How to Recycle Electronics

Instructions

1. • 1
     Recycle by donating personal and office electronics that still function. Local organizations that offer clothing and supplies to low-income families offer a socially responsible way to recycle your electronics. Ask for a slip from the receiving clerk that accounts for the estimated value of your donations.
     
   • 2
     Concentrate your purchase of new MP3 players, microwaves and DVD players to increase the impact of your recycling efforts. Repeated trips to donation centers and recycling sites will increase your gas expenses, casting doubt over the value of your electronics recycling.
     
   • 3
     Find contact information on the sales and warranty slips for all of your consumer products for manufacturer recycling programs. Most computer and office-supply companies offer free packaging and postage for select products to encourage recycling by consumers.
     
   • 4
     Unplug your electronics at least 24 hours before you recycle to aid recycling professionals. Electronic devices feature capacitors that store energy while products are not in use. They can cause electric shocks if mishandled.
     
   • 5
     Examine your state's recycling program to determine options for recycling your electronics. Most states with comprehensive recycling programs have partnerships with third-party vendors who can receive your electronics at designated drop-off points.
     
   • 6
     Sell your electronics to a second-hand store in your community as a way to earn some money from recycling. Video-game stores, record shops and other places that sell used products offer opportunities to cut the costs of new electronics.
     
   • 7
     Place your consumer electronics on Internet-auction sites to share or sell your used products with fellow consumers.
     
   • 8
     Donate to an inventor. Inventors can strip consumer electronics for parts as an inexpensive way to build up supplies for future inventions.
     
   • 9
     Store old electronics properly if you intend to donate or sell these items in the future. You should devote space in a closet on the main level of your home to avoid moisture and extreme-weather changes during storage.
     

Read more: How to Recycle Electronics | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2164165_recycle-electronics.html#ixzz2In4p20FQ

Dilbert creates an Internet Voting Network for the government

Video Description:

Dilbert creates an Internet Voting Network for the government that is expected to produce record voter turnout. He is pressured to influence the vote, but remembers a lesson from ethics class.

Dilbert

TV Series (1999 - 2000)

Dilbert is a cubicle dwelling employee for a large soulless corporation. Each episode the show goes on many adventures that will leave you waiting for more. One simple phrase to describe Dilbert would be laugh out loud. The comical adventures that each story have are very well written by expert writers and voiced by an astonishing cast.

The power to change the world rests with you and you alone

The power to change the world rests with 

you and you alone: 

For too long people have believed themselves to

 be weak, or relied on 

others to change the world for them. You’ll 

know that you’re fully awake 

when you realize that you have the power to

 change the world by

 simply living the change you want to see. First,

 you have to identify the

 principles that you believe in and then go out 

and live by them. If just a small minority took 

steps to do this, it would shake the 

establishment to  its core.

losing my future is not like losing an election

The highest rated officials in the world held the meeting where an girl made them silent for five minutes with her mind blowing speech.

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11 Enlightenment

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11

Enlightenment


After the Renaissance, individualism was a powerful new force in the world. This was a time when people began to try to figure out for themselves how the natural world worked.  They stressed logical thinking and scientific experimentation.  This period in history is called the Enlightenment.  People became curious about everything, and wanted to study everything, including themselves.  As part of this, they began to look again at ideas about right and wrong.  But this time, they saw people as being part of nature, and subject to the same natural laws as everything else.

Benedict Spinoza

One important ethical thinker of this time was Benedict Spinoza.  Let's see what he had to say.

People living in nature have a right to life, and a right to do whatever is necessary to protect and better their life.  In other words, people will always protect themselves by trying to get what they think is good, and trying to avoid what they think is bad.  This is just common sense.  Problems arise because people are ruled by their emotions.  Emotions are powerful urges that motivate actions.  Because emotions are not carefully thought out, they are unpredictable and dangerous.  When people are ruled by emotions, they often argue and fight with each other. The only way to protect yourself from violence is to threaten greater violence in return. This is why nature is so insecure.

Spinoza, Ethics 4,XXXVI Note II, ParaphraseEthics Workbook I

What you think about Spinoza’s opinion of emotions? Is he right about emotions leading to conflict and to violence? Try to give some examples from your own experience.

People naturally look for a safer way to live.  This leads to the invention of governments and laws.  Laws are written as an artificial way for people to create peace and harmony.  This is the creation of what we call a state, and the people in it are called citizens.  Good and bad are created by the state in the form of rules that the citizens must obey.  Whatever promotes peace and harmony is good; whatever promotes discord is bad.  It's the rules that define right and wrong.  Good means to obey the law, bad means to disobey the law.

