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:!: If you have any suggestions for improvement, or any upgrades, please let us know.
Critic writes: “… you think you’ve got the whole elephant”
He or she has not yet read the essay offered, or has grievously mis-read it. As good readers will note, the paper emphasizes time and again that this theory described therein is tentative, relative, suggestive, etc. This science is in its early stages. I never said or implied any such thing as what is quoted from Ichthus. He or she jumps to conclusions, and has not studied the treatise obviously.
Thank you, Ichthus77, for suggesting a moraal principle or standard that may be added to the list given in Chapter 3. That principle is: “Be a supporter of informed consent. Encourage it. Respect it.”
What are the various components of your Venn Diagram, Ichthus77 ? There perhaps are at least six segments; how do you label each of the various segments? These concepts may possibly become key teerms in the synthesis which is the Science of Ethics.
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
You’re mostly quoting my signature that goes underneath all my posts & replies. The
Venn diagram is my profile picture that I barely ever see because I’m usually posting from my phone, which does not include it.
A science of ethics must also be a science of choice. Why can/do we choose what is right even when we want (even more?) something that is in conflict with it—even when we know no one will ever find out or dissuade/punish us if we did the less right thing? What is the mechanism enabling that function/capacity we can either run or quit?
_
Thinkbro, all your threads are like déjà vus… same topic, different month/year.
Can you give an example of an ethical-model that you implemented in situ, and if so… how it worked? as it would be good to know where our ideas and offerings have been helpful and actually made any change, and to whom.
[quote=“MagsJ”]
_
Thinkbro, all your threads are like déjà vus… same topic, different month.
[/quote ]
YES. As one who taught a course in Ethics and Values for many years, and who has been researching the topic since 1965, I do specialize in the field of Ethical Theory. Is that a fault ?? Over the course of those hears I believe I may have learned something, a thing or two, and thus have been able to upgrade my synthesis of the best concepts from various theoriies that have been put out there by philosophers. See - myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … elease.pdf
After you study my latest monograph you may learn something, or find something of interest that you didn’t know before. As MagJ said, it is within the realm of possibilities. {I thought I was replying to Londoner, but now I’m not sure who you are. That;s okay, if one is a multiple personality. Humans are the funniest animals, it has been said; and I agree with that observation.)
And yes, you are right about the time periods this project has taken. It took me nerly an entire year to write this essay, which I offer readers and members here a link below.
Yes, some of it will seem familiar to you, as I entered parts of it at this Forum as I was in the process of composing the system. Does it fit toger well? Here is the link: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … elease.pdf
Happy reading Enjoy
A report on its very early stages of a new science.
Part III: Is it possible that there is an implicit demand for ethics in today’s world?
This philosopher, for one, thinks there is.
See this quite recent report linked to below. It is one that not only tells about the initiation of - but also provides much of the content of - this novel development: which is the advent of a brand-new science!
Check it out; and study carefully, this concise essay, a 28-page paper [if printed on both sides of a page.] See: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20Science%20of%20Ethics%202024%20%20pre-release.pdf
It can be referred to as a treatise by someone who is as old as eternity, yet as young as this moment which you may enjoy reading. Here is a link to a pdf of it:
Part III: Is it possible that there is an implicit demand for ethics in today’s world?
This philosopher, for one, thinks there is.
See this quite recent report that not only tells about the initiation of but also provides much of the content of this novel development: which is the advent of a brand-new science!
See, and study carefully, this concise essay, a 28-page paper [if printed on both sides of a page.] It can be referred to as a treatise by someone who is as old as eternity, yet as young as this moment. It is a paper which you may enjoy reading. Tell us what you liked best as you read it. Feedback or a Review is welcome !!!
Does anyone here want to offer any improvements, enhancements, upgrades or revisions to the brief little booklet, The Science of Ethics.
The writer would appreciate your feedback. Any corrections, typos, etc.?
And is it true to the definition and description of science? Did you like it explanation of what a science is? See the link to it in earlier posts on this topic…
Expand your scope to include the source of morality.
Does it evolve or is it constructed by a conscious being?
If not god is man the creator of morals?
Why do we find moral behaviour in other species…and what is the common ground explaining why morality is necessary?
Then, perhaps, a differentiation between moral behaviours - encoded by man - and manmade amendments - ethics - could clarify the utility of morals/ethics and how they can be denied relevance or corrupted.
You write, “If not god is man the creator of moraLs?”
Although I personally believe that God is the Creator of all creativity, the current topic is on Ethics not Theology nor Spirituality. A science is a secular subject.
I am not writing about the morality of other animals abut about the juman species in this essay…
To be considerate of you, I’ll ask at this point: for which other animals can you make a good case that they have morality?.. a term which wheen not defined can mean anything to a reader-- or that they regularly do practice Ethical behavior.
I do agree with Desmond Morris that humans may justifiably be described as ‘naked apes,’ though lately that looks like it would be insulting to the apes
My theory of Ethics indicates that we are to avoid moralism; avoid judging in moralistic words. You say I am speaking of morals, but that is your interpretation. I did not set out to do so.
I bekueve it is a task whoch is enough to do to limit ethics to humans for now; then when there is more ethical behaviors by humans in this world, we can extend our in-group radius to include other species.
i
yOU ASK: “Why do we find moral behaviour in other species”. I respond: Why not?
Ah…one of those.
So, god wrote down morals and passed them off to man…end of story.
If we break down moral behaviour to specific actions, like tolerance, love, cooperation, altruism etc…then we notice that all social species have it, even though they don’t have divine tablets to tell them they are good.
