Benefits and assets of the New Paradigm for Ethics

[The New Paradigm for Ethics consists of the combined content of the selections listed below in the Signature, as well as the points made in the material found in the links and references given within these papers and treatises.]

  1. It provides tools for resolving moral dilemmas.

  2. It guides in making wise ethical decisions. [For a few examples, see the 1st, 3rd, and 5th posts HERE: … 1&t=195465 ]

  3. It complies with what is known about human evolution. Evolutionary Science is a branch of the Science of Biology.

  4. It enables one to differentiate between “right” and “wrong” (in the moral sense of these terms.)

  5. If applied correctly it makes for a better world and an improved quality of life for individuals.

  6. The theory employs logical variables and thus is able to cover a wider application than other models designed to explain and organize ethical data.

  7. It facilitates classroom discussion as well as offering clear instructive presentation of its main structure and its key terms. It thus facilitates rapid learning.

For all these reasons, and more, the new Paradigm for Ethics is the one to use.

Questions? Ideas? Discussion? Your views?

Well, to paraphrase Pete Townshend, “meet the new ethical paradigm, same as the old ethical paradigm.”

Unless, of course, given a situation in which different people insist that conflicting behaviors are ethical, a distinction between them can be made.

You are one of these “different people” you talk about.

Do you insist that “conflicting behaviors are ethical”?

If so, Ambiguous, give us an unambiguous example if you can.

Thanks in advance!

It is absurd to claim that the old paradigms comply with criterion (6) cited in the original post above.

And with regard to criterion (7), do those old ethical theories exhibit a clear structure as they define their key terms, showing how these relate to one another within the same frame of reference? Hardly! {[size=57]Although a possible exception is modern Virtue Theory. Ass you will notice, though, the New Paradigm absorbs the best features of modern VT within it.}[/size]
Note, though, that the New Paradigm does exhibit its structure and does define its key terms: ethics and morality. {See the first link below…the Structure booklet.

Both Liberals and Conservatives agree with these values: liberty, opportunity, and making the U.S. Constitution meaningful to all those who live in the United States.
Furthermore, believing in equality of opportunity does not, or course, mean that one will expect to ever see equality of outcomes.

We need more civic-mindedness. And Ethics (along with Civics) needs to be taught in every high-school.


And around and around we’ll go again? Or maybe this time an actual situation can be examined. Or at least a new situation. After all, as a moral nihilist, I am an advocate of “situational ethics”. The right thing and the wrong thing to do, in my view, is embedded in subjective/subjunctive points of view that evolve over time historically and culturally.

My point then is that in regard to a particular context that most of us here will be familiar with, you need to describe how someone who is still accepting the old ethical paradigm would react to opposing behaviors rooted in opposing value judgments differently from someone who is now accepting of the new ethical paradigm instead.

Is this something we can focus on?

It would be something analogous to the old ethical paradigm being capitalism and then historically a new ethical paradigm comes along…socialism.

Then, given a particular situation, the old and the new exchange arguments.

As for me, my own dilemma in regard to ethics is rooted in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

It has now reached the point where “I” feel “fractured and fragmented” in regard to ethics. As expanded upon in this thread: … 1&t=194382

Hi, Ambiguous:

I ask for a concrete example, and instead you give us generalities - such as the word “socialism;” which has about a dozen definitions. You don’t specify which one you mean. You fail to tell us whether you mean Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism which they have in China, Russia, and Cuba. Or do you speak of Authoritarian Capitalism such as is seen in Venezuela, Brazil, and very-nearly here in the U.S.A. if the psychopath with the orange hair gets his way?

What standards do you use when you judge a situation? Does a Moral Nihilist have any standards? If not, his conscience is asleep. If he has some, what are they??

An American diplomat, stationed in Iran, leaves the security of his embassy, walks out into the street to introduce himself to the common man, and he gets shot dead.
The old paradigms would say: seek revenge! Use violence.

