The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

thinkdr,

Self-Actualizaton meets your definition of ‘morality’, and has been around for a long time. What does your interpretation add to this?

I don’t see why you needed to redefine words, when there’s already words expressing your view…

I think you missed my point about goals and morality. Morality isn’t about saying what’s a right or wrong goal, it’s about discerning intentions, decisions, and actions based on how well they fit with a goal. If you say Self-Actualization is the goal, then we already know what is moral since it’s been defined in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

42

I didn’t “need to redefine words,” Joe. I already explained in my recent post how the definition came about. I was deducing an ethical system from an axiom, The Axiom of Value, which Hartman developed, and we came upon [in applying Formal Axiology to Ethics] this relationship of correspondence, [depicted in symbols, in a formula as: s epsilon S], and “morality” made the most sense to interpret the symbols in the logic. [size=85]{Did you ever ask any physicists why they name a certain formula “force” and another one “acceleration”? Does the ghost of Galileo have to come back and spell out for you why his students’ students named the “r” in D = rt to be “motion” or the “D” to be “distance covered”? Years later the “r” became (rate of speed); and the “D” was changed - not in Algebra classes, but in physical labs - to “s” for “space”; while the “r” became “v” for (velocity.) It now was “directed distance” (distance with a compass direction associated with it.)} [/size]
Before Galileo made his major breakthrough, thus founding the Science of Mechanics, Aristotle had defined “motion” as: “potentiality becoming actuality” - and all the sages and pundits of that era accepted that as the (proper) definition …because Aristotle, “The Philosopher” himself, said so.

Incidentally, R. S. Hartman and A. H. Maslow were buddies: they both founded a new (at the time) organization The American Association of Humanistic Psychologists. And, btw, I was a graduate student studying under Maslow, but did not do a dissertation in Psych; instead I switched to Philosophy and got my Ph.D. in that Department. In my first published book, SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS (1969), I include a chapter by Maslow (with his permission) in which he praises Ruth Benedict’s work in Anthropology. I was with him that night as the only representative from his department when he delivered the Presidential Address at the Amer. Psychological Assn. He wanted me to come along (for moral support?).

I’m a retired Professor of Ethics and Value Theory. I don’t believe I missed your point. It’s kind of fun to have you lecture me on what “morality”’ is after I have researched ethics, in depth, for 46 years now. I’m still willing to learn though, so I mean it sincerely when I say to you: teach me some more, please. :sunglasses:

You ask: What does your interpretation add to this?

To learn answers to that query, study the selections offered in the links below; and then I’m sure you can tell others yourself what it added. “Each one teach two” and soon …it will become widely known.

----- :smiley: Eventually everyone will be claiming to have “thought of it first.”

43

It disturbs me a bit that you make such a claim and yet cannot defend your stance on ethics. :-k

44

Earlier I gave a list of 12 moral principles which it would be preferable to teach to kids at birth, and remind them of it in every grade after (and during) kindergarten.

:bulb: I would now (for adults here) emphasize only two - for the sake of simplicity - and they are: Maximize well-being & Minimize suffering. [I give credit to musical artist Joel Futterman for the following concepts, which clarify what is basic, what takes priority.]

To maximize well-being you would keep in mind, be mindful of, four values: Love, Peace, Health, and Caring for the less fortunate. They all reinforce one another. If you express love toward yourself, and if you care, you will want to achieve health, for this enables you to be strong enough to be able to care for others. If you care for others you will go out of your way to avoid selfishness: you will be considerate and courteous.

Live what you love :exclamation:

Peace is not merely an armistice, nor a break between wars; it is an inner state of serenity and calm - very achievable by deciding to have it. It is a nonviolent lifestyle which one can freely choose. Value peace, and you’ll never regret it. You will then engage in nonviolent direct action, when it is called for to resist injustice. [Empirical research studies show that a lot less lives are lost than if one engages in violent combat. (We love life, don’t we?)] And why do we want justice? Because there is no peace without justice, no ethical life without justice. Justice (a state of balance) is inherent to Ethics. {The topic of this thread, this discussion, is Ethics.}
If you feel you are in danger of losing your cool, do centering exercises - which you can learn about on the internet - or see a life coach who specializes in this.

Those basic four values have implications, and ramifications. Institutions will have to change; we who care about applying ethics to life (instead of ethics being a mere ivory-tower academic exercise) will have a part in changing them. We know it will be slow going until a tipping point is reached. Then things will happen rapidly.

Caring for the less fortunate is another way of saying: minimize suffering. The first task is to feed the starving. And clothe and shelter them. If we are loving, that of course is what we intend to do. It’s the loving thing to do. We want to reduce, or even end, extreme poverty. This is so basic. It’s a main priority. We can’t be bothered with any other issue, or fake issue. No policy is as relevant :exclamation: Where will we get the money for it? By taking it from the Defense budget …for we value Peace now, not war. We are nonviolent now, not belligerent. We are not seeking “an enemy” now. If we suffer a blow, such as on 9/11, we turn it over to Interpol since it is a criminal matter. One by one we arrest and isolate from society the criminals responsible …just as we did with John Gotti (1940-2002) or Francesco Madonia (1924-2007.)

:arrow_right: For the philosophical arguments that support and defend any positions I have taken, see the documents linked to in the signature below. Study them carefully for edification and enlightenment:

45

thinkdr,

I am very interested in the topic of Ethics, so much so that I will probably form my own “Unified Theory of Ethics” (and you can take it to the bank that it will be far more founded than whatever you seem to be promoting currently). But one thing that I cannot leave behind and that you do not seem to address is the very paramount concern that truly “Good ethics” MUST be inherently capable of defending itself from “Bad ethics” (else they aren’t actually “good”, but “bad”).

The last time that I mentioned that issue, your retort was merely that it explains in the book how there are only a very few bad ethics people, a few rotten apples, nothing to worry about. But reality and empirical evidence says otherwise. So whether it is true or not, merely because I and so very many other people believe that there are very many “bad ethics” people out there, the issue must be addressed. And the sooner, the better.

46

Please tell me you aren’t actually a “doctor”…

47

That was very informative Dr Katz I will have to follow this thread and see what I can learn.

48

I’m not a physician. …actually.
In the past I have been a leader of a therapy group. I was the Midwest Director of the World Future Society for nine years.
I have taught psychology and also mathematics on the undergraduate level …but mainly moral philosophy.

49

You have a good attitude, reasoning logic. You will travel far in life.

All questions, comments, and improvements to the theory are welcome.