We can only conclude that ‘moral behaviour’ which man encodes into socioeconomic, cultural rules, - are given linguistic/symbolic contexts - evolve and are necessary for cooperative survival and reproductive strategies to remain efficient and effective.
Man is not the only moral species…
As for ethics, or Mosaic laws, or amendments to these evolved moral behaviours, we can say they are human adjustments to facilitate the assimilation of larger populations into stable cohesive groups, where individuals do not know most of those belonging to their group. God becomes the all-seeing eye, implanted into their minds, acting as regulator.
So, ethics requires a god, not morals…alhtough natural selection produces mutations which may not adhere to these innate behaviours, so god must justify their punishment as a warning…similar to how an alpha male in a chimpanzee to, ensures that the internal social dynamics do not become violent or destabilizing.
Only man can become nihilistic…and pretend that there are no morals because there is no god…as if incest could ever be ‘good’ even without a god or a human ethical code…
Morals simply mean group welfare imposing itself on individual actions.
Whatever disrupts or unbalances or threatens group cohesion is immoral…otherwise there would be no societies at all.
That’s why you need a god to explain why moral even exist…forget ethics.
Why is murder considered an undesirable act in all societies?
No god necessary.
If we include ethics as amendments to evolved moral behaviours, then we can also understand why abortion, or homosexuality, is considered unethical in some societies.
Ha!!
=D>
What advantage does it offer?
Why would it evolve at all?
That other species exhibit the same behaviours men consider moral, is an indication that no creator is required…only natural selection.
Lorikeet,
Is it possible lthat you contradict yourself? You bring up “Mosic Law” and then concllude that no God is necessaary. You write “forget Ethics…” altho you seem to be responding to a paper which proposes a transition out of Moral Philosophy and into a science of a field of study. I believe you and I mean quite different things by the word “God.” But all that is totally irrelevant to the content of my treeatise. Hav e you even read it??
Previouslay in an earlier Reply, I wrote science is a secular approach to understanding our univeerse/multiverse. Why are you arguing.
And I employ moral behavior to be synonymous with ethical behavior in the monograph, to which a link is offered in my original post.
And in the essay I claim that "Ethics is about optimizing moral conduct/behavior… You seem to be focusing on what “people consider to be moral behavioor.” To me, that is one of the sets of data that Moral Psycholgists study. Scientists of Ethics study, analyze, and seek to explain many other sets of data concerning the huaman specieas.
We have evolved away, fortunately, from the species of ants who are always warring with one another. Among humans we have pacifists and Conscientious Objectors, such as yours truly.
According to Darwin’s pioneering contribution, all humans living today can trace their lineage back to a very-small set of) common ancestors, since the population of the Earth was much smaller a thousand years ago. Hence we are all kin. We are one Human Family. But it is a fact that some minds are duller than others ; for example the cult lmembers what follow a fascist sociopath DJT. When we gain migher conscous awareness, evolve to that stage, we will call each other Brother and Sister, as is done now in the trade-union movement. We will be vividly awqare that we humans are One Family, a community. In the paper I am not that visionary, though.
My conception of god is experienced…as natural forces.
I don’t recognize superstitions.
I’m not
I use moral/ethical to separate and distinguish between naturally evolved moral behaviours - necessary for cooperative strategies to emerge - and human amendments to these encoded moral behaviours.
I do so to distinguish where man intervenes to produce confusion…so that idiots do not claim that morality requires a god or is a human creation.
Yes…I focus on how humans apply ethics.
There is no disagreement between us…other than the last sentence.
Humans developed different ethical amendments to their shared moral impulses…
These ethical amendments - such as Mosaic Law - is what differentiates us culturally.
We share our naturally revolved moral impulses with all social species…but we have developed different responses to anture…in the form of cultures with their own ethics.
I do not accept Abrahamic ethics as the only ethical codes… or the highest.
Simpleton…there is no value judgment without an objective.
There is no universal higher, better…
All value judgments are based on a objective and a standard.
I use moral/ethical to separate and distinguish between naturally evolved moral behaviours - necessary for cooperative strategies to emerge - and human amendments to these encoded moral behaviours.
I do so to distinguish where man intervenes to produce confusion…so that idiots do not claim that morality requires a god or is a human creation.
There is no disagreement between us…other than the last sentence.
Humans developed different ethical amendments to their shared moral impulses…
These ethical amendments - such as Mosaic Law - is what differentiates us culturally.
We share our naturally revolved moral impulses with all social species…but we have developed different responses to anture…in the form of cultures with their own ethics.
I do not accept Abrahamic ethics as the only ethical codes… or the highest.
[/quote
.
Hi Lorikeet:
Since you mention evolution more than once, I think you may find it of inteerest to read a book I accidentally learned about rather recently. It has the same name as my paper. It was published in 1883, when Darwin’s theory was all the rage …highly-controversial and dominated the media. (In the latest upgrade it finds that all current Mammalia can be traced back the Lemur of Madagaskar.)
I found it awesome to learn that this book existed; it by Leslie Stephen. Here is a reference to it. You may want to read it. You will learn that he was claiming pretty-much tthe same thing as my essay finds. Although he makes the assumption that the human species is ‘all one organism,’ what he writes in very-flowerly-language and what I wrote in my concise little booklet to which I gave a link in the o.p. – he and I asre saying nearly the same thing. My paper is more future-oriented.
I care about the fate of oncoming generations.
Everyone: Be sure to read and reflect upon myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … re-release.
It may not looi it, but it is new: it offers a new way of looking at contemporary issues and events. Constructive feedback welcomed.
Enjoy