Ethics deals with what is good for a human person and what is good in a person.
Hence it would be advisable to understand the good in order to explain ethics. Fortunately, the Axiom of Value helps us to do that. [size=85]{The definition in the Axiom deliberately accounts for a specific good, rather than for every vague, ambiguous usage of “good” in general.}[/size] Do not be ‘put off’ by the symbolic logic; I’ll keep it to a minimum !
THE GOOD
What is the Axiom? It says “a good x” will mean the following:
(1) x is a member of the class-concept C;
(2) Cs have attributes a, b, c, d, etc.;
(3) x has a, x has b, x has c, x has d, etc.
(If x has only the properties a, b, and c then it is valuable, but not fully good. Good is a complete match between the meaning of the concept under which x falls and the actual features, qualities of x.)
What does all that logic jargon mean, in plain English? It says that as the actual approaches the ideal, we tend to say about it that it is becoming valuable, or that “it has value!” and the closer it gets to our picture of the ideal, the more valuable it is becoming …until finally, it is a close match. Then we will call the situation: “Good.” So when an actual something (or someone) lives up to its ideal (its full meaning) we tend to describe it as a good one. [The Systemic theoretical level is not to be confused with the Intrinsic living process of evaluation (prizing, ranking, preferring.) Let’s be aware that theory and practice are two different things.]
Let us define a “saint” as “a genius at goodness.” [We could take, as an illustration, Francis of Assisi, or – as a non-Catholic example, take the Dalai Lama.] The closer any human gets to being a saint, the more we find such a person attractive: we want to be around an individual who would – figuratively speaking – give us “the shirt off his back.” We tend to like those who love us unconditionally …or at least give us profound respect, just the way we are at the moment. They treat us as though we were magnificent.
For – according to the latest research in the theory of needs – we all crave recognition; it is one of the basic needs. If kids can’t get attention by being good, they often get it by being a little mischievous. If that doesn’t work, they become delinquents or deviants. It happens. Let’s now discuss: What is ethics?
ETHICS
It is a perspective on individuals – on conscious humans – that differs from the anatomical-physiological perspective, and from the psycho-social perspective. The anatomical view deals with systems of the body. The psychological view deals with behavior, goal-seeking, functions such as memory, belief, perception, attitude, motivation, etc. The sociological point of view deals with groupings, status, rank, mores, organization, social integration, social conflict, interaction, cohorts, etc.
The ethical perspective sees each individual as uncountably precious, or to state it more exactly, as of indefinitely-high value. All else in ethics follows from that! If you reflect upon it you will realize that this is so.
For how would you treat – or interact with – an individual you regarded as that valuable? Wouldn’t you at least exhibit a modicum of respect? Or if you couldn’t bring yourself to give the party respect, wouldn’t you – out of self-respect – at least be courteous? Even for the “worst slob” or “monster” wouldn’t you hold the door open so that they could go out first? This is a gesture that shows that you are not selfish; and selfishness is the very opposite of ethical conduct.
SELFISHNESS
What is “selfishness”? It is a “me first” attitude. We see it when someone goes to the front of the line, pushes himself ahead of you to check out with the cashier… assuming there is no emergency or some other mitigating factor. The selfish person slices the pie, takes out the biggest slice for him/herself, and leaves the remains for the others.
Another condition, that varies inversely with morality, is hypocrisy. {Maybe - as Johnathan Haidt, a Moral Psychologist, has observed – we are “all hypocrites.”} This means we do not “practice what we preach.” In other words, our conduct diverges from our professed (or believed) ideals more than 40% of the time. I mentioned the concept “morality.” What do I mean by that?
MORALITY
Let us define “morality” as: “self being true to Self.” The first usage of ‘self’ alludes to outward bodily conduct, observable behavior; the second use of ‘Self’ refers to one’s belief system, one’s value-structure, one’s self-identity, one’s self-image. The Self is a part of the self-concept, X, where X is one’s proper name.
The self-concept has the same three components as any concept has, namely, a name (label, designator), a meaning, and an application. The meaning (logically) is a set of predicates. Let’s call them “the attributes” of the concept in question. Attributes are property-names. The application of any concept consists of the examples, cases, instances of the concept. Let us speak of them as “the referents.” They are members of the class of application.
In the case of an individual human, s/he has a proper name, a Self, and a self. If the self (one’s conduct) approximates (more and more closely until it is almost a match) one’s Self (one’s self-ideals for what a human being ought at best to be) then one is becoming moral. And the better the match, the more moral one is. Morality, moral value, like any value, is a matter of degree. As self is true to Self, as self more closely approximates Self, one is achieving a higher degree of morality. This is theory. How about practice? How does that work?
Here is where commitment and devotion comes in. [To put it into technical language, here is where a material norm becomes an obligatory norm.] If one learns that a decent human being, having self-respect, acts in such-and-such a way, has a certain kind of character, and one says to oneself, “I want to be like that. …and I want it with my head, heart and soul 
” Then one becomes devoted to that kind of noble character, makes a habit of it, and lives it in his/her daily life. Then the theoretical Good has become the living Good.
The ethical job isn’t finished until one lives goodness in one’s daily life – until one wants to be moral, wants to be a good person, intensely, with great devotion, with heartfelt commitment!
Then one has become ethically educated. One has enlightened self-interest: s/he knows that “If you win, truly win, than I win too.” “I won’t achieve a quality life, one of maximum value, until you, and everyone of us, achieves it too.” “I can’t really advance unless I help you advance also.” This is ethical enlightenment.
To get a fuller picture, and for more detail, see the original posts in these threads:
“The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts”
“What Is Ethics?”
“The Natural-Logical Law of Conduct”
and, of course, see
“A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about”.
Then if you still have questions, read the papers for which links are given in the signature below.
}