Thank you both, Dan and MagsJ, for the personal testimony, and for the ongoiing dialog on the topic of ethics! …It is really appreciated.
What follows is more Systemic, and is addressed to all readers and ILP members to make the best use of it. Please evaluate it and feel free to comment on it - or on whatever is interesting to you.
Here is A MORAL ANALYSIS YOU CAN MAKE when you think your activity might be ethically questionable:
Does what I am doing (or am about to do) cause the least harm?
Would it withstand public scrutiny?
Based upon what I understand about the fundamentals of the New Paradigm for Ethics, would it be ethically permissible for anyone in a similar situation to do this?
To summarize and clarify the points made above I shall restate them this way …
A person of good character will make this moral analysis with respect to his or her conduct:
“With regard to the action I am about to take, would it cause harm to anyone?
And would it withstand public scrutiny?
And is there an alternative I might pursue that would not give pain to anyone?
Most of all, how can I create a win-win outcome in this situation?”
Thank you both, Dan and MagsJ, for the personal testimony, and for the ongoiing dialog on the topic of ethics! …It is really appreciated.
What follows is more Systemic, and is addressed to all readers and ILP members to make the best use of it. Please evaluate it and feel free to comment on it - or on whatever is interesting to you.
Here is A MORAL ANALYSIS YOU CAN MAKE when you think your activity might be ethically questionable:
Does what I am doing (or am about to do) cause the least harm?
Would it withstand public scrutiny?
Based upon what I understand about the fundamentals of the New Paradigm for Ethics, would it be ethically permissible for anyone in a similar situation to do this?
To summarize and clarify the points made above I shall restate them this way …
A person of good character will make this moral analysis with respect to his or her conduct:
“With regard to the action I am about to take, would it cause harm to anyone?
And would it withstand public scrutiny?
And is there an alternative I might pursue that would not give pain to anyone?
Most of all, how can I create a win-win outcome in this situation?”
Then I’d like to hear your comments. Or questions on these basic points
“Ethics” and “morality” are now two distinct concepts in the New Paradigm offered in this thread, and in the References in the signature below.
“Ethics” refers to creating value in human interactions. It is also a term referring to the study of the implications that follow from the practice of expressing the new perspective. This perspective is seen when an individual highly-values another individual. This valuation is known technically as “Intrinsic valuation.” When you value someone this way you at least show respect (as much as you can - depending on your capacity to do so.) Then you go even further.
To go further is to, for example, give a sincere compliment, make people smile or feel good about themselves, boost a person up in some manner, help the person out, help him or her to gain opportunity, find a way too be of service, be considerate of his or her feelings …or, in some way manage to enhance value.
“Morality,” in this new paradigm, means being true to your true self - in this sense: you develop increased morality by adding new positive ethical standards to those you live by, and by actually living up to these guidelines – thus setting a good example for others. This is a process of moral growth that is to continue throughout your entire lifetime. {Other moral principles you learned about in the Unified Theory of Ethics are: The Inclusivity Principle and The Consistency Principle.}
From the above points being understood and experienced in daily life; note that all the rest of ethics- [such as the principle: Do no harm! may be derived; all the rest follows.
Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the human species.
In a recent post I wrote as a summary (in capsule form) as an attempt to show how the new paradigm differs from what is conventional in Moral Philosophy classes::
I’d like to hear your comments. Or questions on these basic points.
“Ethics” and “morality” are now two distinct concepts in the New Paradigm offered in this thread, and in the References in the signature below.
“Ethics” refers to creating value in human interactions. It is also a term referring to the study of the implications that follow from the practice of expressing the new perspective. This perspective is seen when an individual highly-values another individual. This valuation is known technically as “Intrinsic valuation.” When you value someone this way you at least show respect (as much as you can - depending on your capacity to do so.) Then you go even further.
To go further is to, for example, give a sincere compliment, make people smile or feel good about themselves, boost a person up in some manner, help the person out, help him or her to gain opportunity, find a way too be of service, be considerate of his or her feelings …or, in some way manage to enhance value.
“Morality,” in this new paradigm, means being true to your true self - in this sense: you develop increased morality by adding, throughout your life, new positive ethical standards to those you live by, and by actually living up to these guidelines – thus setting a good example for others. This is a process of moral growth that is to continue throughout your entire lifetime. {Other moral principles you learned about in the Unified Theory of Ethics are: The Inclusivity Principle and The Consistency Principle.}
From the above points being understood and experienced in daily life; note that all the rest of ethics- [such as the principle: Do no harm! may be derived; all the rest follows. [Then the References in the signature to the post were offered, just as they are here down below.
I received no comments, no questions. What am I to infer from this??
Is it the case that what I wrote is SO reasonable that it is noncontroversial? Or is it the case that those interested in Philosophy have nothing to say? Why Did I give too much to read in that post? What’s going on
Be/virtues/character can be converted to rules in the do/deontology/conduct category, and both can satisfy our hunger for true, good meaning (end/teleology/consequences) - we need all three categories.
How we should be is the sort of person who always treats the other as self, because love-despite-circumstances is the only thing that satisfies (that’s all three categories). It’s the whole point (discovered by every major culture in history - transcultural because eternal—we are made in God’s image) - the sum of the Law & the Prophets — demonstrated fully when Jesus switched perspectives with us on the cross.
It’s not just how we ought to be (normative… ethics), it’s how God is (descriptive… ontology). But we must choose it creatively (aesthetics…graded absolutism…binding and loosing).
All other theories in ethics merely parrot or garble.
