very hard to find sizes that until now have not even match the size of the good and bad deeds are done by humans. Aesthetics are also facing the same thing, because until now not been able to match the generally accepted measure of the size it is beautiful. In this case it turns out a lot of theories that address the issue size was beautiful. Time immemorial, people say that beauty is metaphysics (abstract). While the modern theory, the claim that the beauty of it is real or some kind of reality with the real nature is fixed.

Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos meaning of customs, but there is another term that is taking the moral of that is the plural of the Latin word meaning nos customs as well. However, the definition of ethics and morals have differences with each other. Etka This is the theory while the moral nature of practice. Ethics questioned how humans should act while the moral question how human beings should tndakan. Only consider the ethics of good and bad of a thing and should be generally applicable.

In brief, the definition of ethics and morals is a theory of human behavior that is good and bad that can still be reached by reason. Moral is an idea about human behavior (good and bad) according to the particular situation. It is clear that the function of ethics is to find a measure of human performance assessment behavior (good and bad but in practice many have ethical difficulties. This is due to the size of the good and bad human behavior is not the same (relative) is tidal regardless nature of each. But ethics is always achieve the ultimate goal to find an acceptable measure of ethics in general or be accepted by all nations in the world. acts of human behavior was not equal in the sense of making an ethical sanction because not all behavior man can be judged by ethics.

Human behavior can be assessed by the ethics it must have certain conditions, namely:

Human action is done with understanding. Therefore those who do evil things, but he did not know in advance that the act is evil, then this sort of human action is not sanctioned in ethics.

Man that was done was done on purpose. Human actions (crimes) are done in an accident then the deeds of such men will not be judged or penalized by ethics.

Freedom of human action undertaken by or on its own. Human actions are carried out primarily to force (in a tight squeeze), then the act will not be penalized ethics.

Thus the requirements of human actions that may be subject to sanctions (penalties) in ethics.

Difference between the value of something is due to the nature of value itself. The value is an idea or abstract (not real). Value is not a fact that can be captured by the senses. Behavior of human action or something that has value that can be captured by the senses because it is not factual. If we go back to science, then we will discuss correct and incorrect. Truth is a matter of logic where the issue is a question of appreciation of the value, feelings, and satisfaction. Summary of issues not discussed the value of truth and error (right and wrong) but the problem is a matter of good and bad, happy or unhappy. Problem of truth is not independent of the value, but value is according to the logic.Theoretical task is to solve the problems of ethics and aesthetics which is a lot of discussion about the theory put forward by several groups and mepunyai view it is not equal to the value. As expressed by the value of religion, positivism, pragmatism, fvtalisme, hindunisme and so on.

Analysis of Ethics in the 21st Century

21st Century marked the imposition of disputes between territories, the 9/11 trauma, Iraq and Afghanistan war, Egyptian uprising and riots in the African countries. The challenges faced by the world in this hour are also widening and prolonging. These impediments are even more multifarious and exhausting in facet. There is a pertaining threat to environment and natural resources, a continuous depletion of natural resources, and the increasing gap between affluent and poor. The society is engaged in technological progress and globalization and so problems today are global rather than local. This situation, united with the unparalleled interconnections and interdependence among people from all countries, is defined as a ‘crisis’ or ‘uncertainty’ which founded the human society until now. Humankind is very far away from reaching a resolution needed to tackle the trans-boundary dilemmas and predicaments that escort the growing global family.  However, what seems right is to address the conditions of such a society demand manifestation on the essential elements required to preserve a productive and peaceful global community. (UNESCO Headquarters|2001)

A conference held at the UNESCO Headquarters on September 21-22, 2001 analyzed the role of ethics in today’s globalized world. A Report was made on the two day conference. In this report, different sessions were discussed such as structure of ethics of the 21st Century, the role ethics play in the 21st Century, different approaches towards an ethical environment, and the future of ethics. (UNESCO Headquarters|2001)

Ethical Behavior

According to the Institute of Global Ethics, ethical behavior is complementary to:

·         Being trustful and sincere in all our transactions whether personal or professional

