This is an interesting discussion. Here's my two cents worth... A few years ago i took a class called: The Philosophy of Medicine. It was essentially a medical ethics. The book of case studies was more than 60% about who actually has the right to decide what happens to your body (including whether it should live or die), you or the physician.
As much as i enjoyed the class, i was disturbed by the mere existence of that question. It is my body! I still feel that way, but the interesting thing is that in a few of the discussions about various case studies, i saw the "truth" in the physician overriding the choice of the body's "owner". The essence of this is that as Funda said, ethics are about why we choose something, not what we choose. Harrison said, "I don't really believe that the space is ours to give or withhold." I agree with this. My time and my energy, however, are mine to give or withhold. >From an ethical point of view, authenticity and integrity are mine alone to >hold. I cannot be responsible for those things in others. My world view is that in each act (and thinking and feeling are acts) that i take, i have the choice about who that act serves. Either it serves the world (all) or it serves self at the expense of others. One tool of philosophy is that if you are in doubt about the significance of an act, take it to the extreme. So, if you have a company that is ethically questionable. (i am going to choose an arbitrary example, not to offend any individual views.) Let's say you have a manufacturer of firearms ammunition. And they want you to hold Open Space for them so that they can become more effective in their marketing of bullets. Do you do it? Not so clear. But let's say you have a troup of militia who want you to Open Space for them so they can become more effective in their recruiting and training process. Do you do it? Again, not perfectly clear but becoming more so. So, let's say you have a team of assassins who want you to Open Space so they can become more efficient in their missions. Do you do it? Say, a racist organization with a history of brutality, torture and murder of minorities comes along... In each of these cases, i could argue either side. At the very least, i could say that if i Open Space for the assassins or racist group, that they could use that experience to come to a more harmonius, a more caring way of living. But that would be me wanting to impose on them my view of the world. That would not be an authentic expression of me serving those groups. Rather, it would be attempting to serve myself, my views. If i were to take on the job strictly for the revenue, then it is clearly not authentically me. (unless i am all about just making money and don't care about where that comes from). I do feel that who we choose to Open Space for is an ethical question. It is a reflection of our own authenticity and integrity in doing our work. So, would i Open Space for a company who's ethical standpoint in the world i disagree with? It depends on why. And i also agree with Harrison that my being closed would be a show stopper as the space wouldn't truly be open. duff --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 24/08/2004 * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
