Presenting the best argument for ethics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If one is ethical one will NOT cheat: one will not enter into gain/loss relationships where one party gains at the expense of another - by dishonesty, cutting corners, deliberately engaging in bait-and-switch, falsification, con artistry, etc. - because it results in hurting someone. Cheating does harm (to the cheated.) If you cheat someone you are diminishing value. You thereby dishonor yourself. Robbery, for example, subtracts value; love adds value. Are you with me so far?

Now you might ask: Why not harm? Because a human life has value, that’s why. Isn’t it so that every individual is unique? {Even identical twins differ in some respect from one another. One twin has features that the other does not have which their immediate family, or one who knows them very well, can perceive. The more qualities someone or something has, the more meaningful it is; and to be meaningful is to have value.} If we can agree that a conscious human life has value – [and that happens to be the case by the very definition of Ethics, as explained in some detail in the papers in the signature below] – hen science can provide policies that minimize suffering and maximize value for the enhancement of life. We can turn to science to learn best practices to help conscious individuals thrive - not merely survive. Don’t you want more than bare survival? Once you know your Ethics, you’re okay with caring and sharing.

Ethics is about maximizing value for one and all. So let’s figure out how, at every opportunity, to create value, how to be constructive, how to upgrade, improve, build on, uplift, boost individuals and groups of individuals. When we get our priorities straight we will aim for social justice, happiness, practical wisdom, a quality life, a state of optimum well-being. Okay? So if you form the haabit of creating positive value, you then will want to avoid personal corruption and you will choose long-term well-being over short-term temptation. You’ll see things from an Ethical perspective.

In the U.S.A. we have, among others, two major problems. The first is that money has become an end, not a means to some worthwhile end. Money is idolized as an end rather than as a means: The most important thing to many people is: "How much money will it make? " This is known as Materialism. This holds back progress.

The second problem is that the powers-that-be want to maintain a status quo situation. Their attitude is, in effect, “Don’t rock the boat while I’m comfortable!” They see no point in change. Yet people suffer; there is extreme misery. This is a violation of the moral obligation we have to relieve suffering when possible - for all the reasons presented earlier. This conservatism - as well as materialism - is a problem to solve. Now we are addressing Social Ethics. There is a simple solution that will likely result in the U.S.A. being loved and respected around the globe, a solution that could well turn enemies into friends. The proposal is for the U.S. government to spend $200 billion with the aim of making sure that no one on the planet is hungry. The policy goal would be to eliminate starvation wherever it is found. We Americans can demand that our public officials pursue this goal, and thus put ethics into practice.

The same applies to gun safety - the registration and licensing of guns; and for immigration reform. If we want people to live a life free of intimidation, to come in out of the shadows, to have a quality life, to contribute to society without fear - and polls show most Americans do want this - then some of us will engage in nonviolent direct action, in demonstrations, to show that they really mean it. We will support those who are morally active every way we can. This is Applied Ethics at its best.

Comments? Questions?

2

The idea is good but, flies against human nature, though we are trying to evolve towards that, or rather many are. To change such a massive amount of minds makes pushing a two ton boulder uphill seem easy.
Ethics are woven tightly into our personality. To make most or all the same it would require more than just change, it would require dismantling and rebuilding. This would have to be done to so many cultures, subcultures, families and finally individual.
Generations would be needed and a very large strong core operation.
An added bit:
I was raised in large cities, I now for the past decade, live in the country where there is more land and animals than people. The basic differences between city attitudes and country attitudes towards humans is vastly different. Amount of bodies is the reason.

3

Greetings, Kriswest

I appreciate how you have the intellectual capacity to recognize a good idea when you see one. If it’s good, then let there be no “buts” about it. Let’s work to make it happen!

If - as you say - and I believe you are correct - many are evolving toward this “good idea” then a tipping point will be reached when the good idea becomes the conventional wisdom; and at that point many will claim that they thought of it first. A minority of others will still be ridiculing the whole idea; a few will still insist it can’t be done. Some futurists will be looking ahead to the next evolutionary development beyond this.

