The case for ethics - best presentation yet

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If a person is alone on a desert island he is subject only to the laws of nature: he wants to avoid hurting himself.

Now it turns out there is another individual on this island. The first fellow thought he was all alone but he was mistaken. Now, though, social interaction enters the picture. He is subject to the laws of human nature, to what we may refer to as ‘the moral law.’ Now we generalize the principle; it becomes Do no harm! Now he doesn’t want to hurt another, because if he did, he wouldn’t get the benefits of cooperation to build a better quality of life for the both of them.

Once one knows his ethics he is okay with caring, sharing, and cooperating.

Note that there is a definition of “ethics” and an axiom of “ethics.” The definition of ethics is a perspective we have, a way of regarding an individual, or a group of individuals. It is this: when you view an individual as of uncountably-high value, you are in the field of Ethics, you are being ethical.

The ‘Axiom of Ethics’ is this: Make things morally better!"

Both the definition and the axiom have lots of implications, a lot of principles may be deduced from them. {And, yes, I can define my key terms - upon request.} Here are some of the implications that follow:

If someone is that valuable, then you wouldn’t want to harm them. Hence you wouldn’t want to degrade them in any way, bring them down, humiliate them, disparage them, hurt their feelings.

If you are dedicated to making things morally better you would put people first. Why? Because you, knowing your ethics, are aware that all the systems, ideologies, theories in the world aren’t worth one material thing; and all the things in the world aren’t worth one conscious human life. {This can be shown in the body of useful information that goes by the name of Ethics.} The word ‘morally’ suggests that things are to be made better for people.

How make things better in general? You shall ask yourself in situations that come up in daily life: How can I, in this situation, upgrade it, improve it, enhance it, boost a person up, be helpful, make a difference, make others happy, innovate, be creative, produce harmony, close up any perceptual gaps that exist, or in some way maximize the value? Thus improving human relationships, being more inclusive, building a sense of family or community will be your aim. It follows that gaining the know-how to achieve this aim efficiently will also be your aim and your commitment. The concept of ‘value-added’ is very important in the business world, and it is even more relevant if one wants to be ethical.

As a teacher of ethics I would argue that - agreeing with the insight of Aristotle - everything aims for the good. Everyone is doing the best they can; if they knew better, they would do better. The claim being made is that the cause of all our problems (in the human realm) is ignorance. Knowledge is the answer. This includes knowing how. If the person who seems most malicious knew vividly the benefits of living an ethical life in an ethical world, and if that individual knew HOW to have high ideals and to live up to them - as Ethics directs one to do - then that party, aiming for the good, and understanding how to arrive at it, would no longer be malicious. What does it mean to be “good”?

Something is good if it has all the properties necessary to fulfill its purpose (its meaning.) The ultimate purpose, according to Ethics, is to provide a quality life for one and all.

An individual is good if s/he has ethical ideals and lives up to them. …practices what s/he preaches. “Talks the talk, and walks the walk.” Ethical ideals are kindness, empathy, compassion, integrity, authenticity, genuineness, sincerity, honesty, etc. They all indicate much the same - a person who knows his ethics. Morality - as explained in detail in the thread here “What is Morality?” -is self being true to true self; it is authenticity. Being real, not a phony. Being transparent: saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. Instead of ‘scoring points’ you want to compose value.

There is more to ethics, of course. This will do for now.

Comments, questions, responses on point? What do you think of this presentation? I have tried it out on people in all walks of life, putting it in their words; the responses have all been good.
Let’s hear your enhancements…

2

You left out limited resources on that island. You also left out natural personality. Ethics is also about creating a truce in conflict. We are distinct individuals not hive creatures. You might make life easier but, you might screw me over either on purpose or accidentally. In discussing ethics we tend to try and ignore our animal natures.

3

Resources don’t need to be infinite to meet the needs of the limited amount requiring it.

Resources can be produced and used sustainably.

“Neither the great political and financial power structures of the world, nor the specialization-blinded professionals, nor the population in general realize that…it is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on earth at a higher standard of living than any have ever known. It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival.
War is obsolete.”

