Ethics in a nutshell

[thinkdr]

Greetings, Moreno

You ask, “How will your system avoid the problem of contradicting religions and other secular moral systems? Won’t it simply be another voice disagreeing (and agreeing where it does)?”

If you had read the Preface to Katz & Harvey - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, you would have gained insight into the larger vision - which is to make Ethics into a science.

Science is not “just another voice” for when it leads to relevant technologies it produces results, which often turn out to have worthwhile benefits. Sure, the results may have downsides, and we can depend upon Philosophers-of-Ethics to find them, just as now such critics always seek out the exceptions to any general principle one might propose - exceptions that test ‘the rule.’

My impression of the Dalai Lama is that he laughs easily and frequently, and writes books on moral philosophy. I have heard him on panels, on CSpan TV, and he was not that dull to listen to; but I never heard him lecture, and I doubt I would want to suffer through one - but I could say that about many another lecturer too. I have heard a fellow they called Rinpoche speak, but he was very concise, and seemed to be a man of few words. What he did utter was very pointed and appropriate however. I venture to speculate that the Dalai Lama is a motivational speaker for Buddhist monks, as well as for Buddhist disciples here in America; but I will grant he is not that for the rest of us.

I see no reason what a good person has to be boring. Some good people are inspiring. Some are charismatic.

And one can always play the game of “what if” and find “deeper problems” in that mind game, in that hypothetical world. I myself happen to be quite adept at dreaming up worst-case scenarios, but it doesn’t help me to win friends and influence people. I prefer being an Optimist, a thoughtful rational optimist. I want to be mindful. I want to be aware. In that booklet, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, there is a chapter on the difference between optimists, pessimists and realists. The latter turn out to be part-optimist, as the analysis shows.

This current thread’s o.p. ought to be read in conjunction with earlier threads such as “The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts” and/or “Steps to Value Creation.” That procedure would aid in comprehending the big picture.

[Moreno]

@thinkdr

Greetings, Moreno

You ask, “How will your system avoid the problem of contradicting religions and other secular moral systems? Won’t it simply be another voice disagreeing (and agreeing where it does)?”

If you had read the Preface to Katz & Harvey - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, you would have gained insight into the larger vision - which is to make Ethics into a science.

Science is not “just another voice” for when it leads to relevant technologies it produces results, which often turn out to have worthwhile benefits. Sure, the results may have downsides, and we can depend upon Philosophers-of-Ethics to find them, just as now such critics always seek out the exceptions to any general principle one might propose - exceptions that test ‘the rule.’

We have people today who disagree with science when it is about scientific topics. I don’t see where someone claiming to have a science of ethics will necessarily be taken as THE EXPERT. It will simply be another voice. And given how much culture and subjectivity come into morals, but not just morals also what people think of as the appropriate goals of actions, again I can’t imagine it being just another voice. Which does not mean it would be wrong, but I am specifically questioning this idea that using whatever rational processes these perhaps will be will somehow avoid be another voice or quieten the other voices.

My impression of the Dalai Lama is that he laughs easily and frequently, and writes books on moral philosophy. I have heard him on panels, on CSpan TV, and he was not that dull to listen to; but I never heard him lecture, and I doubt I would want to suffer through one - but I could say that about many another lecturer too.

Of course, but if you are being presented as the reincarnation of an enlightened being, that is someone who has mastered life and understands people, you would think you would have enough saavy to know how to talk to them and how not to. Most lecturers are not considered to be a perfected being and while the Dalai Lama may not call himself that, he does little to dispel the myths and hype surrounding him. He gets to be judged as perhaps wanting in some insight about human nature if he is boring. Regular people giving a talk can be criticized for having too high a speaker’s fee for their abilities, etc., but they are not being put forward in the way DL is.

I see no reason what a good person has to be boring. Some good people are inspiring. Some are charismatic.

O course, good people can be interesting. Saints, however, seem to be rather boring. So I have an issue with the category.

Goodness is often conceived in a deadening way and whole religions often push people in that direction. They teach you to stifle yourself. Many secular systems also do this. The goal of being rational can be just as deadening.

