The new perspective on Ethics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

According to the history of ideas, in the study of ethics, the main contemporary ideas with which ethics is concerned are these:

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

The new perspective on ethics being offered for your consideration would answer: Concentrate on becoming a good person.
If you do, you definitely will be likely to consider the consequences of your actions, as well as attend to your primary responsibility which is “your duty,” namely, to care for those closest to you such as your mate or your family. All the traditional schools of ethics agree on this primary concern.

We are pre-wired to look out for our own interest, but that does not mean we are to be selfish. Selfishness is immoral. Furthermore, it is your moral duty, in a sense, to keep yourself healthy and strong so that you will then be in a position to help and serve others, and to perform acts of kindness. This is ethics in practice.

Traditional Ethics has also inquired: What is the good life for the good person?

The new perspective, the Hartman/Katz framework, would indicate that if one has a good character (with all that implies) as well as evidence of personal achievement toward making the world a better place, then one is living a good life.

The ultimate goal is to provide a “quality-life” for one and all. That means that each would be content that he/she has an adequate quality-of-life, and that we all are living with a good balance with nature and with our environment.

What say you about this new way of looking at Ethics? Your comments are welcome. :bulb: Can you suggest ways to upgrade the perspective, and improve upon it. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:
To learn more about it, study the References listed below.

2

[b]Ancient yet very-recent perspective on Ethics and Moral Philosophy

[b]If a kid in pre-school, or kindergarten, acts violenly, or grabs away another kid’s toy, the teacher says to that child: “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”
What is happening here? The teacher is in effect "teaching the kid Ethics. We are social animals; and most of us learn our Ethics -so to speak- ‘on our mother’s knee.’ What is it, though, that we are learning?

We learn these points [which philosophers have spoken of at various times as "The Golden - orPlatinum- orSilver Rule]: Treat others as you would like to be treated; if you want to be treated decently, treat others decently!

One may phrase the concept more poetically as: “Love thy neighbor as you love yourself.”
But what if you don’t love yourself?? … It turns out many do not.

In that case, the science (the highly-systematic framework) of Ethics indicates that it would be wise for such an individual - as soon as humanly possible - to get therapy, or to get some Life Coaching!!
In a sane, well-governed society such action would be facilitated by the Executive Department of the government …of the political party in power. The violent tendencies of the child would not be allowed to linger, or to fester. A mandatory transfer to a rehabilitative facility which would tenderly and warmly administer some therapy for a child, with frequent progress reports to the parents, would be the norm.
Or if it is an adult who doesn’t 'love himself/herself, then it would be expected by society that that person would seek out affordable Life Coaching or Counseling by competent, qualified, coaches - such as, say, those at Axiogenics, Inc. - who can show a number of endorsements and testimonials as to their competence and good reputation.

When you “love yourself” - as Dr. R. S. Hartman taught - you would then: Know yourself {as The Oracle at Delphi is said to have told Socrates to do. …It includes defining your purpose, your unique contribution for getting closer to the attainment of The Ultimate Goal of Ethics and Values.}
Furthermore, yu would Accept yourself …with all the defects, frailties, tendencies-to-error or to make mistakes, forgetfulness, etc. you may have.

In addition, you would Create yourself; that is, you would bring out ‘the inner artist,’ so to speak: you would work on developing your capacities and gifts, your natural skills.
And finally, you would Give Yourself to the world. You would perform if you are an actor or an entertainer; you would share your success secrets with the less-fortunate among us, helping them to rise up a step on ‘The Ladder of Opportunity.’[/b]

What do you, dear Reader, think about any, or all, of this? What are your thoughts about it? Speak up!

3

That fourth aspect of ‘loving your neighbor as you love yourself’ mentioned at the end of the recent post above indicates, in effect, Express Yourself; find your true purpose in life; develop your capacities; and figure out how you can and will contribute toward the Ultimate Goal of ethics and human development. That Goal was presented in the original post, the first post of this thread.

As a result, you will make the world a better place, you will succeed in enhancing the quality of life for everyone. For it is the case that ‘we all do better when we all do better!’
Hence, innovate, invent, disrupt a current established enterprise with a better one, upgrade, enhance, be constructive. Don’t just “add value”; instead create value in your relationships both with other individuals and with the environment which is our habitat.

And observe the moral principle named The Inclusivity Principle.
It reads: be as inclusive as possible. Extend the radius of your moral compass to sweep in as many as possible which you consider to be your in-group.

Let’s hear your ideas on any or all of this.
How do you feel about this new perspective on what it means to be ethical?