  • R. Buckminster Fuller

People are diverse and constantly evolving/changing - naturally. No one aspect is constant. Therefore, nature is neutral in regards to our capacity for a different state.

You’re using nature (invalidly) as an excuse to say we’re incapable of a different state, when in reality, we’ve that potential.

Yes.

People can intrinsically value other people, therefore, want to enable their flourishing as an end in itself. In this case, ethics wouldn’t be just a means of avoiding conflict, but rather supporting a relationship.

Speak for yourself. I’d sooner subscribe to, ‘No man is an island’.

We’ve common interests. Why ought we separate?

Therefore you’d advise no cooperation?

That seems far likelier to be to the detriment of both parties.

What’s the lesser evil? - Be at war? OR Have the possibility of non ideal results?

Or perhaps, people tend to disagree on what our animal natures entail.

====

Fighting the good fight, I see, Kriswest - as usual.

What’s your objective right now in being contrary to thinkdr?

4

[quote=“Kriswest”]
You left out …natural personality. Ethics is also about creating a truce in conflict. We are distinct individuals not hive creatures. You might … screw me over either on purpose or accidentally. In discussing ethics we tend to try and ignore our animal natures.
[/quote

Greetings, Kriswest

Thanks for the enhancements you so generously offer.

In the paper, BASIC ETHICS, the first link in the signature below, you will notice a brief chapter entitled: ‘Does human nature change?’ It discusses the topic you bring up.

You will also find material on this, admitting to our animal nature, in A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, to which you will find a link below also. It is a section towards the end on the nature of our nature. I agree we are distinct individuals, and when we Intrinsically-value someone - including ourselves - we are acknowledging this. I stress this in BASIC ETHICS in the last chapter on the theme: Individuality endorsed by the system.

Yes, it is true that Ethics seeks ways to settle quarrels and reduce conflicts - see the contributions toward this end by Hugo Grotius. In BASIC ETHICS this is discussed, attributing the problem to perception gaps. In the o.p. I spoke of this as ‘closing the gaps in perception.’ The system of Ethics directs us to do this.

Many gaps are due to each party missing the points of the other, or using ambiguous language open to misinterpretation; and a lack of effort at understanding the other party’s positions. Asking questions of the other to know better where he or she is ‘coming from’ is an antidote.

If one hurts you ‘accidentally’ then it wasn’t out of malice, perversity, or being out of control …all of these are ways to be unethical. I did bring up the concept of the malicious person; and I pointed out that this is due to either brain damage, an abusive upbringing by ignorant parents (or foster parents), or by ignorance of some sort. The unethical person may be in a state of denial, or may have desensitized his conscience to his crimes. [For example, Geo. W. Bush or Dick Cheney.]
In these cases therapy is required - and a sane society would provide freely this type of health care. {Any individual who believes in, and practices some, violence shall be isolated from society, taken out of circulation. That is why we have statute laws now. That is why we hire police - to arrest such behavior.} Hopefully our laws are guided by our awareness of ethics. Law professors and judges will argue that this is so.

I don’t want to ignore our nature. I rely on the latest findings in science to inform us as to what is our nature. They tell me that we have mirror neurons, and if we are normal, we can, in a sense, ‘feel each other’s pain.’ We have a conscience. The question is: Is it educated enough to become sensitized?

5

Thankyou,
I do not get signatures on this smart phone, I have yet to be smart enough to figure out all the settings. :slight_smile:
I did a search and came up with multiple sites. Will you please provide the correct link/s in a post? I would appreciate it.

6

Here are the links you request. The first one listed just came out this year! :

[b]BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach /b tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

LIVING THE GOOD LIFE wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … _Lifef.pdf

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI … ETHICS.pdf
A booklet written in dialogue form. is the first of four parts. The other three parts are :

ETHICAL ADVENTURES wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … NTURES.pdf

ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

r And ask Google for M.C. Katz -ASPECTS OF ETHICS:Views through a new lens.

The first post in this thread may be considered as an upgrade to BASIC ETHICS.
In a next edition of it, I would place it as a Prologue.

7

Have you ever looked into the attempts of the late 19th century to build Utopian communities. Most of them failed from what I understand. I think with the technology that exists today more of those attempts would have borne long lasting fruit.