Yes, Kris, you are so right: country people, as well as small-villagers, and commune residents, see things from a different perspective than city-dwellers living in congested conditions.

I thank you for your support …both moral support and active, effective-action support. Actions will be effective if they serve to help provide a Quality Life for one and all.

4

Thank you. Let me see if I can explain
Country people see individual people. In cities, city people see bodies. They see family and friends as people…
We are pack/herd animals not species animals. You could go to New York city, ask a random person if they care about starving kids somewhere else, they will say yes and give lip service about change… If you could follow this person throughout their days you will most likely see no action to help. Why? Because life takes up their mind. The immediate life of their herd.
To change attitude you would have to change humanity’s ingrained herd instincts to the equivalent of hive instincts. Lots of buts, ifs, hows and blocks. A good idea such as your species changing idea is going against nature. Just talking to people won’t work for generations. It would have to spread slowly like a virus unless concrete social sciences step in and a cooperative universal program is created and forced down humanity’s collective throat… Hell of a lot of buts.

5

With regard to your first point, we - living in a global village as we do - would have to teach preschoolers that the other residents in this ‘village’ are part of their herd or tribe. In other words, we all need to come to see that There are no strangers." The Internet (the world-wide web) is helping us to become aware of this. …that the members of our human species form a web of relationships, a web of life. And that what effects you directly affects me indirectly; we rise - or fall - together.

:question: I was under the impression that viruses spread quickly :wink:

Could you please give us a few more details about how “concrete social sciences step in and create a cooperative universal program”?? What specifically do you have in mind?

As to the proposal in the o.p. that we make a major plank of our foreign policy to be: to feed the hungry of the world – if the United States takes the lead, I believe it would be wise for us (in order to share the expense) to form a coalition with the other rich nations to pursue this project jointly. We ought enlist Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries, etc., to get into the coalition …even if we have to shame them into coming along on it. We need, though, to take the primary initiative.

Your thoughts - everyone?

6

Have you read the passage on the subject of ‘human nature’ on pp. 24-28 of BASIC ETHICS? It is entitled “Does Human Nature Change?” You may find it quite interesting and relevant. Click on its link in the Signature below to gain access to it.

You will also find a chapter on the nature of Human Nature in A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, pp. 48-49. See tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

7

Earlier I spoke of sharing. Sharing a focus on a certain specific goal and working together to achieve that goal is how I define the term “cooperation.” The more ethical one is the more cooperative one is.

In our most recent posts we find that we are discussing the evolution of culture. In M.C. Katz - BASIC ETHICS, there is a concise chapter with the title: Stages of Evolution in Ethical Insight, pp. 20-22. tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz
It brings out the point, and offers evidence for it, that the history of mankind parallels the history of ethical consciousness - and thus the increase in cooperativeness through time. There has been wider and wider cooperation among more diverse peoples and cultures during the course of human history, until today there is close-knit cooperation sustaining the world economy, as the notion of a “global village” becomes more of a reality. We now need to adapt to the world of the 21st-century, in which knowledge is the core of the economy. We have now entered the Information Age.

In the Industrial Age (which displaced the Agricultural Age) many a person could hold one job for life; nowadays, workers change jobs more frequently. As a result, there is again much dislocation - as there was in the transition from farming to factory-work in the early 20th-centery - and there is today lots of suffering due to lack of life-sustaining work for those who lack 21st-century-required skills.

As the Chinese buy up American businesses in their effort to make use of the surplus of dollars they have (due to earlier trade imbalances) our two cultures will become more integrated, and we will witness enhanced cooperation among diverse peoples such as we have never seen before in human history.

Several philosophers see interactive reciprocity and increasing cooperation as the hallmark of Ethics. To mention a few names, see the work of: David Hume, G.C. Williams, W.D. Hamilton, R.L. River, Helena Cronin, Leda Cosmides, , and O.S. Curry. Philosophical Anthropologist, J. Laidlaw, has also written a paper with the title “For an Anthropology of Ethics and Freedom.” It was published in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2002. 8(2): p. 311-332.

