I didn’t say, “anti-social”. I said “unsocial”, “capitalistic”, independently governing its own approach to life, not robotically serving a queen such as the ant or bee… or Englishman.
Ok unsocial, really? Who ever told you that never studied the bugs fully in diverse ecological settings. From woods to city.
Yes certain ones are unsocial, others form what can be called roach towns or if you prefer colonies.
They prefer to sleep together, otherwise “randomly roam about” to where they find the most food (often the same place as the others).
That is a surprise? That makes them “social”?
Got news for you… Capitalists like to sleep together too… AND gather at malls and stock market floors.
Can you explain how this question is part of an objection to what I wrote? if it is, that is.
I have no idea how many people try to cultivate empathy. My point was that for many it need not be cultivated. There is an assumption about humans in the OP that I dislike.
I think you need more than empathy to get taken advantage of. You need guilt.
My problem with it is not that it will or will not work, but about the assumptions.
So you forced me to go back and read the OP again (but I didn’t reread the links.) My questions were really more generally thrown out there for anyone to answer, not to object to anything you’ve written. They might have also been influenced by some of the things thinkdr said in his links. I’ve said I disagree with them, probably because of the assumptions he makes. I just didn’t think of the word ‘assumption.’
Babies are born with the ability to empathize. Some are taught not to show empathy–gib says little boys are taught that–but it’s there. Some people are never given any example to learn from. Some of us tend to empathize too much and have to be taught to be a bit more ‘human’ rather than to give away the store, so to speak. Some have two sets of morals and values–one public and one private.
I’ve yet to ‘get into tdr’s mind’–I haven’t read enough of his posts. He always comes back to the same value ethics he’s trying to convince people of.
People have to label, but most people forget that labels are abstractions. They also go on to add their own definitions to the label until it becomes more than the label. Then the label becomes wide-spread–a meme. “Bob is a corporate exec forced to down-size. A few of the laid-off people get together with their spouses and start to malign Bob because he laid them off. Bob is an ogre in their minds. Before too long, the stereotype that every corporate exec is evil is born.”
I once said to someone the Dick Cheney had a nice Grandpa smile and was met with shock and anger–how could I think such a thing!? Just look at what he’s responsible for!–Well, yeah–but I’m sure he has grandchildren who love him and his smile.
Maybe that’s what tdr is talking about, idk. But it’s the closest thing I can come to in thinking about his value morals. No one should be treated as a non-person–not even a monied person or someone in a position of power.
But I do think that empathy can lead to the assumption that the empath is gullible and open to exploitation–s/he doesn’t need to feel guilt in order to be preyed on. All one needs is to feel is pity, which starts with empathy.
I hope this explains my reply to you and to this thread.
Not quite.
Did the original post bring up the concept “empathy”?
What assumption do you disagree with. The original assumptions, upon which I build my system, is that every concept has an intension and an extentsion. And every intension has a designator, a meaning, and an application. It has at least one example - which, in the case of a math symbol, may be identical with its meaning. From those assumptions the term “value” was defined. Then, by adding commonly-accepted premises from Math about the cardinality of sets, three dimensions of value are derived. One of them - the Intrinsic - when applied to individuals, results in a field of study named “Ethics.” It says one is ethical when one sees a person as having indefinitely-high value. All else in Ethics follows from that.
What’s all this about predator and prey? In my essays I do say how to handle the criminal mind. I defer to Karl Menninger, the psychiatrist, who specialized in the criminal justice arena, I also recommend the book by Gary Acquaviva - VALUES, VIOLENCE, AND OUR FUTURE (Atlanta, Rodopi Books, 2000) 200 pp. - a book which shows intimate knowledge of the sociopathic brain and of the violent criminal’ s way of thinking. He has visitied many a prison in order to get acquainted with the values of criminals.
I do discuss corruption, tyranny, and even have one of my characters make the premise that we all would be criminals if we thought we wouldn’t get caught. Then that is discussed in the dialogue which ensues. I would surmise that, yes, you do need to read further.
thinkdr, before you respond to what anyone has said, please separate the quotes so that we know who said what and to whom you’re responding. It’s a courtesy that isn’t too difficult to extend, imm.
What you’ve presented are your ideas and theories about ethics; however, by publishing them, you’re inviting disagreement–particularly from an on-line forum. Don’t you want your ideas criticized?
