For all those who would like some discussion material to use with your family, friends, fellow-students, and neighbors (even with precocious kids) here is an important announcement:
Just outHot off the press:!: A paper you may enjoy reading on topics relating to Ethics, and the living of the ethical life – the why? the what? and the how?
You may wish to consider studying this essay which is relatively-short {only 11 pages, if printed out on both sides of the sheet}; critics have spoken of it as “persuasive.”
Its title is LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish.
Here, free of charge, safe to open in your favorite Reader program, is a link to it: tinyurl.com/nrnb4t4
If you do look it over, your suggestions as to how it might be upgraded or improved will be most welcome. [size=87] (Some of it may sound familiar to those who have paid attention to blogs here at the forum, for the writer borrowed some ideas from them.)[/size] So let’s hear your responses once you are acquainted with the concepts it contains.
This is not written by a logitician or even someone who solved ethics. This coming from a person who has solved it.
The solution to ethics is simple, and I’ve been telling people for 8 years the actual solution.
There is tooth and claw ethics, otherwise known as natural selection ethics - the way this works is to make it as easy as possible to destroy everything and anything - suicide, homicide, objects - the easier you make it to do this, than what survives has more inherent purpose for surviving - that’s how you actually derive the factual answer to the meaning or purpose of life.
But that’s not all, if you can make the existents that would ordinarily be destroyed in tooth and claw ethics too valuable to destroy, you actually add more meaning to the system.
The most basic moral axiom is that if you interfere with rationality within a system, you have created irrational agents within the system, which will make it impossible to reach a higher standard of living, even though you are happy and cannot conceive of that being possible.
I get the impression that your orientation is Evolutionary Biology and General Systems Theory. I admire you for your knowledge in those areas.
It would be helpful for purposes of understanding if you would give us an example of “interfering with rationality within a system.” Also, what do you mean by “rationality” in this context?
And what “system” are you talking about? Is it an entire human society? Is the object of Ethics to “achieve a higher standard of living”?
Aren’t those who “interfere with rationality” already “irrational agents”?
Rationality within the system involves what we legally call a matter of informed consent to abate the concept of fraud and abuse. It’s easy to take advantage of people for gain, but to do so, you are necessarily interfering with the rationality in a global sense of the system of communication and action.
Rationality is defined in its most basic sense as that which refers accurately.
For example, people really get riled up about the consent of the fetus and call themselves “pro lifers”, by being obsessed with calling abortion murder in all cases. However, the consent of the person to be born is disregarded as a non issue… To actually assure the consent of the fetus, the parents and the society need to provide a mutually agreed upon method to commit suicide, otherwise the fetus cannot be said to consent to being born, or it’s lifespan… This is actually a much more severe crime against humanity than aborting a fetus the mother didn’t consent to!!! Exponentially so!!!
The system is moral axioms in all the forms they come in in ways that are irrefutable, like a mathematical proof.
What does “the method to commit suicide” have to do with it, when discussing the casuistry of the abortion dilemma??
What exactly are you talking about when you say: “moral axioms in all the forms they come in in ways that are irrefutable”? And just how is this like "a mathematical proof?
So in order to calculate for your consent to this regard, methods of suicide agreeable to both suicidal and non suicidal people must be reached. This way, you, who never consented to being born is actually considered by the society that brought you here with a way out… In the absence of this, a severe crime against humanity, keeping people alive against their will, is being perpetrated!
I just gave you the axioms!!!
Make everything as easy to destroy as possible, whatever remains has inherent meaning and purpose in and of life. To make things that would be destroyed in the above system not destroyed that otherwise would be, is to add more inherent purpose of life. That is the irrefutable answer to ethics on the meta scale.
The axioms beyond that are little problems that we solve to add more meaning.
I definitely want to abate fraud and abuse. I agree entirely that it is, as you say, “easy to take advantage of people for gain”. Selfish people do that. An individual whose conscience is asleep, or whose brain is damaged so that he o she lacks a capacity for empathy, does that. Hartman called it “moral astigmatism.”
What I don’t get is what the following means in practice, and how we determine it. You ‘explain’ it as “you are necessarily interfering with the rationality …i.e., with referring accurately… with the system of communication and action.” What does that sentence mean? Does it make sense? Is it too general and abstract to be of practical use?
A professor at Oxford, who I quoted in one of my earlier writings, spoke (in his book published electronically) of the basic ethical principle being that if one party interferes with the project of another party that is how all immorality arises. This was made plain over the course of his book. He said: Let everyone freely pursue their projects, but if yours interferes with mine, that is tyranny!
Is what you are putting forth something like that?
If so, is it adequate to account for all of Ethics?
…I think you may be onto something, Ecmandu, but it needs some work yet.