If you begin with a concept of inclusivity and develop it from there in terms of people participating because they want to build a better community without a special contract which requires them to perform duties or responsibilities then the situation is of a mutual desire to be present and to participate. The only way that informal method could ever work is with a concept of active ethical involvement in play.

This is a tangent thought, but I live in a 30 unit apartment complex. Yesterday I was on my porch and was watching someone moving in unloading his truck by himself. Because he was alone, and because I wasn’t doing anything of great importance, and because I actually wanted a good excuse to get some exercise, I asked him if he needed any help unloading the truck. He seemed like a decent person but he said no and explained that his fiance was on her way along with a couple of friends to help him out. I didn’t press the issue. I did continue to think about why he declined my offer however. I believe it had to do with the fact that I was a stranger. He could not know if I was simply being kind or if I had some ulterior motive. In my case, I wanted nothing from him and would have considered it due payment to get a little exercise and help out a person that seemed worth knowing as an acquaintance. It could have been nice to meet someone else that lives in this building. I don’t fault him for being cautious. If I was in his position I may have declined the help as well. I do think it is interesting however that in order for the theory of ethics you have put forward to work there needs to be the ability to extend a small amount of trust in the direction of having a reasonable certainty that kindness will be reciprocated and cooperation will be mutually assured.

8

Thank you, concordant, for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, you are right to bring up responsibility, civic participation, and trust as vital concepts relevant to living an ethical life.

I touch on all of these in my 23-page {if printed on both sides of page} booklet, BASIC ETHICS - which is the first link in the Bibliography below. In an effort to keep the document short - so that today’s student of Ethics, used to Forum posts of a few paragraphs in length, will not get impatient with the amount of reading to be done - I mention these topics in passing. Each of them, of course, warrants a full-length book. See if you can find the references to these concepts; particularly “trust.” It is toward the end of the manuscript.

One mark of an ethical self-image will be: “I want to take on some responsibility!” or “I want to be a responsible person - and you may hold me accountable for my conduct.”

In other places in my writings I have emphasized the three (Applied Ethics) values of Opportunity, Responsibility, and Community. I elaborated on the first of these by adding the motto:
Equal opportunity for everyone! Special privileges for no one.

And, yes, civic responsibility - such as making sure you vote - and vote for one who you have screened as possessing ethical values - is extremely important.

First we trust; and then we verify - that the other parties are living up to their obligations. We must set the example of being trusting. It is useless to wait for someone else to be trusting first. “Examples speak louder than words.”

And you are also correct about “active ethical involvement.” When, in the systematic approach to ethical theory entitled BASIC ETHICS, it takes up the concept of Norms, I wrote that the highest value is gained if one says to oneself: “I want to be a decent human being, I want to be ethical, and I intend to be so !!! I’ll do whatever it takes. I’ll have to use moral means to get to this moral end.”

[Of course, any time one has an end in view the ethical person would employ only moral means to get there.] So set a norm for yourself to go in the direction of Intrinsic valuation (over the Extrinsic and the Systemic values.) Put people first over material and financial values; give the individual priority ahead of things and (dogmatic) ideas. In fact, discard dogma altogether.

Creeds are fine, but not when made superior to one’s right to some personal property; and property is okay but not when placed above people-values. We need to cultivate our empathy and compassion for other conscious (potentially)-intelligent lives. We need to identify with, at least, our own species.

I predict that within a hundred years there will be a world civilization, and a planetary consciousness. Human beings will regard each other as members of one human family: we will be brothers and sisters with others who behave ethically no matter what our local culture happens to be. We will have a sense of unity and solidarity.

9

Ben,

You understand. You are an ethical person. I thank you deeply for your support …both moral support and relevant action to attend to our highest priorities in an efficient and effective manner !

Every point you make is so pointed in the right direction!! You do know which way is up. I am proud of you.

Keep up the good work !!!

10

How many of you, who live in the United States, are aware of this opportunity?

servicenation.org/the_solution

It is similar to the Peace Corps but it is local rather than overseas. They invite you to join AmeriCorps, a nonprofit service organization. If you volunteer to join up, give a year of your time, you will gain invaluable experience. The whole concept is applied ethics !