From your earlier posts, lizbeth, I got the impression that you disagreed with one of my assumptions. All I asked in my most recent post above was: What assumption do you disagree with?
Yes, I do want Forum readers to help by upgrading the system of Ethics, by suggesting improvements to the system.
As to criticism, I myself have criticized Formal Axiology (in my doctoral dissertation) but critics are to a creator as fleas are to a dog. No monument has ever been erected to a critic. [Of course, the word ‘critic’ here is vague, and subject to all kinds of interpretations.]
It would be great, for instance, if contributors here could rigorously define some of the relevant concepts of ethics, so as to facilitate their becoming terms of the formal, logical system - concepts such as ‘happiness’, ‘will’, ‘freedom’, ‘empathy’, ‘altruism’, ‘dignity’, etc.
The system of Ethics does define some of its terms rigorously - such as “morality”, “obligation”, and “conscience.” And it does show the terms are strictly related to one another. It also explains the relationship between the concepts ‘morality’ and ‘hypocrisy’; between ‘morality’ and ‘inclusiveness’; between ‘conscience’ and ‘morality’; between ‘moral obligation’ and ‘moral principle.’ It shows - among many other such ratings - why ‘Moral law’ is more valuable than ‘common law’; and why “effectiveness” is better than “efficiency”; and it spells out different sorts of moral sanctions. It does offer arguments as to why anyone should study ethics, or take it seriously. It does tell how to resolve ethical dilemmas. It does draw distinctions between ‘mores’ and ‘morality.’ It presents criteria as to how to judge any ethical theory that is put forth. As a theory it is incomplete, but at least it is coherent and consistent.
So please assist in making it more complete. …It will never be fully-complete.
The ultimate goal, of both axiogenics, and of scientific Ethics, is to enable people to live a life they love and to love the life they live!
The aim of ethics is to live the good life. {See the booklet on this very topic, by clicking on the first link given in the signature below.}
I’d like to share with you a quotation from H. Schoof, one of the co-authors of the book ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION. Here is the quote:
" Take a few moments right now to think about what you value and why you value it? The answer is that you value it because you believe it adds quality to your life in some way.
Could “quality of life” be the ultimate good: the good “at which all things aim?” [in the words of Aristotle] Could “quality of life” be the thing that has the greatest human value? If so, then could the true value of everything be a measure of its ability to add quality to life? Could it be that the more quality something can add to life, the greater its value?
What, then, is “quality?” Quality is not just tangible. Quality of life isn’t just about “stuff” and it is not just a concept. It’s really something we experience as human beings. Even people with very little “stuff” can have tremendous quality of life.
What has the greatest impact on quality of life: a systemic concept (like rules and ideas), an extrinsic thing (like possessions), or the intrinsic experience of something (like wonder and joy)? If we value our opinion (systemic) of right and wrong over actually getting something done (extrinsic), will we ever get much done (think about American politics of late)? If we value the “things" we love more than the experience of love itself, will we ever truly have quality of life – a life worth loving?
When you add quality to the life of another (in any form), doesn’t it add quality to your life? But, when you try to add quality to your life, at the expense of others (such as making yourself feel better by making them feel bad or wrong), does it really add quality to your life in the long-run? Isn’t that just another form of thievery?
Quality of life is created by the goodness of the decisions we make about how to focus and use our heart and mind, along with our time, resources, intuition, and wisdom in every moment. The better our choices, actions, and reactions, the greater goodness we experience and the greater quality of life we have. In other words, it feels good to be good: something neuroscientists have actually been able to prove."
That came from Moreno, except for the second sentence (mine), who also introduced “empathy.” My sentence was in response to Moreno.
Be that as it may, axiology studies how people think about, and arrive at, value, right?
But your average forum reader doesn’t know what that means and your links don’t really help. Would it help to give Hartman’s description of the valuation of something? For example, he talks about four ways of ‘valuing’ a chair. A chair has four legs, a seat, a back, and is knee-high. If a structure has those four qualities, it’s a ‘good’ chair. If it has no back, then it’s not a chair–but it could be a ‘good’ stool. And so on.
If you want an honest critique of your dissertation, you should, in my mind, give students a basis for their ‘evaluation.’ Your dissertation shouldn’t stand on it’s own. To me, that’s your major assumption–that everyone will know what it is you’re talking about.
Roger Simon puts it this way: Rubio gave a performance and then fell into the orchestra pit. All the audience remembers is the part where he fell into the pit.