And when you write “Don’t steal it” that shows you haven’t managed yet to kill the ego. Aren’t you aware that a science soon forgets its founders. How many folks who do some work today in chemistry are conscious of the pioneering contribution to the Science of Chemistry by the Quaker meteorologist, John Dalton?
How many people who use the world wide web every day appreciate its inventor, Timothy John Berners-Lee - and what he was able to do, only 26 years ago?
As for my ego, what about the persons ego who has a paid job who didn’t solve the problem taking credit for it when I can barely scrape by!! What about the ego involved in stealing a persons work.
Your conflicting issues thesis is not the solution, what if one person can use resources better than another person but they both want access to the same resources?
Interfering with rationality is something akin to convincing someone that all cars are the sky. From a game theory point of veiw, you not only have one less rational person in the system you can help you, they will try with all their might to convince you and others of the irrationality you used on them to “get ahead”. Two negative game theories, one positive one.
Ethical axioms are like mathematical proofs, there are outstanding problems …
I just got back to my apartment and the toilet seat was up, I always sit on it so pee doesn’t splash up… They may have already poisoned food of mine… Or something.
I was kind of hoping that some philosophers here would give the brochure a read, the one with the title LIVING WELL…by clicking on the first link below in the signature.
And then, after checking it out, they might give us their imrpessions of it.
What follows are some wise quotes relevant to Ethics - to optimal living - as well as some declarative prose that will very likely appear in my next essay:
“How can you avoid looking back at the end of your life with too many regrets?”
–Is perhaps living an ethical life the answer?
“Being ‘good’, or living well, is all about balance. Balance between reason and emotion, and between your needs and those of others, and between pragmatism and ‘the perfect solution’.” --If we want to live a Quality Life, shall we seek to find this balance?
“‘Right’ is not used here to describe a pre-determined course of action, but the one that is correct for you, in that it is consistent with both moral principles and your own personal values.”
For thousands of years the following properties of a self-image [a Self] that is highly moral were accepted as those which make us fully human, and not just a wild animal:
Courage, and not cowardice or impulsiveness and extreme risk-taking; Self-control, instead of self-indulgence or selfishness; Generosity, and not wasted resources or opportunities; Friendliness and politeness, not rudeness, flattery, or other unpleasantness towards others; Tact and discretion; Truthfulness and integrity; Good temper, even in the face of provocation;
and Fairness. [Fair-dealing with others, rather than cheating. The Justice principle includes this.]
These qualities or traits are among those Aristotle spoke of as the ‘virtues.’ In my writings to some of which you find links in the signature below I speak of these as ‘the good-making properties,’ as 'the marks of ‘a good character.’
Do you agree that these are traits of an ethical individual, and if so, do you aspire to acquiring some or all of these qualities?
Can these points brought out in the above quotes be taught in classes worldwide? Would doing so help to make this a better world?
Here are some reflections on Ethical Theory and practice that I have had lately:
Either science works, or it does not – and this truth applies to Ethics as science. The findings and principles derived by a science of Ethics will be pragmatic in the sense that they will enhance human life on Earth. If when it is applied it fails to do this then it was a mistake to give it much credence or consideration. So let’s not let Ethics waste our time if it doesn’t work when tried. First, understand it; then give it a real try – and see what happens.
Let’s devote ourselves to living well, that is, to the ethical life: to continuous self-improvement, towards striving for excellence, towards developing the properties of a Self that is highly moral. Let’s maximize value and work to avoid disvalue; this will be living optimally; this will be getting us closer to a Quality Life for one and all.
Moral laws are not imposed. This they have in common with natural law. People can attempt to violate them, but there is a price to be paid. In the case of disregarding the logical existential hierarchy of Value (which is explained early on in this science) the price is a more-chaotic society, needing more-expensive repairs than is necessary.
Some among us worship money, power, or ostentaious consumption, or they are conniiving or morally corrupt. If such an individual (because his or her conscience is asleep) personally does not experience the stress and aggravation, then one’s children, or those that one may care about, will experience the avoidable strife and tension, the dysfunctional world.
Some would respond saying I’m “preaching to the choir.” If that is the case, my view is: Let’s strengthen the choir !!! – Let’s organize. In solidarity there is strength. The Nazis organized evil. Let’s get busy organizing the good.
Let’s vote for people who ‘talk the talk’ of Ethics; and who’ walk the walk’: who will do as they say - or at least strive to. In other words, let us vote only for people who are caring, who urge cooperation, who speak in complete sentences, who advocate a strong safety net, who push for tuition-free community-college education. [Education is, of course, a branch of ethics; as is also Mentoring, Coaching, Counseling, and Therapy.] They all - if done right - teach values, and show ‘which way is up.’ That is, they teach us to set priorities that result in making the world a better place in which to live
Hot off the press:!: A paper you may enjoy reading on topics relating to Ethics, and the living of the ethical life – the why? the what? and the how?