 Spinoza,Ethics 4 XXXVI Note II, paraphrase

Spinoza saw that force ruled in nature and that this solution of creating a powerful authority to govern was no better; one way or the other, force still ruled. This would changehe thought, if reason rather than emotions directed human actions.  Act according to reason, and everyone will agree. Harmony will result.  This sounds good.  But why should it work?

Like Aristotle, Spinoza believed that human reason, or the ability to think logically, was at the root of human nature.  In fact, to be human was to be able to think.  He concluded from this that human reason could never be out of sync with human nature, because reason

was the key element in human nature.  In other words, if your actions are ruled by reason, you won't ever act in a way contrary to your own best interests.  Here is how he said it:

Everyone, by the laws of nature, desires what they see as good and tries to avoid what they see as bad.  If their decisions are governed by reason, which is the basis of human nature, they can only do what is also good for human nature.

Now here's the tricky part.

So, whatever is good for an individual’s human nature must also be good for everyone else’s.  Therefore, when people act according to reason, and not emotion, they will always be in harmony with each other.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 XXXV simplified

This is a really good argument.  See if you can explain it in your own words.

And, he says that even though reason may require you to give up something personally because it would not be in the best interests of everyone for you to have it or to do it, that this would still make you happy.  In fact it’s the only way to true happiness. 

Promoting the good of others creates happiness because it leads to self-esteem.  When a person acts in another's interest and then thinks about it, he or she will approve of themselves.  Spinoza called this self-approval, which he said was the highest object for which we can hope.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 LII, note

Spinoza seems to be saying that true happiness results from feeling good about ourselves, having self-esteem, and being satisfied with what we did, not from any external thing we might get.  Think about this idea carefully.  Is it true? Then write a short essay telling what you think.

Here is one last quote from Spinoza:

People who are governed by reason don't want anything for themselves that they don't want for the rest of mankind, and because of this, they are just,faithful, and honorable in their conduct.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 VIII

Why does this look so familiar? Do you see a theme developing in the history of ethical thought? What is it? Prepare to discuss this.

Immanuel Kant

Remember we said that the Enlightenment was a time of science when people tried to figure things out by studying nature.  Not all people believed that right and wrong could be understood that way.  One very important philosopher of that time was Immanuel Kant. He believed that he could figure out rules of ethics with pure logic, and reason, without looking at the real world at all. Kant believed that if people studied the real world to figure out rules for right and wrong they would end up with different answers because they would be reasoning from different particular situations.  He wrote long and very complicated books trying to prove this.  His works became the most famous ever written about right and wrong.

Kant’s writing is complicated, but his conclusions are very simple. He wanted to find one rule everyone must obey all the time.  He gave this rule a fancy name, the Categorical Imperative. We will call it The Rule Everyone Must Obey All the Time. Here's how Kant said it:

I should never do anything unless I can honestly say I believe everyone else should always do the same thing.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 1Ethics Workbook I

What he came up with sounds a lot like the Golden Rule we've been seeing over and over again.  Only Kant believed he improved upon it.

Here's how Kant said it works:

If I'm in trouble is it OK to make promises that I don't intend to keep? It may be profitable in the short run to lie, but is it right? Let's word this in a different way, and then apply our ethical rule.  Should I lie to get out of a tight spot? Will this hold up as a rule that everyone must follow all the time? Can I say, “everyone should lie to get what they want?” If we put it this way, it's clear that I couldn't say this because it would mean that all promises would be no good.  No one could ever trust anyone else, and this would destroy society.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

The key to using Kant’s rule is that you must think carefully and logically.  Kant  and Spinoza both thought that as long as everyone relied on reason they would always agree.  Here are some more examples Kant gave to test his rule:

A man is very disappointed with his life and asks himself if it's OK to commit suicide.  The man says: “I want to act in my own best interests, since I see only pain and suffering ahead, I will shorten my life.”  Then he asks: “can  this be a rule everyone must obey all of the time?”  The answer is no, because it's a contradiction to say I will destroy a life in order to do what's best for that life.

You can also see what Kant means by logical thinking, and reason. Let's read another of his examples:

A man is rich and comfortable.  He wonders if he should help poor and suffering people.  He says: “why should I care?  I don't take anything from poor and suffering people, and so I'm not obligated to give them anything either.” Can this be a law everyone must obey all the time?  The answer is no because it would mean that you yourself could never expect any help, even if you desperately needed it.  It would be illogical for anyone to want the world to be like this. 

