Competing ethical theories - or a grand synthesis?

Let us have a dialog on Ethical Theory.

The late Richard T.Taylor (1919-2003) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer advocates Social Ethics.

The two aspects (foci, perspectives) are not incompatible. We don’t have to choose one over the other.

“Make something of yourself!” says Taylor. “Give something to others!” says Singer. [He goes so far personally as to actually live his principles, set an example: he tithes himself - allocates a part of his income to prescreened, sound, truly-altruistic charities.]

We need both branches of inquiry - Individual Ethics and Social Ethics - in a good Theory of Ethics.
For such a theory, see for example, amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … B01NBKS42C

By these days, assisted suicide and triage of extremely-deformed and abnormal infants is {in some quarters} tolerated as acceptable, much more so than when Singer wrote the book, HOW SHALL WE LIVE? - (1993) – So he is not so revolutionary any more. {His arguing for Animal Rights is still very-controversial though - but not with me… I have no problem with it.}

Soon parents will be notified before a birth as to whether their fetus has a terrible disease, or any kind of brain damage, so they can abort the fetus before it becomes a baby. …Technology sometimes can make life a little less stressful.

Further, if one values a conscious human Intrinsically, one would then want to reduce any needless suffering of that individual (and the same goes for one’s loved pet animal) so Dr. M. C. Katz’s theories about scientific Ethics embrace Dr. Singer’s theory of suffering reduction whenever possible. And Katz’s efforts at introducing Ethics into a scientific format also confirm Dr. Taylor’s emphasis - especially when he (Katz) delves deeper into the four steps of moral development that R. S. Hartman taught: Know yourself, Accept yourself, Create yourself, and Give yourself. [size=84]{See that Kindle manuscript (published in 2017)… or see Basic Ethics, the third selection cited in the signature below}[/size]

Comments?
Questions?

Richard Taylor’s generous review of Singer’s book can be found here:

philosophynow.org/issues/28/The … Revolution

Published in the year 2000, it is a well-written article, clear, detailed, and is good moral philosophy. I call it “generous” because although Taylor lauds Singer’s efforts, and even defends them, Taylor does not agree with Singer’s approach to Ethical Theory.

What say you?

In his books Dr. Katz does not discuss animal ethics, but the principles to which he alludes can easily be extended to include animals. He thinks it would be plenty of an achievement to get humans to the point where they understood the priorities that are in their best self-interest - as the scientific findings indicate. The science shows how the human species can continue to exist, can even flourish. It will do this by - among other things - finding a balance, becoming aware of the web of the universe, seeing how everything fits.

This awareness, though, is an advanced stage of development which will be attained after everyone (or at least a critical mass) comprehend and practice the ideas to which his grand synthesis calls attention …and, with the aid of other media, a tipping point is then reached. Early education will play a large role - as well as what the author refers to as “ethical technologies.” They will also help eventually to bring about an ethical world.

It is highly-probable that anyone who takes seriously the content of his book amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … B01NBKS42C
learns from it, and implements what is learned, will have a more-harmonious life, a happier life, and thus, in this sense, have a more-successful life.

The reader expressing a high degree of morality will by his (or her) living example be pursuing his own personal optimal self-interest. And we will all be winners to that extent.

Those who, as a result of what they learned from his writings, devote themselves to live an ethical life will be aware that the best way to teach ethics is by setting an example,

Questions? Comments?

I think I’m on the side of Tyler. I’m an individualist.

Morality takes its instruction from the conscience, and each man’s conscience is different. This means that we can end up in conflict sometimes, and each side of the conflict can be in the right according to their conscience. This also entails moral relativism.

However, conflict doesn’t have to irrevocably funnel down into violence or animosity; although each man’s conscience will dictate morality to him in potentially different ways, there is still the option of negotiation and reason, which can go a long way towards changing a man’s views, which can affect his conscience, and aligning parties who are initially opposed to each other.

Hi, gib - or is it Claire ?

:slight_smile: Perhaps it is useful to make a distinction between the two concepts “individualism” and “individuality.”

If one says, “I’m a unique individual,” she is defining herself Intrinsically as having individuality. If, on the other hand, one says, “I’m an individualist” s/he is affirming individualism which the genius philosopher, R. S. Hartman, defined as only an Extrinsic valuation - better than Conformity (which is merely Systemic-value), but far less in value than Individuality.

Also, incidentally, the cat’s name is Taylor.

I completely agree that conflicts do not have to descend (nor escalate) into violence. Conflict resolution is a skill which is highly-recommended for anyone who wants to be ethical. In an argument avoid being disagreeable; don’t use the word “you” when it has negative connotations, since that may likely be interpreted as an attack. Etc. Study up on nonviolent direct action; and read Chapter 22, pp. 83-85, on how to have peace-of-mind in the book by Katz - How to Live Successfully. The title of that chapter is “On Achieving Emotional Peace.”
amazon.com/dp/B01NBKS42C/re … le_ext_tmb
.

What is individualism then?

Ethics are highly variable. There are even some who would say conflict resolution is not the most ethical thing to do, that conflict provocation is morally superior (although I question whether these ones are speaking from the conscience).

“Individualism” is defined (by scientists of Ethics) as an Extrinsic social pattern.

To see what it correlates with, see the End Note (4) on pp. 64-67 here:
myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI … ETHICS.pdf
A table there will display other concepts that are its correlates - under the caption EXTRINSIC VALUES.

Comments and questions are most welcome!

This is not the meaning of “individualism” that I’m familiar with. Individualism to me means: the individual matters–his uniqueness, his well being, his potential, his moral worth, etc.–that it’s ok for one to pursue his or her own path, to be different from the rest, so long as it causes minimal harm to others.

That’s what is meant by individuality.

“individualism” to me connotes the image of “the rugged individual” who thinks he’s “a self-made man” - when actually he is quite dependent upon the social system into which he is born, and upon all the inventions which came before his birth and during his life!

Interdependence is vastly more valuable to us than (so-called) independence.

Individuality is the quality of being distinct.
Individualism is the pursuit and promotion of individuality.

Richard Taylor, of the University of Rochester, in 2003, [size=85]{in Issue 120 of Philosophy Now}[/size] judges “a good person” as one who has distinguished himself or herself by what they did with themselves. He offers as examples – as if any one of us could do the same – Beethoven, Picasso, Malcolm X, and Amelia Earhart.

This, to him, exemplifies “human goodness.” Yet all the examples he offers did as well do something for others: They served as inspirations. Yes, they created themselves, but then they gave themselves to the world!!

The imperative that Peter Singer stressed, namely, to reduce needless human suffering, does not conflict with the focus of Dr. Taylor. In fact, both perspectives are integrated into the Hartman/Katz synthesis for ethical theory – a theory that explains that when you view an individual, or a group of them, as Intrinsic value, that is when you are being ethical. When you see someone as of uncountably-high value, as a gestalt, as unique and priceless, as having a story to tell, as deep and complex, you now are in the realm of Ethics. And everything follows from there.