In contrast, the new paradigm for Ethics indicates that retribution and revenge are the lowest forms of Justice, worth only a fraction of value close to zero. Much better would be to employ redemption, and reconciliation; be sure to use diplomatic means to settle the matter. Use nonviolent direct action, or truth-force: Embrace the Iranians as brothers and sisters. Sign a mutual non-aggression pact with them. Value each individual Intrinsically, and see what happens!!

If we want a peaceful world, The Unified Theory of Ethics [which is the new paradigm] teaches us to use peaceful means to that end. This is what is vital and important in the new understanding of The Means/Ends Relationship.

Questions? Comments?

What’s most crucial however is that historically the old moral and political narratives embedded in capitalism gave way to the new moral and political narratives embedded in socialism. An entirely different moral and political narrative. The old paradigm needing to grapple with and to refute the new paradigm.

Same with the moral and the political narrative that revolves around things like gender or race or homosexuality.

Given this…

…how in regard to specific behaviors that come into conflict in regard to things like abortion or animal rights or capital punishment would these components of the new ethical paradigm be described. I’m merely asking you to illustrate your text by focusing in on how the proponents of the old and new paradigms would discuss these conflicts differently.

My point is not to focus so much on what the moral standards of any particular individuals might be, but in how, given the fact of the life that they lived, these standards are derived from a particular set of experiences, relationships and ideas that unfold out in a particular world historically, culturally and, for each individual, circumstantially.

Again, this is precisely what I explored in regard to my views on abortion here: … 1&t=194382

Now, given this new ethical paradigm, how are you own views relating to conflicting value judgments such as abortion not the same at all.

Okay, fine. But only in a world where in regard to things like religion, and social and economic justice, and aborting the unborn, and executing prisoners, and dealing with a pandemic, and owning guns, and treating animals ethically, and confronting global warming, and handing conflicts that revolve around human sexuality and gender roles and the proper function of government [and on and on and on and on] those who embrace the new paradigm are able to provide us with “rules of behaviors” that would make all of the things you want to see even possible.


So, pick one of these conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousand of years and, using the 7 components above, differentiate the old from the new ethical paradigm.

That is quite an assignment.

I have written many times here at the Forum on the topic of Abortion, in which I presented the latest and more-scientific views on this. I don’t want to get repetitious.

Study up on the Unified Theory of Ethics, the new paradigm, and write the book yourself, contrasting all those issues you ask others to handle. I’ll read that book. Thank you for it in advance.

In other words, you will not “pick one of these conflicts that have rent the human species now for thousands of years and, using the 7 components above, differentiate the old from the new ethical paradigm.”

You prefer to just note the 7 components and let others translate them into…reality.

For your information:

I did not intend for anyone to "use the 7 benefits listed as tools for analysis. They are advantages gained from using the Unified Theory of Ethics rather than say, using only Deontological Ethics Theory, alone. As you know, the Unified Theory [the new paradigm being offered] is a synthessis of many theories combined into one.

I did select the abortion issue to write about, spent a good part of a day writing it, and for some unknown reason it was deleted when I clicked on Preview. This was before I could save a draft of it. I am not sure what I said that violated some rule. {Maybe I was too passively-aggressive toward nihilists.}

Well, okay, combine them in regard to a set of circumstances in which there are conflicting moral and political value judgments. How would those embracing the old rather than the new ethical paradigm respond differently.

Here’s what I do to avoid that: use WordPad.

I type out my posts there first. Then save them there. Then copy and paste them to ILP. If some technical glitch “disappears” my post here, I can just go back to WordPad and retrieve it.

It was kind of ambiguous to provide people with that practical tip. I was already awre of it, but was too much in a hurry, and neglected to use the good idea.

I shall now turn to a related topic,and will end by asking readers a question:

Be sure to check out these sites. They display some people whose conduct complies with what the New Paradigm for Ethics, the Katz/Hartman model, indicates is ethical conduct, or highly-moral behavior. … index.html … index.html … nn++heroes

What do you think about the ‘heroes’ depicted in these videos? Do you believe they set a good example?
What one hero impressed you the most? And why?

Your response is welcome, and it is appreciated :exclamation:

There is only one hero in ethics.