Incidentally, you also earn a little money while doing it and/or you get a break in college tuition.

Also I’d like to get some feedback: what do you think of the concise mini-course in Ethics offered in the o.p. above? Would you be willing to pass along the ideas? Will you?

11

America would become a proper communist state.

The U.N. also dictates “What we Want!” but they are still in the socialist phase. “They” being the current socialist leaders across the world. And of course, as always, the idea is to indoctrinate the masses into wanting whatever they want. That is what a socialist/communist government does; “We already know what is best for the entire world. Our job as leaders is to cause the masses to believe it too.”

The Nazis proposed the same things.

12

Tell us, Jim, if people sign up for the Peace Corps does that make them “communists” by your definition?

Americorp does what the American Friends Service Committee has been doing for many, many years in their workshops, namely, arranging for young folks to volunteer to help a poor family by, say, painting the walls of their apartment. Also, Big Brothers and Big Sisters - and other nonprofits - have been providing such opportunities for service as well.

Americorp will never sign up everyone. Many folks will feel that they can’t spare a whole year - or whatever the limited period is - out of their life, since they have career plans, studying to be in some profession, that requires their full time focus in a specialized area. Or they are so involved in some science that they feel they can’t tear themselves away for volunteer work of this nature, at this time.

Ethics does suggest that we take on some responsibility. In my case, I serve - at no pay - as President of my Condo Board of Directors …a stressful job at times. I am not whining about it, merely mentioning it as an example.

[size=85]I thought the John Birch Society was defunct… but[/size] it sounds like some here are paranoid that “communism is out to get us” - so be afraid - as if the United States, at any moment, will become a social democracy, like Norway - or maybe will learn from the example of Australia and start providing free education for all through the college level, and free health care, and good wages, etc. Or will, like Finland has, put into their constitution that everyone has a right to a job and that women are not to be treated as property.

[size=200] Heaven forfend ![/size] #-o 8-[ :wink: :wink:

13

Well, it appears to me that you are displaying (again) a serious lack of understanding as to what the USA is going through and how society really works. The USA is already a “socialist state”, merely still afraid to say it, because its Constitution was specifically designed for the purpose of preventing that. The Cold War that the USA Lost.

14

Greetings, y James S Saint

You use the word “socialist.”
The word has about a dozen definitions.

Which one are you using? What is your definition of the word?

Every nation in the world has a mixed economy: part private sector, part national sector. There is no such thing as so-called “free enterprise.” In the USA it is a fact that many businesses are subsidized in part by the government. If that is your point, I concede it in advance.

Can we get back on topic? The thread is about a new approach to ethics that will encourage and promote ethical conduct in the most-efficient manner. It is generally agreed that this world needs more ethics. How best arrive at this goal is the question of top priority.

15

To James S Saint,

You are apparently still concerned about the way partisan politics plays out in the U.S.

By the way, I don’t think the concept of socialism was specifically defined as we now know it way back in 1776(it has evolved), and so I ask how was the constitution of 1776 “specifically designed for preventing a socialist state?” I am curious to read your answer.

To thinkdr,

Your ethical theory intrigues me because it is something I have been thinking about, without categorizing for… a year or more perhaps. There is a great deal you say, which resonates with exact harmony for me, but before I comment more I feel like I need to really engross myself into what you have already put out there, because there are certain things I disagree with you on.

16

To James S Saint,

You are apparently still concerned about the way partisan politics plays out in the U.S.

By the way, I don’t think the concept of socialism was specifically defined as we now know it way back in 1776(it has evolved), and so I ask how was the constitution of 1776 “specifically designed for preventing a socialist state?” I am curious to read your answer.

To thinkdr,

Your ethical theory intrigues me because it is something I have been thinking about, without categorizing for… a year or more perhaps. There is a great deal you say, which resonates with exact harmony for me, but before I comment more I feel like I need to really engross myself into what you have already put out there, because there are certain things I disagree with you on.

17

Thinkr, if your neighbor offends you and you forgive him for it, does that make you a Christian?