See how Kant is not using an argument based on the facts of any particular case, but looking only at pure logic.  Make up an ethical problem and see if Kant’s Rule works.  Try to think it through without using any specific details.

Compare Kant’s Rule: never do anything unless you can honestly say you believe everyone else should do the same thing, with Golden Rule stated: Do to others only what you would have them do to you.  Now reread Kant’s example about giving charity. Can you show any ways in which following the Golden Rule causes possible problems? Try to think of some other examples of ways that the traditional Golden Rule doesn’t work and see if Kant’s idea works better.

Dignity and Respect

Man's ability to reason was really important to Enlightenment thinkers, especially to Immanuel Kant.  Kant said that you could put a price on everything in the world except a human being.  A human being was of infinite value.  The reason for this was that humans were free, and ecided for themselves about the course of their lives.  They don't exist to serve any other person or for any other reason but to be free for themselves.  He called this human dignity.  People alone have dignity.

Here is how Kant put it:

People exist only to live their own lives as they  see fit, and must never be used by others just to further their own desires.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

Here is the important point.  Since all people view themselves as having dignity, Kant’s rule requires everyone to give everyone else the same standing.  In other words, if you don’t want to end up with a world full of users, you can never use anyone else only to further your own purposes.   This is what Kant meant by treating other people with respect.

That you must never use anyone else only for your purposes doesn't mean that it's wrong to expect someone to clean your table in a restaurant, or to ask a clerk to show you a pair of shoes in a shoe store.  The word  only is the key. Try to think of some examples of a person using another person in a way that would violate Kant’s rule of respect.  Do you think this is a good ethical rule to follow? How do you define respect? Why is having respect for other people so important?

Ethics Workbook I

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 10.Renaissance

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 10

Renaissance

After about a thousand years of feudalism, people began to question some of its basic ideas.  This new period in history is called the Renaissance. It was a time of change in the way people looked at their relationship with the community they lived in. 

Communalism was losing ground to the idea of  individualism.  Individualism stresses the importance of the individual people, and places them above the group.  People began to believe that there was nothing wrong with striving to get things for themselves, and they became less concerned about their obligations to others.

The Renaissance was the beginning of what we call modern times.  We still live in the modern age, and our society today still stresses individualism.  So, this is a very important idea for us to study.  It's a new way to look at life, and it changes things a lot.

All through the Middle Ages it was assumed that, for the most part at least, people try to do the right thing.  In other words, people were by nature basically good.  This was one idea that was seriously questioned by Renaissance thinkers.  One famous philosopher at this time was an Italian named Nicolo Machiavelli.  He wrote a book called The Prince which gave advice to political leaders.  Let's see  what Machiavelli said about the natural goodness of people.

In general, people are ungrateful, unreliable, false, cowardly and greedy.  They will promise you anything, and then turn their back on you if things go wrong. 

And don't think that the person who is closest to you is more reliable.  Friendship is based on obligations, and people break obligations most easily.

Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVI simplified

What to do you think? Are people basically good or basically bad? Is Machiavelli right?

Now, if you believe that people are the way Machiavelli says they are, your ideas about right and wrong will change.

Machiavelli wrote his book as a guide for the leader of his country.  He believed that he government should not have to play by the same rules as ordinary people because the government cannot afford to lose.  Do you think governments should have the same standards of right and wrong as ordinary citizens? What about when governments deal with foreign countries?

Here is some of what Machiavelli wrote:

Everyone says that the leader should be honest and trustworthy and not be sneaky.  But it's easy to see that in the past leaders who get things done have paid little or no attention to this idea.  They have simply outsmarted the others, especially those who keep their word.  We all know that there are two ways of getting what you want.  The first is through the rules, and the second is to take it by force.  The leader must do both. 

The leader should be half lion and half fox.  The lion can't see the traps, and the fox can't fight off the wolves.  Great leaders don't rely on either one or the other, but use both.  Therefore, the wise leaders do not keep their word if it will hurt them or prevent them from getting what they want. If people were good this rule would not hold.  But, because they are bad, and will lie and cheat you, you are not obligated to be fair and honest with them. But, it is necessary to disguise your dishonesty and to pretend to be good. People like to think that they are upright, and they are very easy to trick.  You must appear to be virtuous, but only a fool actually is virtuous.  Pretend to be kind, reliable, fair, honest and loyal.  But be ready to do the exact opposite, as long as you don't get caught.  It’s always best to stay with the good if you can, but only if it works, if not, you must be ready to change tactics.  Remember, people must believe you are virtuous, so never give any hint that you are not.  People only see what you show them, not what's really there.

Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVIII simplifed

What was Machiavelli’s opinion of hypocrisy?

It seems that winning is the most important thing for Machiavelli.  How important is winning in the things that you do? Does the urge to win sometimes lead to unethical actions? Can you give any examples from your own experiences?

Machiavelli seems different from earlier writers, but there is a very basic way in which he is identical to all the others. Reread the following sentence.  See if you can figure it out? Why does he tell people to lie and cheat? What basic principle of ethics is he using?

If people were good this rule would not hold, but because they are bad, and will lie and cheat you, you are not obligated to be fair and honest with them.

Nicolo Machiavelli, T he Prince, Chapter XVIII simplified

Ethics Workbook I

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 9. The Middle Ages

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 9

The Middle Ages

All of the societies we have studied so far have held individual people responsible for their actions.  In fact, we could say that ethics is about individual decision making.  But, we have also seen big variations in how people look at what's right or wrong. Next we're going to study a way of looking at right and wrong which stresses what's good for the group that the individual is part of.  This idea holds that what's best for the group is most important, and, it ends up being what's best for each individual as well.

Before we get started, think about this issue.  Should people try to do what's best for the group they belong to even if it might  not be, at least in the short run, what seems best for  them as individuals?

Feudalism

After the fall of Rome, the rule of law disappeared and Europe became a dangerous and lawless place.  People naturally banded together and formed groups for their own protection. The land was divided into many small territories, which were defended by castles. Nobles and knights ruled, while peasants and serfs farmed the land.  This so-called feudal system lasted for over a thousand years.

Feudalism’s ideas of right and wrong were based on what would best hold together a strong group.  We call this idea  communalism.  A commune is a group of people living together and sharing what they have.

In feudal society people freely agreed to be ruled by other people and to do what they were told in return for protection.  To seal these personal agreements, it was common to swear an oath of allegiance.  The greatest crime that you could commit was to go back on your word and not stand by your oath.  This was called a felony.  The word felony is still used today to describe the most serious crimes.

Let's look at one of these feudal oaths.

I swear before God that I will be your true and faithful servant and be at your command.  I will love what you love, and hate what you hate.  I will not think or do anything of which you disapprove.  In return you will stand by me, and protect me in all the ways we agreed to at the time I submitted myself to your authority.

Composite of several typical feudal oaths.

An oath is like a promise to do something.  How important is it to keep your promises? Should promises be kept no matter what?

Thomas Aquinas

During this feudal era, the  Catholic Church was very strong and most of the thinkers and writers were church people.  One great philosopher who had a lot to say about right and wrong at that time was a Catholic priest named Thomas Aquinas.  We're going to read some of his words and talk about them because they show the philosophy behind communalism.

Here is how Aquinas put it:

The parts of things exist for the sake of the whole.  If a person had an infected finger, and it was threatening to spread and kill the person, then it would be right and good to cut it off.  By the same reasoning, the person who is dangerous and infectious to the community can be rightfully killed to protect that community.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 64 simplified

You can easily see how strong this idea of protecting the group was.  Think about the groups you belong to.  How important are these groups to you? Write a short statement about groups in your life and prepare for a discussion.

One question that puzzled people who believed in communalism was whether a person should make a profit by selling something for more than it was worth. 

Here is what Aquinas said:

It is wrong  to sell a thing for more than its just price because it is deceiving and injuring your neighbor. 

Buying and selling is intended for the common advantage of both parties.  Therefore, there must be equality between them.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,77 simplified

This is different isn’t it?  Let's look closer at what Aquinas said.  First of all he uses the term just price.  This term means the same thing as fair price.  But what does that mean?

Well, for people at that time, it meant that if you were selling something to make a living, you could set your price only as high as was necessary to pay your living expenses.  In other words, you could expect to live comfortably at the level you were already at.  You could not get rich by making big profits.  For example, shoemakers had a certain lifestyle, as did carpenters and farmers, and so did everyone else.  You could sell your goods only at a price that kept you at that level.  The just price would change with people and places, but it was always intended to keep people from moving up, or down, the social ladder.

To sell anything for more than it is worth, or to buy anything for less than it is worth, is wrong and unlawful.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,77

Compare this with the way trade is carried on today.

Thomas Aquinas had a lot to say about right and wrong. Let's see what he says about hypocrisy.  Remember that hypocrites pretend to be something they’re not.