Someone who creates existence so that everyone wins; everyone gets everything they want without possibility of harming any other being.

As I say, in order to be great, you must make everyone great.

Hero stories are zero sum. Adulation of those stories is adulatory of the unethical.

Existence is currently, objectively bad. Winner/loser existence for everything.

We’re currently in a hell realm. Hell realms are defined by needing to kill to live and needing to have a loser for anything that they do.

You’re not a transcendental being yet. Hopefully you will be some day thinkdr. But not yet. You’re not awake yet.

…continuing the theme of the original post…

Ethics, at its foundation indicates that we are to make things morally better. In fact, the New Paradigm has that as its axiom. [See the explanation for this in THE STRUCTURE booklet, a link to which is offered below.]

How make things better in general? You shall ask yourself in situations that come up in daily life: “How can I, in this situation, upgrade it, improve it, enhance it, boost a person up, be helpful, make a difference, make others happy, innovate, be creative, produce harmony, close up any perceptual gaps that exist, or in some way maximize the value?” Your goal would be to create value; and thus improving human relationships, being more inclusive, building a sense of family or community will be your aim.

It follows that gaining the know-how to achieve this aim efficiently will also be your aim and your commitment. You will have a will and a willingness to reach this goal you have set for yourself. To be a decent human being is now a norm to which you are dedicated. You intend to add value to the world in which you live; you want to make a difference, to live a life that is meaningful. The concept of ‘value-added’ is very important in the business world, and it is even more relevant if one wants to be ethical.

As a teacher of ethics I would argue that - agreeing with the insight of Aristotle -
everything aims for the good. Everyone is doing the best they can; if they knew better, they would do better. The claim being made is that the cause of all our problems (in the human realm) is ignorance. Knowledge is the answer. This includes knowing how.

If the person who is not a madman, yet who seems most malicious, was aware of his true self-interest, consider what would logically-follow from that: If he knew vividly the benefits of living an ethical life in an ethical world {and if that individual knew HOW to have high ideals and to live up to them - as Ethical insight tends to directs one to do} then it is possible [and even likely that] that party, aiming for the good, and understanding how to arrive at it, would no longer be malicious.

What does it mean to be “good” Your earlier study and re)search into the topic – a new paradigm for Ethics – gave you the answer to this question so there is no need to go into it here. [See the many earlier threads (as well as in the References below) written by yours truly on the definitions of “value,” on “goodness,” and on “a good character.”]

Comments? Questions? Discussion?


When we help each other, we all thrive !

In the words of Robert Ingersoll:

In a sense, giving and receiving are the same …if you interpret “giving” in a new way:
That is, you say to yourself, "“Ethics teaches me to be generous-hearted. And I want to be a decent human being who has some moral principles. Thus I know that due to the abundance with which I have been provided, I will not be harming myself if I give a big tip for a service I get, or if I contribute my gifts and talents voluntarily to the world, or if I volunteer to be of service. So in that sense I will give myself away freely, and I’ll feel good about it afterwards. …just as if I had been the recipient of someone’s generosity!!!”

And you have been: for example, the use of electricity by the brains of Volta, Tesla, and Edison; the invention of the telephone by Alexander G. Bell; etc., etc.


Every expression of one’s conduct flows from one’s core values.

If one cares to be moral, one needs a personal positive code.

Thus it is suggested that you articulate your code of conduct.

In that way you will be a conservator of your values.

A person’s responsibility is to be a keeper of his/her code.

What is in your personal code? Are values – such as for example, love, life, health, empathy, compassion, service, moral growth, helpfulness, generosity, serenity, optimism, value-creation, integrity – a part of it?

----Let’s hear from you! What do you say?

In a previous post there is a list of examples of values that are in my personal code. I omitted to mention one that is equally vital to the others. It is Truthfulness.

Truthfulness is necessary to gain trust. Without truthfulness there is no trust.

:arrow_right: Trust is prerequisite for having a civilized society.

Recall the fate of the paranoid Dobu culture of Papua, New Guinea: the Dobu are no longer around. No one there could trust anyone else on the island. The culture soon died out.