I listened to his speech, and, being a political junkie, I do recall the speech. What impresses me is that Sen. Rubio was protesting against Obama’s State of the Union Address, and against Obama’s “divisive attitude” - when Obama did not say any of the things that Rubio was protesting, and Obama’s address was not at all divisive. Rubio did not listen to Obama’s speech to Congress before he gave his “rebuttal.” His rebuttal was canned, was a series of Republican talking points, was not relevant to the actual presidential address !!
To me, that is more important than the water gulping episode - a scene that could well end Rubio’s career - but is one that he brought upon himself.
As far as your observation that this is a “deceptively educated” man, the point I was attempting to make at the outset of the original post is that no one is really educated unless he knows his priorities …and that is a question of values.
Since the original concept of my thread was highjacked by the end of page one, I resumed reading with your post on page two, lizbeth, and I apologize for my being confused by it, and its multiple imbedded quotes. Yes, I was confused. I am sorry. Please forgive me.
Yes, it may well help to give Hartman’s illustration of a “chair.” He believed that there are many more than only four ways of valuing a chair. He did give a minimal description of a chair by giving a standard dictionary definition containing four predicates, ‘knee-hgh’, ‘structure’, (with a) ‘seat’, (and a) ‘back.’ Anything less than that would not be a chair at all, but (if lacking the back) could be (named as) ‘a stool.’
His point was that the name we put on things “sets the norm” as to how we will value it. Its meaning is the measure. We acquire the meanings associated with a word when we learn the tongue (which has that word in its vocabulary.) Perhaps Hartman’s exposition will indeed be more-helpful with some readers. See http://hartmaninstitute.org/Portals/0/html-files/AxiologyAsAScience.html
You write: “If you want an honest critique of your dissertation, you should, in my mind, give students a basis for their ‘evaluation.’ Your dissertation shouldn’t stand on it’s own.”
Have you actually read my (doctoral) dissertation?? {Its title is TRENDS TOWARD SYNTHESIS, and it was published by Axiopress.com, and is listed in its catalog as “The Katz Disseration.” Its topic is Hartman’s moral philosophy.}
I’d like to know what you mean when you say "give students a basis for their ‘evaluation’ "? How would you personally do this, liizbeth, in your own words?
Your phrasing would really help me improve on my presentation of Ethical Theory.
[However, Moreno believes that an ethical theory is superfluous - except ((maybe) for “training the callous” - since he holds that the majority are naturally empathic - such as is he - but then he proceeds to present the exceptional cases, such as Nazis and wife-abusers, as sort of role models on which to base a counter-argument to what I proposed.
He should get together with so many posters here who ARE self-centered, who are egoists, narcissiists, cultural relativists, nihilists, narrowly-self-interested, and introduce his viewpoint to them. I appreciate that he is a sensitive, highly-moral person, but unfortunately he is not typical among several of the writers here at the Forum on Ethics. I wish that everyone were as spontaneously as big-hearted and uncalculating as he is. ]
He seems to be ignoring me, though I think my first post was on topic and actually the objections can be useful. That said, I will continue to dialogue with you…
Which is an idea that has merit that has been around for a long time. Kant decided something similar after thousands of pages. Parallels can be found in various religions. I have a couple of concerns: 1) these ideas are very mental. Sounds sort of redundant, I realize. But I am getting at that idea of being ‘way up in your head’, (rather than in your heart or on the ground where things are actually happening and need to change. 2) There is an assumption that the problem is ‘we need to get an idea of other people into the heads of everyone, so they are good to each other’ 3) using a consequentialist argument is the best approach. IOW demonstrating that if you are good to other people this helps you.
I think it is a good issue to raise. How does one feel empathy and not get abused. Or, when should one feel empathy and when should one not, so that one is not abused or taken advantage of? I could go into this more if you think it is important, here that is.
I raised the issue in reaction to his OP because his approach seems to assume that people need the right idea in their heads.
I think, generally, the problem is people need to no longer have certain ideas, and then their natural general social nature will take care of a lot of problems he is trying to solve on a very abstract level.
I mean, if you fall down in the street, do you really want the passersby to think…
If I heard someone say that to their friend, as they stood looking down at me where I tripped and fell and hurt myself, I would think there was something wrong with both their hearts and their heads.
Now I know he is not suggesting this so literally, but his approach to thinking about situations and people, at least as presented in the posts I have read at ILP, have this kind of disconnected consequenatialist language.