8

:slight_smile: Not all viruses spread quickly, in a major city why, when there are flu cases, does not the entire population get sick?
Concrete social sciences? Well philosophy is fine but, psychology, knowledge of cultures, their complexities and how to weave a positive message and attitude for all or most is needed.
Just spreading an idea in one way will not work. Look at how many sects there are of all major religions. Each sect aproaches their holy Scriptures differently. Politicians in the same party do not agree wholly. You see things different from your family in small or large ways.
A small group can agree quicker, easier then an extremely large one.
To use the net as a tool for working together is an idea I have always said and had. But, all the above applies. Its not one message one way that you need, its one message said in many ways that you need.

9

I agree with that.

The process might proceed as follows: Someone who is affluent and wants the world to be more ethical, wants to further Ethics education, would put up enough money to hire an individual who is experienced at writing grant applications that request funding from a foundation. The application will be to request backing for a project to run a competition among children’s-book writers - the object being to write the book that conveys to children most efficiently some of the principles of ethics. This would be similar to the X-Prize concept, only instead of raising the money from venture capital sources the charitable foundation would put up the money. [size=85]{Every author and illustrator who enters the contest could win …at least some small stipend; the idea is for there to be more books appealing to young minds that take up ethical topics as they tell their stories.}
[/size]
What do you think?

Is this the way to go?

10

Is that a part of your ethics - “shaming” people in order to get your way?

11

The reference was to shaming nations. From the context it is rational to infer that I meant the governments of those nations. You jumped to the conclusion that I meant something else. I am sure it wasn’t intentional on your part, so I forgive.

It was my - perhaps sloppy - way of saying that the USA alone is not the nation to bear the full burden of this proposed program, figuring that it would have an easier time in getting the funds allocated and passed by the U.S. Congress if the program shared the cost among several wealthy nations. Wouldn’t you agree that this is more realistic than insisting that the USA do this without setting up such a coalition of allies?

Nowhere in the UTE does it say anything about ‘shame’ or ‘shaming.’ So no that is NOT part of my ethics.

12

No, I just can’t see how you can shame a nation without merely shaming the people of at least the government. But, not a big deal.

I would think that any effort to alter ethics in any way other than current designed changes, would be completely futile except by seriously extraordinary means. I don’t think books and speeches wouldn’t do it at all. If any of your thoughts happen to align with theirs, they might listen. But it doesn’t really look like their kind of ethics package.

13

Thanks for responding to my query as to whether that writers contest is the way to go. Thanks for your helpful observations.

I am still seeking effective techniques to get the messages across to a majority of the world’s population.

I can cite various ‘ethical technologies’ such as songs that have been composed - say like that by B. J. Thomas “Using things and loving people”, - or the Hebrew “Hinai Ma Tov” - or pledges to be ethical that have been made, such as that by a group of Harvard Law School students who signed an oath to that effect; or the movement by some Britishers and Canadians to not buy goods made in sweatshops nor food or drink raised via unsafe and oppressive working conditions imposed on the laborers involved .

I have heard that in England there are workers cooperatives and that they have formed into a coalition. And in the United States there is a process for getting a corporation or small business legally recognized as a “B-Corp” which means a business that is Beneficial to society, viz., set up to operate primarily in the social interest. Perhaps the members of these organizations would be receptive to the news about progress in ethical thinking - how it can be systematized and explained concisely and to-the-point … as Dr. Katz does in his BASIC ETHICS. {See link to it below}:

14

My general thoughts on that are “save the small part of the world you are in” and let it continue as a demonstration if anyone else cares. Nothing beats a good demonstration. And if they don’t care, then what business would you have in forcing them into it?

It kind of worked for Constantine, but not for terribly long.

15

Amen, til the fear kicked in.

16

I have no intention of forcing anyone into anything :exclamation:

Of course the small part of the world I am in is the first part to “get it.” All my associates and family and friends comprehend the definition of Ethics, and the Axiom of Ethics; and they see the many implications that follow logically from that understanding. So your suggestion has already been taken. But thanks anyway.

Do the Readers here at this Forum get it, though? That is the question.