·         Accountable and responsible in every dealing

·         Mindful and respectful of self esteem of each and every individual

·         Impartial and fair in every relationship

·         Empathetic and gentle in every situation (Bailey J.I| February 2004)

These are fantastic rules, powerful yet simple. They relate to literally every façade of human life and to every institution and organization. These are our embrace. We as individuals should adhere to these wonderful rules; and must not let any public perception change our views or discourage our beliefs. These are the basics of our existence, our survival and our upbringing. These are the ethics on which our decision making should be based upon. Deciding between two rights is what ethical management comprises of. It does not in any way signify that either of the two choices is unacceptable.  But it means that one should be careful, compassionate and responsible in choosing the better option. Constant changes in the economic and social climate shifts public opinion and so today we face several discrete challenges brought into affect by such external forces.  To remain loyal to our ethical responsibilities and principles, there are three focal areas we need to emphasize on. These are diversity, honesty and integrity and access. (Bailey J.I| February 2004)

The Role of Ethics in the 21st Century

            Today, world tolerates the problems of ethics along side the technological and scientific domains that dominates the human race. Human beings can not just respond by themselves without the assistance of technology. Issues within the scientific community cannot be confronted until philosophical and ethical considerations are taken into account. Ethical reconciliation should be utilized when solving problems or interacting with diverse cultures. If one wishes to arrive at ethical clarifications of problems at hand, references must be cited to the traditional world of thought and wisdom. According to Prof. H. Atlan, philosophy is the key to arrive at ethical answers and to attend the problems of science and technology faced today. (UNESCO Headquarters|2001)

            There are two types of ethics that relate to globalization. First one is based on ethics of sovereignty of States and the power structure. The second one relates to the responsibilities of the liberal market. These two kinds of ethics and the vibrant relationship between them state the condition of ethics today. Globalization in the 21st Century gave birth to an accord between people who think internationally. In actuality, the emergence of a global civil community, by the sponsorship of global democracy, global governance and residency all contribute towards surfacing of ‘globalization of ethics’. (UNESCO Headquarters|2001)

Ethical Training

Most students and officers when hear the word “ethics” become spell bounded and images of departmental sanctions, internal affairs of a company, and extensive lawsuits came dawdling into their minds. As discussed earlier, ethical behavior is the basis of any university, college, organization or educational institution. It should be a persistent theme in every training program. Even though there is a vast literature on ethics and business ethics as well in our growing globalized world but there is a basic flaw in all these endeavors- instructor of these ethical training programs lack knowledge pertaining to ethical knowledge and ideologies. Another challenge that different departments face is vast ethical frameworks from which the units/officers must work. For instance resources officers versus petrol officer and traffic verses SWAT. (Dr. Bayley B. | August 21, 2009)

In any case, the norm of “one stop shop” might not be the most feasible and effective way for ethical training of officers as well as students. Officers, teachers, and students need to learn how to handle ethical challenges faced by them in the 21st Century and for that it is essential to discover ethical ideologies and philosophies. As a students’ instructor or of your department, one should identify the different orientations among your people. (Dr. Bayley B. | August 21, 2009)

Importance of Ethics

Why immense importance is given to ethical principles in this century? They are the fundamental rules of any profession. Without an ethical framework, it is not possible to set rules that form the basis of any career and differentiate it from quackery or amateurism. In any profession of the world such as artists, doctors, dentists, journalists, performers, actors, etc need good ethics to be good at their work. Any profession needs ethical guidelines to be well recognized and formed. (Allain. J.P | May-June 2001).

Is it fair to let small producing units produce in less favored regions of the world? To see their livelihood threatened by free market policies and laissez-faire? In today’s 21st Century free market and laissez faire are dominating the one empowered human race. In one’s own profession, it is considered ethical to eradicate the standards and working policies when competitors face them so that their marginal costs increase and when it comes to our enterprise, we vote in favor of whatever labor we are exploiting, and is it ethical to cheat your customers? Certainly not, but there is no reason to know it. (Allain. J.P | May-June 2001).

