Part I: Philosophy may be deservedly proud of its tradition of launching new sciences. For example, Natural Philosophy became Phisics; Philosophy of Mind became Psychology. Those two are the most prominent cases. You may be able to offer us here some other examples.
Today I am glad to inform members here of a new breakthrough: Ethics (traditionally called half of ‘Moral Philosophy’ – the other half being Aesthetics) has now managed to become The Science of Ethics. This is great news! Here is a link to a pdf of it: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … elease.pdf
After you have studied it, your feedback is welcomed and appreciated.
Why? Part II: Why is this “great news”? Because there is an urgent need for such a science in the world today for this reason: It will serve as a counter-balance to the dangers posed by the misuse of (- the downside of -) the technological output of the science of Physics …such as, for one example, the Internet. Everyone knows of the damage done by trolls and other bad actors. Such misuse contributed to suicides of impressionable teens, and pre-teens, who were abused and intensely disparaged on some internet site.
For another example, there is the misuses of the engineering marvels that gave us controlled nuclear fission power. (It has been weaponized to become nuclear armament …which will be used to murder people - in the name of some fine, noble cause, of course.) The excuse that will be given for employing such nuclear weapons may perhaps be “freedom” or “socialism” or “liberty” or “national sovereignty,” or “to stamp out terrorism,” etc., etc. However, violence will only of course likely lead to more violence later. – See, and enjoy reading: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … elease.pdf
Your comments, suggestions, and enhancements are very welcome!
Morals = naturally evolved rules of conduct facilitating the emergence and stability of cooperative survival strategies. Such codes of conduct are encoded linguistically by humans.
The primary objective is for individuals to adhere to conduct, actions, judgments/choices, that enhance group cohesion and health.
Ethics = amendment to the forementioned moral codes of conduct, to facilitate the emergence and stability of social group exceeding natural limits.
Ethics are in accordance with a group’s ideal’s.
Why are you bringing up “morals” , Lorikeet? The report did not discuss morals, nor is it a term in the Science of Ethics - the topic of the report. Hence the quoted post is not relevant to the content in the monograph – to which the report refers.
Wouldn’t it be proper to read the report first, and then to comment on the paper;'s contents?
It seems to me that would be the ethical thing to do. {Am I wrong about this?}
Yes, it was about “ethics,” which is a technical term in the system. The theory that is provided offers a new way to look at ethics. When it does mention societal ethos, in Chapper 3, it is careful not to confuse “morals” with “morality.”
You are to be complimented on at least skimming the treatise: it shows you have a welll-functioning intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to learn. I for one appreciate that and commend you for it
But isn’t ‘what man modifies’ a part of evolution also? Isn’t there evolution in human species treatment of fellow humans? In the 1930s a woman couldn’t even buy a toaster without her husband’s permission, let alone open a bank account.
Today, fortunately, women have more rights. This is evolution. And evolution in an ethical direction.
Why do I write earlier that this transition to a Science of Ethics. This is great news! Here is a link to a pdf of it for those who may have overlooked it: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … elease.pdf
After you have studied it, your feedback is welcomed and appreciated.
I spoke of it as “great news” because there is an urgent need for such a science in the world today for this reason: It will serve as a counter-balance to the dangers posed by the misuse of (- the downside of -) the technological output of the science of Physics …such as, for one example, the Internet. Everyone knows of the damage done by trolls and other bad actors. Such misuse contributed to suicides of impressionable teens, and pre-teens, who were abused and intensely disparaged on some internet site. Harassment, dehumanization, and disparagement of others IS NOT ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
For another example, there is the misuses of the engineering marvels that gave us controlled nuclear fission power. (It has been weaponized to become nuclear armament …which will be used to murder people - in the name of some fine, noble cause, of course.) The excuse that will be given for employing such nuclear weapons may perhaps be “freedom” or “socialism” or “liberty” or “national sovereignty,” or “to stamp out terrorism,” etc., etc. However, violence will only of course likely lead to more violence later. – That is what history reveals.
See, and enjoy reading: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … se.pdfYour comments, suggestions, and enhancements are welcome!
Lorikeet writes that my way of approaching Ethics is “the proper way.”
Thank you for that, Lorikeet. And thank you for looking the treatise over before commenting on it.
the danger is the denial of morals and the rejection of ethics by nihilism.
In a post Abrahamic world the masses become disillusioned with everything they considered certain and absolute.
Many reject morality in a world with no god, comforting themselves that without a creator god there are no moral or ethical standards.
It’s what happens when Empires collapse and when psychologies are traumatized by the realization that what they considered perfect and eternal is neither.
[quote=“Lorikeet”]
the danger is the denial of morals and the rejection of ethics by nihilism.
In a post Abrahamic world the masses become disillusioned with everything they considered certain and absolute.
Many reject morality in a world with no god, comforting themselves that without a creator god there are no moral or ethical standards.
It’s what happens when Empires collapse and when psychologies are traumatized by the realization that what they considered perfect and eternal is neither.[/
I agree with you on the dangers: These days we will haveto become activists to work to save our democracy, and our right to vote on ballot initiatives. Perhaps lately 20% of the eople on the planet seem to need a “strong man”, an authoritarian leader, a cult to join which is led by a sociopath.
{I might add the observation that to call people;s attention to an essay I wrote [see the o.p. of this thread for a link to it] and to ogger an incentive to encourage them to want to read it, is not what an ethical person would call “peddling.”}
So everybody, check out that 229-page (when printed out on both sides) essay listed at the top of the References below, and give some relevant feedback. Okay?
Ethics may be traced back to our very early sensations of pain and pleasure. When we first experience these feelings we tell ourselves “It is in my best interest to, and I want to, minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure.” As we mature we come to see that we would rather experience joy than mere pleasure, and pleasure rather than mere satisfaction …we differentiate among feelings.
Anyway, this is the background of a new paradigm for Ethics, explored in the paper by M.C. Katz, Ph.D. cited at the head of the list below. Can you upgrade, or improve upon it? …If not, stay with the Ethical Theory it offers until a better onee comes along.