I’m sure you have all heard the phrase, “The world is but a stage..”. He was serious when he said it.

A society is like an iceberg, what keeps it afloat is not the part you see. And what separates what is seen versus unseen? - what will be seen as “good” (considerate, kindly, necessary, acceptable, ethical), because if it is not seen as the good, it will be attacked, thus it is kept “underground” or “under see-level”; subterfuge, deceit, conning, hypnosis, thieving, spying, and murdering - the things seen as the “bad”.

There are far, far more bad things keeping a society afloat than good things, “He who reigns in darkness rules the world”. The idea of keeping the iceberg completely above water is a nice fantasy, but in reality, there is only one way to accomplish it, a way that is not presently existent on Earth.

So those who sustain “good ethics” are not those who control the flow of a society (currently). To change that requires a change in what is seen as “good ethics”. What you currently see as good ethics is merely what anyone on the surface would like to see based upon the effects of what they haven’t seen but felt or aberrantly discovered through conflict.

Without extreme understanding of what can or cannot work concerning an abstract society, new and better real societies cannot be designed. And without knowing those details, the ethics of the above see-level society cannot be determined. Which ethical standards yield the best final outcome is an issue for extreme, hardcore designers, social architects or metaphysics engineers, to figure out. They cannot merely go by prior examples, else they require most of society to be the bad while simultaneously preaching for people to be the good, maintaining deception and thus not holding onto the ethical standard that they preach.

Unfortunately, science has very little to offer when it comes to ethics (currently). Any study of prior examples is a bit pointless, because the requirement is to determine the very meaning of “good” on an absolute scale, much like determining a measure of “force”. And even though the “enlightened era” philosophers, such as Ohm, Voltaire, Lorentz, Newton, and others managed to find a means to measure physical effects, none found the key to how to measure the good from the bad. And I have seen no evidence that any progress has been made in that regard, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

So how does one propose a “good ethic”, when one hasn’t even determined the meaning of “good” or even how societies really function?

And btw, “socialism” is merely a modern word (many people hypnotized into liking) for a “kingdom (or empire) and his council wherein the king (or emperor) is kept under see-level”, such as the U.N. wherein the few dictate ethics to the gross many because, as the U.N. openly stated, “Because this is the way that WE want it” (ref: Rio+20, 2012).

18

While I am curious as to what disagreement you may have in mind, it is truly a good plan for one to brush up on the other person’s position before challenging it. Hence, your plan to “really engross” yourself with my writings, to see the full picture, to understand ‘where I’m coming from’, is commendable.

You could begin with some of (the original posts of) previous threads posted here, such as “The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts”; “Ethics in a Nutshell”; “Steps to Value Creation”; or any of the others. See also the o.p. here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181778
and here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181099&p=2358380#p2358380

Then study BASIC ETHICS. See how far the theory has come since M. C. Katz - ETHICS AS SCIENCE, which you may enter as a search request from Google. Compare and contrast. Also read LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, which was written for the educated layman to Philosophy. These are expository documents, in contrast to the Unified Theory in four parts - which is penned in dialog form with fictional characters sitting at a large roundtable, all who are deeply interested in ethics, having an informal discussion with the aim of rounding out a rough theory. Definitions are offered for integrity, hypocrisy, morality, war, justice, value, good, ought, better, unique, moral growth, etc. Among the topics discussed are conscience, guilt, immorality, corruption, ‘evil genes’, kindness, compassion, selfishness, and self-interest. So check it out.

Happy reading!! And if you have any questions, just ask. I’m at your service.

19

Can we agree on these points?

  1. Ethics is about how we treat each other.

  2. Ethics is about conduct.

  3. Ethics offers principles by which people can live.

  4. Ethics is about character, integrity, responsibility, accountability, authenticity, honesty; in other words, about morality.

  5. One who is ethical will not cheat others because that violates the “do no harm” principle.

  6. There is no ethics without justice. Therefore, being ethical implies a concern about justice. One way to be ethical is to seek justice.

  7. Ignorance is the cause of many human problems. It is wise to stay informed. Itt is ethical to seek knowledge.

How about it, folks? Can we agree on anything?

20

!?!