The people who will listen to this kind of approach are probably pretty nice already. The ones who won’t are the problem.
The problem to me is not ‘can we get them to view situations as opportunities to create the greatest net value’ but rather to find out why they are not doing this and get to grips with that.
It’s as if we are not social mammals, we just have various ideas - heuristic devices - in out minds, and he thinks the best one is this utilitarian approach. So I raise the issue of empathy. We are not just abstract reasoning planners. What is it that is inhibiting the social mammal in us? What ideas are the problem and can we attack them, rather than replace them, so that people do end up treating each other well, without ever having to think in the very abstract language he is suggesting?
Sure, and I appreciate the response. And note: I do not think that empathy question is an easy one, but it is, to me, the real one. And his approach does not evade that problem.
If I go into a situation trying to figure out
and the other person is coming into the situation trying to figure out
how he or she can get whatever he or she wants from me…
the imbalance is still there.
See: Richard Baron, Projects and Values: An Ethic for Today,
(London: Authors-OnLine Books, 2006) A description of the book is avaialble at http://www.authorsonline.co.uk The author - if I’m not mistaken - is a respected Oxford professor emeritus.
Obviously, moreno, you are a sensitive, caring, empathic individual. Not everyone here is like that. Many in the USA today are self-centered egoists: they ask always, What’s in it for ME? How does that serve MY interest?
The Central Question reminds us to reflect: How can I create value in each situation in which I find myself?
The Central Question may take the form of : How can I be creative?
This question may be understood as supporting greater creativity, i.e., In what way can I be more creative?
or How can I be even more creative? For that too is a way of generating value.
It could even be interpreted as economic value (with ethical reverberations)
How can I be innovative? How can I invent something? How can I re-design some existing product or service so as to make it even more useful? How could my new design make the lives of others more comfortable? How can I start a new business? How can I be a “money magnet” in order to have the wherewithal to fund a good and noble cause, as a donor? How can I share the prosperity I come into as a result of figuring out how to make money?
How can I, in business, be a “conscious capitalist” (be ethical) by uplifting my staff, helping my customers gain more, improving my environment, supporting the culture in my community, and seeing to it that all stakeholders in my business are, somehow, winners?
This too is creating value.
so the Central Question of Life is about raising consciousness, about making a person more mindful.
What I am about to say may not apply to you, of course, though you did interpret the Central Question as “calculating and almost insulting.”
If someone chooses to insult himself over the thought of it, well he is only making problems for himself; he is acting in a counter-productive fashion.
To insult anyone is the farthest thing from my mind. I’m a teacher of Ethics and I like to practice what I preach …though I don’t always manage to do so.
Yes, you would think correctly in cases like this. Their IS something wrong with their value-structure, they may well have a mental illness (or an axiological distortion that results in an upset condition.) So do all you can to
(1) encourage such people to get access to the services of competent Life Coaches.
(2) Do what you can to get axiogenics into early childhood education, as part of a standard curriculum. In that way, the way of thinking I advocate will have long since become a habit, that does not require the conscious asking of the Central Question all the time, because it has become ingrained. Babies are selfish; they need to undergo socialization and moral development, to mature (to be responsible citizens). Teachers and Day-Care center directors facilitate this process. They need to understand values themselves.
(3) Do all you can to get axiotherappy into the Mental Health arena. Also, encourage that field, of applied Moral Psychology - the mental health centers - to keep up with the latest technologies that come along. And do all you can to get such centers located in each neighborhood, as walk-in clinics. Work to make mental health facilities more widely available.
For example, now we can define the concept “greed” as an obsessive-compulsive disorder that takes the form of hoarding - in this case of money - and thus is a mental illness. Instead of hoarding old magazines, or live animals in a confined space, or dolls, this person hoards money. Such an individual wouldn’t dream of sharing the prosperity with the needy; for to her/his way of thinking he/she never has enough of MONEY. It is a disorder, and society should view it that way.
That last is a problem for the Mental Health workers and for the Criminal Justice system.
The “problem” (actually the joyful activity) for Demerest & Schoof, who are Life Coaches, and for me, a teacher of Ethics, is to work with the people, who, to use your words “are pretty nice already”, who volunteer for it, to facilitate their becoming more complete persons, developing their full potentialities, becoming even nicer, and mentally stronger so that they can adapt to all kinds of situations, so that they do not get abused, do not get ‘taken advantage of’, for they learn from Epictetus … {as adapted for current times by modern therapists, such as Albert Ellis - see his ABCs of R.E.B.T.} how to take events that occur in a way that maintains positive emotional responses. The objective is to get folks to as stage where ‘The love the life they live, and live the life they love,’ as Schoof phrased it in that quotation from him I posted earlier in this thread.
