If the author of this entry is correct, then happiness is a way of fulfilling commitment, friendship, family, humor, and wealth. This would mean that we pursue happiness for the sake of humor and wealth, and that humor is specified or fulfilled by being happy. But isn't the case just the reverse? Don't we pursue wealth because we think it will make us happy? Don't we try to make our lives happy by increasing wealth (regardless of whether this works or not) or by nurturing our friendships? All of the values mentioned in the opening locative section should go in the closing locative section. Perhaps the only value to be mentioned at the beginning of the entry is Goodness.
The entry adds nothing to our understanding of common sense. It is poorly written, is missing several key components, and is uninteresting and unimportant.
To be an ethical person you are not required to follow every law put in place. Ethics is not about doing what someone else tells you to do, but rather about making your own personal decisions based on your own unique set of values and morals. Legalization will not, and cannot, remove ethical issues for every individual. Take gay marriage for example, some want it legalized, some do not. Whether it is legalized or not the ethical issue remains within an individual person. If it is legalized the person or individual must now make their own ethical decision of whether or not they will get married to a person of the same sex. Their choice should be based out of their own value system and not the value system of the person or people who passed the law. Just because a large group of people deem it right or wrong it does not mean that your ethics align with theirs; therefore, you are still able to make your own decision on the matter. It is the same with every issue that is out there right now. Assisted suicide, marijuana, abortion, animal testing etc. An ethical issue is an ethical issue and legalization cannot remove that. People will always have to make their own decisions about issues, whether or not there is a law passed. Laws can sometimes hinder the carrying out of certain ethical decisions, like assisted suicide, but an individual will always be presented with the ethical dilemma of whether or not they support the law. Laws will remain and new ones will be created, but so will the ethical issues every individual must wrestle with personally.
Here's a possible difference from patriotism—patriotism is based on identity with land (since the word patriot comes from the Greek for fatherland), while nationalism is based on arbitrary boundaries. Hence nationalism is related more to political and legal discourse, while patriotism is related more to discourse about social practice, people, and place.
Which brings up the question: given their arbitrariness, are borders worth our allegiance? Perhaps patriotism is a nobler emotion and value, so long as it is based on something different than national boundaries.
Hasn't an American standard of beauty been exported to other cultures, and hasn't this resulted in the homogenization of beauty standards? Perhaps not total, but certainly there are far fewer than there might have been prior to the globalization of taste.
In the burden section: Do careless actions "force" the creation of a rule? Doesn't that still involve a choice?
Do we have a right to express opinions, and does that really constitute the goal of self-awareness? Isn't self-awareness more about being cognizant of one's here-now existence, like Kabat-Zinn suggests?
Loyalty calls for turning down or turning off criticism of that to which one is supposed to feel and express loyalty: one's school, , one's workplace, one's city, one's state, one's country. I don't doubt that one might feel real loyalty for some of those with whom one is in face-to-face groupings, but outside such settings, loyalty is a value that is overrated.
Some values lead to block the play of vlaues. Leadership is one of them. Leadership engages in command, direction. It differs from education. The language of leadership differs from the language of education (except where a principle of authority has infected teaching). If we demote leadership, we clear the field of the play of values for full participation in creating good sociality conditions.
Since juridics is what prevents an action from being ethical, removing the juridic controls over marijuana use would actually make smoking marijuana an ethical issue for the first time since it was prohibited by law.