Ethics
Ethics not only addresses what's good and bad, it encompasses a moral duty and obligation. This means that it is not only personal, but something we owe to others. In other words, they shouldn't have to come and ask us for it.
As an individual, ethics should be the backbone of our personal philosophy of living. Many get into trouble in determining the range or boundaries of ethical behavior. Most think of ethical behavior as determined by governmental laws, but this is only partially true. It is more a philosophically generated standard that is developed and pursued by individuals or sometimes groups. Which means that sometimes, part of your ethical standards may not be written down and may not originate from what is considered good or bad solely by your government. It may also come from what you learned from your parents, teachers, minister, or what you picked up from a peer group. Since we are all culturally and socially quite different, it is easy to see that ethical differences exist. For one, the ethics of invading someone's personal life or feelings would be abhorrent. For another, it would be a gift of kindness. Background, experience, culture, personal philosophy and even theological belief usually come into play, when it comes to ethics.
So, how would one distinguish a proper ethical standard, from an improper one?
This I can only suggest. Being American, I favor at least starting with the personal rights and freedoms our forefathers guaranteed us with the Constitution. The right to personal privacy and protection of that privacy are high on the list. I also like the idea that one human being will not do anything that damages or harms others, or in any way infringes on their rights to be who and what they want to be (as long as they too are not hurting others). Already we can see that for ethics to work, everyone has to have them, and the key seems to fall somewhere within the subject area of doing no harm. So, all ethical behavior should be positive and constructive and not negative or destructive.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that world history is rife with examples of governments and social structures proclaiming certain actions as ethical which we see as not so. Numerous and explicit acts of racism and religious intolerance have been built on the foundations of faulty ethical belief or behavior. In some cases millions of people accepted certain behaviors as appropriate that came at the expense of other human beings. Or, at least that was always the argument at the time. But, I believe that even then, people knew they were being ethically wrong.
Today, there are gangs in many of our larger cities who follow what they believe to be a "code of ethics." But in these cases, as throughout history, this really isn't ethics we are talking about.
These situations occur because people sometimes look to others for guidelines upon which to base their ethical behavior. In almost every case, they do this because it is easier than taking a stand against what they know in their hearts is wrong from the outset. True ethics is a matter of the heart. It is acknowledging that for every action we take, we are in some way affecting others, and this includes the environment, non-human life-forms; essentially everything we have to live in harmony with on the planet. Or if you subscribe to the idea, even entities we know nothing about whom live in the stars as well.
There is a belief that since no one ever knows when or where a remote viewer or psychic penetrates reality, there are no ethical reasons why they shouldn't. This is clearly wrong. To begin with, the laws regarding a person's privacy do exist with regard to a telephone tap or poking through their private files. To assume it's okay to invade someone's privacy because it's telepathy and not yet specifically defined within the law is splitting hairs. While it may be awhile before the courts decide what to do about telepathy, it doesn't negate anyone's personal responsibility for upholding what was ethically intended by the Constitution. Even my editor suggested that until a law is written, the best anyone can do is "sympathize." I disagree. The least that anyone should do is acknowledge the intent and spirit of the law, and then follow it.
The following are not intended to be "ethical rules of behavior" for remote viewers or psychics, but is suggested as perhaps a line of minimal behavior, or at least a starting point for discussion.
Privacy
I would suggest that when it comes to remote viewing or psychic behavior, the same rules of privacy exist regarding individuals as do in any other case. It is unethical to pry, look, invade, or otherwise violate the personal privacy of an individual except at times and in ways allowed by law.
If parents come to me and ask that I find their son or daughter, and the son or daughter is over the age of consent, I can do only what the parent would ask a private detective or policeman to do: try to locate the son or daughter, and then attempt to deliver a message of concern from the parents to them. I cannot give the location to the parents directly, as that would be a violation of the son or daughter's privacy. Maybe the son or daughter doesn't want to be found.
Of course for every case there are exceptions. Perhaps there is reason to believe the son or daughter is in trouble, or is suffering from mental defect, whatever. These are always ethical judgment calls, or minefields. However you might view them, the rights of the individual must be held above all other factors.
Criminals have rights as well. However, things really begin to get sticky here. If invading the home of a criminal helps the law locate them, is that ethical? There is no warrant. To my knowledge, this has not yet been addressed by the courts, but clearly it should be. Most psychics attempt to provide clues external to the criminal's home or automobile, something that can be seen by the general public anyway, as pointers to location. What about a criminal's motivation?
I don't think a remote viewer or psychic does anything more than what a very good criminal profiler does—provide a best guess based on perceived and otherwise disconnected detail(s).
What about ideas?
We live in a world where more and more, ideas are considered of extreme value. New chemical blends, metallurgical processes (especially in the computer or electronic-chip business, where a process that reduces the insulator by a micron has meaning), even fashion statements, drive huge profits. We are talking now about the idea stage, where creativity is taking place. What about the ethics of stealing such a property?