The imbalance is overcome by you already having acquired a character that does not get into emergency situations in the first place, a character free of paranoia and fear, one that wants to give - if you have the means - before anyone even has to ask; and if you think you have nothing to give, you may be wrong about that. If your empathy is fine-tuned enough you will tame the “evil-doer” just as Ashley Smith in Atlanta managed to do with an escaped murderer who held her hostage. See the report: http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/brian_nichols.htm Also read the New York Times coverage - around 3-15-2005 - of her story, to see just how she handled it, and what we all can learn from it.
If this is meant to respond to the issues I raised, it would be more interesting for me to read your response, where the ideas are put in your words. So many books to read, so little time. I come here for something else.
If that is the position they take, then it can make sense to appeal to their self-interest. I still think the issue of why they are cut off from part of being human needs to be addressed, but these are not mutually exclusive processes.
In any case, I see it as at that point, when they have defined themselves in this way and made it clear that the only influence is via highly mentalized arguments for why it serves their interests, to shift to arguments based on that line. Before that it should not be presumed, it seems to me.
A problem at that point is that arguments in favor or one’s sense of enlightened self-interest often go against the actual experiences of people who are cut off from, say, empathy. They can succeed, on their terms, often, without really concerning themselves about others. They generally, but not always, must be polite and not violent, but overall fairly unconcerned about others even in a mere practical sense, can and often do well. The business world is one place where this is common. Politics is another. In fact many of the power positions in society reward behavior that is problematic.
I suppose my central question would be more like: what do I really want. This may sound rather selfish, but I notice that the more I am in my right place, doing what I most want to do, the more others get from me. That is not the reason I want to be in the right place, doing the things I like to do, nor is it NOT the reason. But it isn’t how I think of it. I think it is better, at least for me, not to try to be objective about the consequences of my choices, because this pulls me away from letting my own desires and interests lead me to that position where I am, in the end, making things better for me and others.
I would not encourage everyone to follow that question, since where that question leads them can often be pernicious.
I mention my question to contrast it with that one because I think the very people who already, generally, have their hearts in the right place, are actually hindered by trying to get a bird’s eye view and calculate some general communal increase in value.
You just closed a loop on feedback by thinking this way. If someone disagrees or has a problem with what you are sayingn, they are creating a problem for themselves, and really it has nothing to do with what you have said. I meet that closed loop in both political and business settings. I did not choose to insult myself, I noted the implicit assumption that without me getting some increase in value, I will not treat others well. I pointed this assumption out to you because it seems to me you have some larger scale intentions, to make things better in general. I mention the insulting part because I think others will be insulted, though some may not be able to articulate it as well as I can. Others may go along, but the presumption can still create problems later on in the process. Use the feedback or don’t, but notice what you just suggesting I did.
I was not giving you relevent feedback, I took something in need of no changes that you have made and hurt myself with it. Consider the ethics of responding to me in the way you just did.
Of course. I did not for a moment think you intended to insult anyone. One can be insulting anyway. I mean think of all the humanitarian groups and individuals who, with real fine intentions, tried to help various indigenous groups. Assumptions in their approaches were, indeed, often insulting, but this was not their intention.
Notice the false dichotemy: you did not intend to insult anyone, therefore it was not insulting. And then also the assumption that if it was if I think it was insulting, I did something to myself, where I may simply have noted the problematic assumption about your audiance in what you wrote, at least as it was written.
Despite your lack of intention of insulting another person, they may be assumptions present either in the ideas or in your approach that are in fact insulting. Even very well intentioned teachers of ethics are capable of this. If you don’t think so, I think some contemplation of how people with good intentions, including even some brilliant people, have assumed things that later turned out to be very, very problematic. And yes, I did not you said that you don’t always manage to do so. So perhaps this is one of those instances, where something unintended, but yes, insulting, is present in your ideas and/or presentation, and modifying one or both of these might be useful.
And Moreno did not simply pick up a perfectly good shoe and bang himself on the head with it, but in fact gave you useful feedback, and never hit himself with the shoe, but noted the hole in it.