4

What is new?

5

Ichthus77 asks What is new about the “new perspective on Ethics.”?

The Meta-Ethics it employs, that defines the concept “x is a good C” , uses variables and thus covers much more data than any theory that does not use them.
That is new.
We need to define that concept in order to understand the use of the term, good, in speaking of “a good character” as distinct from a “bad” one. Or, as we do in the first Reference – which it appears our critic did not bother to read – we speak of “a good morality score” or a good moral standard worth adopting and adding to our repertoire. Or “a good system of Ethics,” etc.

In your view, Readers, has the golden rule worked so-efficiently-well that it has produced so many ethical individuals lately …who will not disparage others, who will be considerate and deferential, courteous and ready to be of service? If not, then perhaps we need a new approach that emphasizes the use of nonviolent direct action as a way of making social change for the better. That is new.

How come we see the emergence of more massacres of innocent people, domestic violence, fascism, anti-science-ism, cult-following, election to the highest office of one who has so-many psychiatric problems, i.e., a recent former President? Etc.
Could all this indicate the need for a new approach? Or for better methods of education? Or for a secular theory that relies on evidence, is empirical, has a systematic framework, and other fine features.

What say you?

6

The point is to love the other as self. We don’t need a new point, we need to live out the old point that never changes and it’s always going to be the point. There are 50 Bajillion (limitless) different ways to live out that old point in new and creative ways. The problem is all the junk (none of the good stuff) we come up with misses the point. Return to the point.

7

What is the difference between the three?

The word “duty” means “what one is obligated to do”. That, in turn, means “what one ought to do”. That, in turn, means “an act that leads to the most preferable consequences”. And if your actions are such that they lead to the most preferrable consequences, then you’re a good person.

Well, in order to be a good person, you have to make the best decisions; and the best decisions are the ones that lead to the most preferable consequences for you.

Basically, it doesn’t matter whether you’re concetrating on your duty, on your consequences or on being a good person. It’s all the same.

One that matches your pre-wired idea of an ideal life. That might basically be an eternal life where each decision that you make is the best possible decision that you could have made. On the other hand, that’s not merely a good life; that’s a perfect life.

8

So now, Magnus, all you have to do is to define and explain to people what “preferable” means, and what “consequence” means. And why being “perfect” is better than being “good” – according to their preferable definitions. :sunglasses:

Plato attempted to do the job for the word “good”, and later, so did G. E. Moore, who eventually gave up; asserting it couldn’t be done. But then, much later in his life he admitted it likely could be. Dr. R. S. Hartman succeeded at that task in 1967. :exclamation:
See Preface and Introduction here: wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_value

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman

And Dr. Nicholas Rescher wrote a little book - filled mainly with logical symbols - in which he explained, in his own way, ‘the logic of preference.’ I know of no one, though, who felt enlightened after studying it as to how better now to conduct oneself ethically. :neutral_face:

What do you think, folks, did Mr. Anderson clear it all up for you? And where does this leave traditional ethics?

It is good that we both agree that being a good person, and having a good character, is something for which we ought all to aim.

Do all of you also agree?

9

If you actually agreed, then you would go with the golden rule that is found in every major culture in history for a reason. It is transcultural because it is what works about every culture (including your internal culture). It is the condition for the possibility of loving each other (including ourselves) despite our crap.

No one who actually wants to return to the point would speak against or ignore actually returning to the point.

10

regarding GE Moore, I said this in the vampire thread on December 26:

That’s why you need all 3. One cannot stand in for the other.

Steal this. Scatter it like seeds of fire.

Every knee.

388E1A77-1397-459F-BDC3-7D0844D1EBA5.jpeg
388E1A77-1397-459F-BDC3-7D0844D1EBA5.jpeg910×878 173 KB

B84AF372-2B8A-4312-9161-0AC4EB15F988.jpeg

11

I’ve been publishing about this stuff online since 2009, but I did not invent the Good. Have at it.

Scan for reification:
ichthus77.com/2009/11/01/moral- … es-part-3/

Pretty sure I have some variant of Bob ‘39 to blame for that^ sharpened iron.

Which could always use more sharpening.

12

Ichthus77 writes: “I’ve been publishing about this stuff online since 2009, but I did not invent the Good. Have at it.”

I have a serious suggestion: Do read this document – especially Ch. 4, pp. 17-19 – and then we’ll [have a good basis with which to] continue the dialogue.
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf

This recommendation is not only for you, Ichthus77 but for other readers and participants in this Forum as well.
There are parts of it that nearly everyone here would find to be enjoyable reading …maybe just to note how how my views have evolved over the years. I now have a new and improved definition of “Morality” than I had then when this came out.