My view is that the dividing line here is unclear. First, I automatically assume all creative processes to be nothing more than remote viewing or psychic functioning in any event. (Remember how I suggested that we eventually know the answer anyway, and it is then perhaps that we send it to ourselves in the past?) It seems to me that if we eventually know about something because it will eventually come into existence, it is not surprising that we might pick up on it in some psychic fashion before it actually does. There is already clear evidence that most new things popping out of the woodwork are quickly followed by like products. There is a tendency to believe the similarities are too synchronistic to have been independently created, but I think that would be an incorrect assumption. Knowing what I do about remote viewing, I would rather believe that ideas, like plants, do suddenly propagate in multiple greenhouses. So, the dividing line lies somewhere between the idea and the actual creation. If we can't tell where that line actually lies, we have to look for another indicator to answer our ethical dilemma, which in my opinion would be the motivation behind those pursuing the new product.
Targeting an individual or a company in order to collect ideas that you can use first is not ethically or morally responsible. Some hair-splitters would say, "Hey, if they want to lay claim to an idea, they have to bring it out first. We're just cutting it off at the pass." Sorry, but in my own opinion that's still industrial espionage. If your original intent or motivation is to "steal" or "pick up" the idea someone else is already working on, then you are ethically deficient.
In America, industrial espionage is considered illegal. Advertising to use remote viewing in industrial espionage should be punishable under the same laws that are currently in effect regarding other forms of industrial theft, or breaking and entering.
It is clear that some psychics want to have their cake and ice cream too. They operate under the idea that "since officially no one wants to admit that remote viewing or psychic functioning is real or that it works, they can hardly take me to court and charge me with theft using it. On the other hand, if they take me to court and are able to prove it's real, they've essentially bolstered my claims about what I can do with it, which equals more business at a higher price." It becomes a kind of win/win for the psychic.
However, from both a moral and an ethical viewpoint, the psychic or remote viewer who takes that position is clearly in the wrong.
If on the other hand, your motivation is simply profit and you are looking for input in support of an idea you might have and use a remote viewer to get it—out of the ethers, if you will—then so be it. It will have to be a patent attorney's issue if an argument arises. No one acknowledges where ideas come from. I suspect that the origin of ideas is actually within the person's head who conceives them. Whether using remote viewing or just thinking really isn't material. If you truly understand remote viewing or psychic functioning, you understand it's all pretty much one and the same thing.
Profit, Greed, and Ego
Many believe that psychic ability and remote viewing are gifts from God and therefore should not be used for profit, in support of greed and or personal aggrandizement. If you attempt to use it in this way, it won't work, or you will fail. I've got some sad news for you, if you believe this is true. Unfortunately, it's not.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that a person's morality or ethical behavior mediates talent in any way. There are certainly lots of reasons why such attitudes might get in the way, but in my opinion these are technical issues and have nothing to do with the person involved. A morally corrupt person can be just as good at it as someone who isn't.
I think this belief is actually born out of a hope and desire that it might be so. Many of us are taught that when people do bad things they get caught and suffer for it. Perhaps, psychologically, since some people can see no way that someone might be held responsible for their actions as a psychic or remote viewer, except in the eyes of God, they have trouble imagining why God would allow them to use it for evil or bad things.
Sometimes, the very act of being psychic is viewed as the work of the devil. After all, if it's "god-like knowing," and only God can have that, then it just has to be devil-inspired. All of these views, of course, are driven by religious fervor or fanaticism, dependent upon your point of view.
In my own point of view, the ability to be psychic or do remote viewing is purely based on innate talent, the amount of exercise or practice you've had doing it during your lifetime, and the appropriate application of technique and protocol—none of which have anything at all to do with a person's ethics. The ethics part we are obligated to apply ourselves.
Technically, many of these things can be perceived as pertinent to effective viewing, simply because they drive the belief system of the people participating in the act. Once you understand that, the mystery surrounding evil people, out-of-control egos, and how they might affect psychic performance vaporizes rather quickly.
Other Ethics in Remote Viewing
Other ethical questions surrounding the subject of remote viewing are even less clear-cut. They have to do with "when" information should be used.
In the past, I have spoken about times when it became known to some of my colleagues that I was not always sharing all of the information I might have collected during a remote viewing. This sometimes happens, even when there is no obvious ethical constraint. Why would I not share information, especially when asked to do so by the very people it will be affecting?
The answer will not be a surprise to some. As a remote viewer with twenty-one-years experience, I know in many cases, as good as I might feel about the information I might be perceiving, there is no way for me to know ahead of time that it is absolutely real or accurate.
Remember, being psychic is a double-edged sword. I not only get information of interest, but I usually have some perception of why the information is needed, even when I'm not being told. Therefore, if I perceive that an action will be taken that could ultimately harm someone because the information could be wrong, I just don't provide it.