The seriousness of the wrong will depend on what end the hypocrite has in view.  If the hypocrite intends to gain from it at someone else's expense, it is very serious, but if the hypocrite just enjoys pretending, then it's of lesser importance.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,111,4

Here again we see that intent played a big role in how actions were judged.  Let’s think about this question again, maybe you’ve changed your opinion. Do you think that the reason that motivated a person to do something can determine if that action was right or wrong? 

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY & History of Economics and Ethics

Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is often cited as the father of modern economics for histreatise The Wealth of Nations (1776).^[1][2] His ideas built upon a considerable body of work from predecessors in the eighteenth century particularly the Physiocrats. His book appeared on the eve of the Industrial Revolution with associated major changes in the economy.^[3]

• 1 Early economic thought
  • 1.1 Aristotle
  • 1.2 Middle Ages
• 2 Mercantilists and nationalism
  • 2.1 Thomas Mun
  • 2.2 Philipp von Hörnigk
  • 2.3 Jean-Baptiste Colbert
• 3 British enlightenment
  • 3.1 John Locke
  • 3.2 Dudley North
  • 3.3 David Hume
  • 3.4 Francis Hutcheson
• 4 The circular flow
• 5 Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations
  • 5.1 Context
  • 5.2 The invisible hand
  • 5.3 Limitations
• 6 Classical political economy
  • 6.1 Jeremy Bentham
  • 6.2 Jean-Baptiste Say
  • 6.3 Thomas Malthus
  • 6.4 David Ricardo
  • 6.5 John Stuart Mill
• 7 Capitalism and Marx
  • 7.1 Context
  • 7.2 Das Kapital
  • 7.3 After Marx
• 8 Neoclassical thought
  • 8.1 Marginal utility
  • 8.2 Mathematical analysis
• 9 Austrian school
  • 9.1 Early Austrian economists
  • 9.2 Ludwig von Mises
  • 9.3 Friedrich von Hayek
  • 9.4 Murray Rothbard
• 10 Depression and reconstruction
  • 10.1 John Maynard Keynes
  • 10.2 The General Theory
  • 10.3 Keynesian economics
• 11 The "American Way"
  • 11.1 Institutionalism
  • 11.2 John Kenneth Galbraith
  • 11.3 Paul Samuelson
  • 11.4 Kenneth Arrow
• 12 Monetarism and the Chicago school
  • 12.1 Ronald Coase
  • 12.2 Milton Friedman
• 13 Global times
  • 13.1 Amartya Sen
  • 13.2 Joseph E. Stiglitz
  • 13.3 Paul Krugman
• 14 Contemporary economic thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought.wikipedia.org-History_of_economic_thought

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

Capitalism and Marx

Capitalism and Marx

Main article: Marxian economics

Karl Marx provided a fundamental critique of classical economics, based on the labour theory of value.

Just as the term "mercantilism" had been coined and popularised by its critics, like Adam Smith, so was the term "capitalism" or Kapitalismus used by its dissidents, primarily Karl Marx. Karl Marx (1818–1883) was, and in many ways still remains the pre-eminent socialist economist. His combination of political theory represented in the Communist Manifesto and the dialectic theory of historyinspired by Friedrich Hegel provided a revolutionary critique of capitalism as he saw it in the nineteenth century. The socialist movement that he joined had emerged in response to the conditions of people in the new industrial era and the classical economics which accompanied it. He wrote his magnum opus Das Kapital at the British Museum's library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought#Capitalism_and_Marx

Money As Debt II: promises unleashed (FULL MOVIE)

Paul Grignon's second presentation of "Money as Debt" tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its "Duncan Initiative" received high praise from those who previewed it. I recommend it as a painless but hard-hitting educational tool and encourage the widest distribution and use by all groups concerned with the present unsustainable monetary system in Canada, the United States and in whole Europe.

How Banks Create Money out of Thin Air

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Do you know how your money is created?

An Entertaining but hard hitting look at how the problems we have today are nothing new,and why leaders throughout our history have warned us and fought against the current type of financial system we have in America Today.(SUPREME MASTER LEADER EXPLAINED AT THIS LINK) 
http://www.theamericandreamfilm.com/the-cast/supreme-master-leader.php
(DVD's Available at) http://www.infowarsshop.com/The-American-Dream_p_454.html 
(Subtitles/Other Languages at this Link) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA94C43FDDAFACB8 
All of us Americans strive for the American Dream,and this film shows you why your dream is getting farther and farther away.Do you know how your money is created?Or how banking works?Why did housing prices skyrocket and then plunge?Do you really know what the Federal Reserve System is and how it affects you every single day?You will be challenged to investigate some very entrenched and powerful institutions in this nation,and hopefully encouraged to help get our nation back on track..