Today the United States is a more–divided society than it was in 2015. Could incompetent leadership of a country have something to do with this? Could a President, who suffers from a Malignant Personality Disorder, have something to do with this? One of the traits in the cluster that comprises this condition is Compulsive Lying. Does this contribute to a lack of Truthfulness? And therefore to the breakdown of a society?

Do you agree that Truth and Ethics are highly correlated?

Isn’t honesty an ethical quality?

Do we need ethics?

Why doesn’t the U.S. have it? Could it be that many who live in the USA do not have clarity with regard to values? They don’t know “which way is up”?
[If you asked them today, they would say that “Donald Trump is doing a good job” Or “He is the strong leader we need. He is making America great again.”
This is where the life work of Philosopher Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) becomes relevant. He taught people to have a good sense of values. He taught us about S, E, and I. And the ethical formula: I > E > S. It is so important that everyone understand this! When translated it says that people are more valuable than things; and that things are more important than ideas. Alternatively, it can be read as saying that Empathy takes priority over Action; and thoughtful, reasoned Action is better than mere idle reflection, or thought-without-practice …which is something that Plato and Kant and Whitehead taught us long ago.

Your views on any of these matters?

My previous post offered the formula – derived from the work of the philosophical genius, Robert S. Hartman – which is I > E > S. It comes to us from Formal Axiology, informally known as value science. It is mainly Logic applied to values.

The formula can be understood, in one of its many applications, as People are more vital than Things. And the wish to accumulate things (to own property) tales priority over systems, ideologies, and so-called theories.
Note that many would agree that “Evil” is a topic relevant to Ethics.

What is the structure of Evil?

One is ready to do evil if one’s faulty thinking puts systemic-values above inndividual persons (or groups of them) {claiming in effect S > I}; or puts systems (or labels or prejudices based on simplistic viewpoints) above material and/or reasoned, ethical action. {This is the fallacy S > E.}
Also Evil arises when one puts the drive to own things and/or property [materialism] above Intrinsically-valuing people.
{This is the axiological fallacy E > I.}

The moral fallacies involved are E > I; S > E ; and S > I. The latter is the greater mistake, and thus leads to greater evils …such as, for example, burning ‘a witch’ - or any heretic - at the stake; or blowing up a passenger plane in mid-flight, or storming the U. S. Capital in the name of installing our “Dear Leader-with-the- orange-hair” as President for life. All of these are examples of Terrorism.

Your views? Can you comment? Was anything learned? How do evaluate or appreciate the knowledge, and/or the topics discussed?


It is unethical to engage in character assassination.

Thus an ethical individual will not disparage, insult, nor debase or “put down” another person. [The exception to this is in describing a professional celebrity, or a politician. They may be ridiculed or satired if you believe they deserve it, and if your belief is based upon good reasons.]

To sum up, a person of good character – who is one who wants to create maximum value – will not disparage others. Ethics is about creating value in human interactions; it is about good human relations.

…………………When we help each other we all thrive!”

Comments? Questions? Discussion?

In an earlier thread, “Kindness is Not Enough,” I wrote that we also need, in addition to being kind, to develop morally. How does one do that? One way, we learned from the New Paradigm for eEthics is to add new standards to those we already live by. And then to put the new principle into practice …“practice what you preach” is itself a good standard with which to abide.

In keeping with this, I have added a new Moral Principle to the list of those I shall live by. It is this: — End a conflict as quickly as possible!! It comes from
Carl von Clausewitz He applied it to violent conflicts; he wrote on the subject of war.

I have generalized this advice: I apply it to conflicts in general. So here is my latest insight: The ethical procedure is to end every conflict as rapidly as one can.

This is a new principle I intend to live by. [And, of course, as pointed out in detail in the College Course booklet, one is to be fussy about the means used to reach that end-in-view. The means and methods are to be ethical – those that a person of good character would employ. This is clearly explained in that reference mentioned. See Ch. 12, the section on The Means-Ends Relationship.] … Course.pdf

Discussion?? Feedback? Ideas?..