Let’s say I produce information that implies that someone has done something wrong. But, I also know that even a subsequent investigation, which may prove them innocent, will not undo what has been implied, I do not provide the information. A good example would be feeling that I have sufficient information from remote viewing to indicate that someone is a child molester. Unless there was already a substantial amount of information available through other sources that indicated the same, or I had absolute trust that authorities would not use the remote viewing information as sole source information, I would not report the information. In our society, just the accusation of something like that can be devastating to another human being. Knowing what I know about remote viewing, it would be the last information I would depend on for making such an accusation. So there are times, regardless of input, when you should just shut up and sit quietly.
Of course, if you've been paying attention, you should be thinking that no one should ever be using remote viewing information as sole source for anything anyway. But, in my experience, when it comes to the pursuit of crime, they are likely to use the viewing information as stand-alone information, usually to generate new leads. This may be okay if it opens new avenues of information that can be approached with conventional law enforcement techniques—and as long as it doesn't harm another human being.
Another example of bad ethical practices is "Psychic Hot Lines." I know this probably ruffles a lot of feathers, but hear me out.
I'm sure there are a number of very good psychics who participate very ethically through psychic hot lines. However, that is not the reason for which they have been created. You need to look at the fine print. Psychic hot lines are set up for entertainment purposes. They are not set up to give critical and accurate advice to people who are hurting, looking for their next job, or otherwise in dire need of serious assistance. Those who say they are, are deluding themselves. There are lots of examples of unethical statements surrounding psychic hot lines, probably too many. "He's/she's cheating on you.”
“Your emotional body map is setting you up for a serious illness.”
“You need to sell your house and move." These kinds of statements, whether the psychic believes them to be true or not, are unconscionable. The best-of-the-best in the psychic world has nowhere near the kind of accuracy that would be required to advise someone blindly to sell a house or cut off a relationship.
What about serious psychics and remote viewers? I'm a very serious remote viewer and I would never give that kind of advice to anyone for any reason. In this business, you need to assume that the very reason someone is asking you something, is because they take you seriously in the first place. It is an awesome responsibility that should not be taken lightly. A great deal of time and thought should go into the ethical lines you draw around yourself as a remote viewer or psychic. If they are drawn properly, you are choosing not to share, more than you are sharing.
One last comment is necessary regarding ethical behavior.
In remote viewing training, there are many training techniques that do not focus on the philosophical or theological impact to the viewer. Since belief has such a strong effect on the outcome of such training, and conversely, training has such a strong effect on belief, not addressing this impact, or not paying attention to the changes taking place in the student, in effect letting the student fend for him or herself, is, in my opinion, unethical behavior.
Ethics That Affect Remote Viewing
A number of other areas have a direct affect on remote viewing and need to be talked about, at least in terms of ethics and/or ethical behavior.
Media.
Project STARGATE was terminated in November 1995. Since then, I've had interaction with dozens of television production companies, a number of newspaper, magazine, and book writers, and live and taped radio show hosts. I would like to say that all of them have been ethical in how they approached the serious subject matter, or me, or others connected with remote viewing or its research. In fact, few have.
Many of the programs looking for film footage were only loosely disguised as news programming, when their very existence is for entertainment purposes only. In some cases, they did everything possible to sensationalize or trivialize the truth to make a better story.
Some companies that were news-oriented spent little time seeking out a proper balance when presenting the facts; instead, they went with whomever they could get to show themselves on camera, regardless of their level of interest, degree of expertise, or previous connection to the subject matter.
Many in the media automatically assumed an attitude of ridicule long before they did their first interviews, took their first foot of film, or asked their first interview question.
It is not surprising to me that many in America, or elsewhere for that matter, do not know what appropriate ethics are. This may sound like harsher criticism than is warranted, but it isn't. In my experience, those who were clearly operating from high ethical standards were the smaller percentage. At least there were enough of them to inspire hope for the industry.
Internet
In America, everyone who has the money to buy a computer can gain access to the Internet. The number of Internet users in America alone has topped twenty-three million. However, one should remember that the second leading country is Canada with a mere 1.75 million Internet users.
On the surface this sounds great. Well, have I got news for you: the Internet system is the greatest source of disinformation available to the public today.
There are essentially no rules for operating on the Internet. Outside of sale or advertising of medicines or other controlled substances, over the net, you can pretty much say whatever you would like to say, as you are protected by your right to free speech. The Internet is just like putting up a soapbox in the park.
There is nothing wrong with that, except that a lot of people operating over the Internet have absolutely no ethical standards. Claims and statements are made which have no basis in fact. They are designed specifically for a lot of reasons, but truth is not one of them.
Obviously, nothing is going to be done in the near future to correct this problem, and maybe there shouldn't be. So, I would strongly suggest that if you seek out facts or truth regarding remote viewing on the Internet, accept whatever you find with a large grain of salt, or go to the trouble to verify it. Taking information directly off the net and attempting to use it will only add to the confusion.