We must not just eliminate our tenets lightly, we must continue to enhance and improve it. We should modernize our ethical system wherever required to face the challenges faced by us in the 21st Century so that our cultures and traditions do not lose their true essence and color. We should move towards modernism but by pursuing ethical principles, ideologies and philosophies. (Allain. J.P | May-June 2001).

References

UNESCO Headquarters (2001), Report on Ethics for the 21st Century, Division of Human Sciences, philosophy and the Ethics of Science and technology. [ONLINE} Available at:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001246/124626eo.pdf

Bailey J.I (February 2004) Ethics and the 21st Century. Centre for the Study in Ethics in Society. Western Michigan University [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.wmich.edu/ethics/pubs/vol_xv/judith_bailey.pdf

Dr. Bayley B. (August 21, 2009). Improving ethics training for the 21st Century.  Ethics in Law Enforcement. Policeone.com. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1864833-Improving-ethics-training-for-the-21st-century/

Allain. J.P (May-June 2001). The role of ethics in a deregulated 21st Century. International Association of Conference Interpreters [ONLINE] Available at:

http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page352.htm

Nonlinear dynamics instructs us that the indefinite future cannot be constructed by the mere addition of short-term futures (Stewart 1995: 111-112). Rather, the indefinite future must instruct short-term futures so that behavior exhibited in them is compatible with the realization of the indefinite future. This the indefinite future can only manage through the proxy of functional or purposive/ethical imperatives or constraints.

Precisely such a line of reasoning is apparently deployed by the pioneering biophysical economist and economic theorist of the first rank, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, as he took to task mainstream neoclassical economists for thinking that their “analytical models” suffice “to deal with the issue of  optimal allocation of natural resources among successive generations, an issue that affects the survival of the human species” (Georgescu-Roegen 1979: 95).

In this connection, Georgescu-Roegen first points out that if resources are to be optimally allocated among successive generations, then it is required that all parties with an interest in the resources, including those parties in future generations, be allowed to bid for the resources. Of course, parties in future generations cannot make the required bids. It is therefore up to the present generation to “take into account” the needs of future generations. How this is to be done, Georgescu-Roegen instructs us, “is admittedly a difficult but not impossible problem. Suffice it to say here that the solution lies in the domain of ethics rather than that of economics.”

To impress upon us that our ethical deliberations must encompass the entire future of the human species, Georgescu-Roegen dismisses the analytical sophistry of the neoclassicals when they object that it is not true that the present market is independent of the demand of future generations, their argument being “that since each [resource] owner sells to a future owner, who sells to another, and so on, the algorithm will take care of the interests of all future owners now.” In his dismissal, Georgescu-Roegen points out that, while it is beyond dispute “that each individual’s actions are geared to the future”, it is equally the case that unless the individual’s “time horizon [is] unlimited (optimistically, it may be taken to cover about thirty years only)”, then “nothing beyond” the individual’s finite “time horizon bears upon” his decisions. Accordingly, for example, none of  “the earlier owners of oil fields [in the United States] acted on the thought that one day this country might experience a dangerous shortage of fuels. Had they done so, the shortage  would have probably not come so early.”

To aid in our ethical deliberations, Georgescu-Roegen (1979: 102) counsels that we abandon the principle of utility maximization that guides economists and instead strive  “to minimize future regrets.” This seems an eminently sensible counsel considering that there are simply more ways for things to irrevocably go wrong, as a result of historical contingency, than to go right. In this connection, the words of the physical chemist and Nobel laureate, Wilhem Ostwald, seems particularly germane (Rifkin and Howard 1989: 288): “ ‘The responsibility for every act has sense only if the act cannot be repeated, if what is done is done forever’.”

(References: Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1979. “Comments on the Papers by Daly and Stiglitz.” In: V. Kerry Smith (Ed), Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, Baltimore: RfF and Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 95-105; Rifkin, Jeremy and Howard, Ted. 1989.  Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World. New York: Bantam Books; Stewart, Ian. 1995. Nature’s Numbers: Discovering Order and Pattern in the Universe. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.)