[thinkdr]

I agree with Alan Donagan, who in his book The Theory of Morality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977) argues that there is a coherent theory underlying the general moral outlook and behavior of all (normal) people, though it is not necessarily consciously expressed.

He explains that rules of ethics are not basic, nor are rights, or virtues. Instead these are all generated by a more fundamental assumption: persons are valuable in themselves.

Thus, the reason why murder is wrong has nothing to do with the maximization of happiness, much less the command of a deity, or the exercise of virtue, but the fact that murder results in the destruction of something intrinsically valuable, a human life.

[thinkdr]

In response to those who are impressed by the case for Cultural Relativism and why - they believe - this has to block progress in finding universal laws for Ethics, Dr. James Franklin, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy, has this to say:

"Mathematics makes a clear distinction between basic principles and the deductions made from them, or their consequences in different circumstances.

The mathematical laws of planetary motion are exactly the same for Mercury and the Moon, but the laws prescribe different orbits for the two bodies, since they are in different places and have different forces acting on them.

For the same reason, basic ethical principles of respect for persons will prescribe different actions and customs for a small tribe at subsistence level from those suitable for a complex welfare state.

Since the invariance and objectivity of basic ethical principles prescribes a diversity of outcomes, the onus is on someone arguing from cultural diversity to show that the observed diversity cannot be explained by the interaction of universal principles with diverse circumstances. As has been observed by several critics, that task has rarely been seriously attempted."

In the papers linked to below, I have striven to find some ‘universal’ principles for normal people all over the planet. They apply to every civilized individual: Know Yourself. Choose (to be) Yourself. Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself. Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can)). And thereby create value.

I wish for all of you a Quality Life.

And in doing so, I am looking out for my own Self-Interest.

For I regard you as my support team. Everyone has a contribution to make.

After you have read and studied the dialogs (to which you will finds links below), let me know your impressions. I welcome suggestions for improvement and ideas as to how to upgrade the theory, tighten it up, enhance it. So please help the project out here. [The author.]

[Percarus]

Sorry, very well sparsely covered, but there is a point I would like to mention. It is mentioned that ethics focuses on the person, and other persons. There is another element of ethics encompassed by Virtue ethics to a slight degree, and that is sheer principle. That is, some ethical codes/situations are encouraged by ideals, ideas, visions and set noble standards. In this transaction focusing on people alone becomes the epitome of sin, and it is when we pursue socially accepted standards in behaviour that we become truly virtuous. This may encompass not urinating on the streets, no extreme laude behaviour, and instances that may not directly affect people or your own astute self. Ethics in this sense becomes a guider to a good life, or as Aristotle would say it, a pathway to eudaimonia.

There are MANY schools of ethics… There are even different codes of ethics for every profession out there, and some textbooks will clearly clarify that - in this sense it is about fitting in with society, and ultimately abiding by what a higher sentience (ie: God, if he exists) desires us to live - not necessarily human or a people based code of morals is what I am talking about. So, who decides what is morally/ethically right? I suppose it would be ‘sheer’ sentience, mayhap ultimately human sentience (not to exclude the animal kingdom here) - but it is more than that, it is about a sociological analysis of micro-society (and macro) behaviour. I graduated first class honours in Ethics and I believe that when generalizing ethics to such a small field we are doing humanity a great diservice. Certain situations (careers) may necessitate a course of action completely contradictory to generally perceived ideals. Ethics is a balancing act, that is no sole code of ethics should be utilized by its own self, but instead in conjunction with others.

[Drusuz]

@thinkdr

the actual approaches the ideal.

@thinkdr

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.

So you speak of an ideal that you compare to sainthood, but you don’t describe what excatly is good about sainthood.

Some saints heal people, yet i don’t see any get healed in the churches, where demagoguis deacons manipulate and lies money out of helpless naive people, infact USA has the highest morallity rate, related to religious deaths, because these quacks claim that God/Jesus heals, and the naive person will put away the medicine in blind belief.

Many people will kiss the reliqary and thereby transmitting desises to eachother.

