ethics [ˈɛθɪks]

n

1. (Philosophy) (functioning as singular) the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it; moral philosophy See also meta-ethics

2. (functioning as plural) a social, religious, or civil code of behaviour considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual

3. (functioning as plural) the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc. he doubted the ethics of their verdict

and I might add:

ethics – eth (from the Greek eth, the 19th letter of the alphabet as lisped by a former king of Spain) and

ics (involuntary reactions to any number of disgusting circumstances)

I’ve been punishing myself, (not that I’m really into that sort of thing), by reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s newest book, Eating Animals.  It’s not that the book is a bad read, quite the contrary, but its overlying theme of a generally accepted ethical disconnect between humans and all of the other animals, raises numerous troubling and moral questions.  I would jump right into this particular debate if I wasn’t still reeling from a newly hi-lited lifestyle, fraught with guilt related to chewing and swallowing…well, almost anything.  Instead, and since the material is so much more Twittery, I have chosen to comment, mostly, on human:human ethics.

We are genetically engineered to be both good and bad.  Researchers contend that some measurable, although minute sample of us are simply mis-wired, making that sampling psychologically, if not physiologically more bad than good.  For the rest of us, (hubris), because we are randomly plopped into a world of environments diverse in comfort and privilege, it would seem that nurturing the good would be most apparent for those more fortunate.  Actually, anthropologically, (two of my most favorite ‘a’ adverbs), societies with the fewest choices and most challenging survival experience tend to have the most ethically principled conduct toward one another, while we more socially advanced urbanites, (more hubris), tend to pick and choose our ethical behavior to suit our whim.  In the United States, (wherein I was plopped), ethical behavior is even litigated by an entire branch of law which argues the differences between what is ‘right’ and what is ‘legal’, (‘fair’ and ‘just’ not being factors).  This allows politicians to blatantly misuse their power, Mr. Rangel et al, and insurance companies to use payoffs to families of fallen soldiers, Prudential et al, for personal and/or corporate gain.  This allows skating around the definition of the word ‘it’, Mr. Clinton, willfully misrepresenting the intent of a speech, Asshole Brietbart, or hiding behind a bullshit interpretation of freedom of the press, Mr. Wikileaking Assange.  Oh, religion?  Don’t get me started!  Business, banking, sports, education, journalism?  Why is the naturally ethical human tendency to simply do the right thing always so gargantuanly overshadowed by the loud, public, horrible-example-for-the-young-and-impressionable choice to misbehave?  Suddenly, I’m drifting back to an image of chickens confined to a 6” x 8” space, stacked nineteen high to assure the most efficient production of eggs…ic!