13

I read chapter 4 and still have the same thing to say and hope you consider what I said and engage with it.

14

Happy New Year everyone!

:arrow_right: Ichhtus77, I like your use of a Venn Diagram. You are on the right track to employ logic as you do, with equations too!! Ethical Theory needs more of that :exclamation:

:bulb: Let us hope and trust, as we enter the year 2023, that the programmers and coders, using AI concepts, succeed in dispensing with and eliminating all backbreaking hard labor, all laborious toil, and misery, all boring work, while allowing the interesting work, such as research, artistic expression, comedy, etc. to go on and to flourish. See: - openai.com/

:bulb: :bulb: And may everyone develop a consciousness that the entire human species is our support-group; and that with all our differences of which we have many, we have more in common than we are different. We share more properties in common even though we are each unique.

15

Happy New Year, friend.
Best wishes, and hope life’s treating you well.
Your words are very lovely and make us reflect on positive possibilities.

16

Thank you, Ben, for your kind words.

You have a conscience which is wide awake. You have an excellent sense of values, as measured by Formal Axiology, the Science of Value.

For those who want to learn the technicalities of the science, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_value
And also see the explanation in clearer language, in this document, which goes into more detail: wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf

All who read/peruse some or all of the philosophical analysis and synthesis contained in this safe-to-open booklet, to which a link has just been offered, let us hear your opinion of the work. Give it a brief review. Okay? Thank you.

17

Many of you may have missed this the first time it appeared. Hence it might be worthwhile to reproduce it here. Please give us your views on any of the topics it raises. Itt offers lots more details on this “new perspective” on Ethics. I trust it evokes some reflections, and some responses on your part. So speak up after you have considered its contents; tell us how you feel about it! The point I will be making is that kindness is not enough for moral growth and development :exclamation:

PART ONE

While it is commendable that the Wheeling Iilinois School District is encouraging and endorsing kindness, let us keep in mind that what people really want is a Quality Life (a QL); what this consists of will shortly be clarified. In order to have a Quality Life, kindness is part of it but it is not enough.
{As some academics would say: “kindness is necessary but not sufficient.”}
What is needed for a QL is kindness plus for each of us to commit to moral improvement throughout all of our life.
The premise we Life Counselors start with is: Make things better! This is the axiom for human development. …[See now Part Two …coming next.

1) See Marvin Katz – The Structure of Ethics (2019).

http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
(See the first selection linked below where this document is offered to you free of charge.)

18

PART TWO

b]There are two components to this philosophical analysis of human development.[/b]
1) Make it better for yourself.
2) Make it better for others.

In order to make it better for yourself your behavior is to more-and-more approximate your image of your ideal self. This happens as you learn more of the moral principles and devote yourself to living them in practice.
You also better yourself as you come to know yourself, to accept yourself as you are (with all your flaws and weaknesses), yet you make the conscious choice to be true to your best self. Then you are to create yourself (i.e., develop your talents, gifts, and capacities.) And then you give yourself. (Express for the world these gifts.) That is the process for truly bettering yourself in this world.
Many kids growing up, if they have not inherited wealth from their parents or guardians, would like to have some money or the things that money can buy. What they need to learn is:

  1. Before you can have you need to do. What does that mean? Before a person can have money s/he needs to accomplish something that society finds to be valuable.

    1. Before you do, you need to be. That is to say, before a person can really accomplish something one needs to be true to one’s true self. How? The answer is to keep improving morally throughout one’s lifetime.

What is involved in moral improvement toward the goal of becoming one’s ideal self? It is simple: the more one gains knowledge of moral principles, and the more one lives up to them, one is evolving morally. These principles are not rules; they are merely guidelines.

One may ask: guidelines to what? They are guidelines to a smooth, well-lived life – a trouble-free life, a life with as little aggravation as possible.

That is how you ‘make it better’ for yourself: you claim your human rights while keeping in mind that there are no rights without responsibility! Therefore you assume responsibility. You seek it out. You take it on. To say it briefly, you DO. You insist on excellence in your own performance of a task. You want to do it both efficiently and effectively. What is the difference between these two ideas? …[See now Part Three, coming next, for an explanation.]

19

your be/do/end need to be completely consistent

there is no “before”

20

There would have been if you had not come in where you did –

You may want to see Part One earlier. It is a preface to Part Two.

Next post will present to you Part Three. Be sure to study it to perhaps be edified on some concept of which the reader may not have been previously aware.