The list goes on.

So, could you specify a bit, please?

[thinkdr]

@Percarus

…There is another element of ethics encompassed by Virtue ethics to a slight degree, and that is sheer principle. … Ethics in this sense becomes a guider to a good life, or as Aristotle would say it, a pathway to eudaimonia.

There are MANY schools of ethics… …

Relevant to your first paragraph is this quotation by a philosophically-minded student who wrote this:

"Ethics are described as a system of moral principles.

What is a principle? In science principles are not arbitrarily chosen. They are a explanation of how something functions.

Principles are how we do these things truthfully and choosing the right groupings of principles is how we do it well and morally. There are guidelines that explain the best way to lie, cheat, and even murder. These are not moral principles. Ethical principles underlie everything we do."

That is why in an earlier post above I quoted Professors Donegan and Franklin, as they explained the invariances in Ethics.

Another moral principle that the discipline of Ethics points to is (what I have named) The Principle of Inclusivity. A brainy philosopher-scientist expressed it well in these words:

"Human beings are a part of a whole called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves as thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.

This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ---- Albert Einstein.

Just as Albert Schweitzer taught in his ethics we see here an emphasis on Reverence for Life.

And the Unified Theory - see the link to it in the signature below - teaches: Include more and more within your ethical radius, in your in-group, until it sweeps in eventually almost all of humanity, every conscious living individual. Be inclusive. Avoid tribalism.

Comments? Analyses? Improvements?

I am not sure why you thought it necessary to remind me of the fact that there are currently many schools of ethics. After all, I did post this thread here:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179235&p=2314550#p2314550
which was a rating of some the major academic schools.

And I have called attention to Rushworth Kidder - HOW GOOD PEOPLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living (NY: Simon & Schuster Fireside Books, 1995). I still recommend that all of you read it over.

In the Bibliographies to the essays to which you find links below, I list books which teach many diverse approaches to ethical insight and understanding.

Look again at the title of this thread: the attempt here is to encapsulate the most basic and vital essence of the ethical life. Of necessity it omits something. I, as a retired Professor of Ethics, am quite aware of the many pathways to the ethical life, and the many professional codes.

See the Statement of Purpose of The Institute for Global Ethics, which you can find with a search tool. Also see the wide scope of topics in the papers and essays below:

[thinkdr]

Just in case readers found the original post to be obscure when it defined the concept “value”, I offer this.

Here is how Dr. David Mefford explains what “value” is. I trust you will find it helpful. Give it your profound consideration:

"A value is the result of the brain’s conversion of direct experience (immediate per-ception) into meaningful truth (a secondary judgment of con-ception). Value is, in general, the same as meaning, or rather, meaning confirmed and enhanced by emphasis. We structure meaning through emphasis. A person makes thousands of conscious and unconscious (conditioned) value judgments every moment, every hour and every day.

Value judgment is the primary human capacity that enables us to cope with our world - to survive and thrive in our society.

Values are a union of two major human capacities: rational cognition and emotional feelings, or attitudes, powered by emphasis. Consider the following formula in words as follows.

[value and valuation (by emphasis) = (Knowing + Feeling)]

When we value something, we use our knowledge of what it is and what it contains, plus how we feel about it - we like it or we do not like it - to some degree. In application to any given subject matter, values may be explained in the following statement.

Our values reveal the foundation of our characters, how we think and feel in the context of our roles in life and how we appreciate our own selves within the horizon of our life-world."

---

In the papers linked to below, I have striven to find some ‘universal’ principles for normal people all over the planet. They apply to every civilized individual: Know Yourself. Choose (to be) Yourself. Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself. Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can)). And thereby create value.

I wish for all of you a Quality Life.

And in doing so, I am looking out for my own Self-Interest.

For I regard you as my support team. Everyone has a contribution to make.

After you have read and studied the dialogs (to which you will finds links below - they are all PDF files, safe to open), let me know your impressions. I welcome suggestions for improvement and ideas as to how to upgrade the theory, tighten it up, enhance it. So please help the project out here. [The author.]