'm inclined to agree with what I think you mean; however your sentence may require some clarification before I can be more sure. When you say: “I think everyone deserves love”, what do you mean by “deserves”?
Would you be so kind as to define the term you used. It would indeed be a great contribution to the science if you would relate that concept to other concepts we already do understand in the theory.
Also, when discussing what is fundamental in Ethics (both the theoretical and empirical study I call the Science of Ethics) we ought to keep in mind what I have written here about the relation of Means to Ends. It What I have written here earlier as a thread on this topic may be worth reviewing. See “Ends and Means.” viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179737
While we are actively engaged in minimizing disvalue for the Individual person, engaged in reducing human suffering, poverty, and misery, we ought to keep in mind that our Ends do not justify the Means unless the Ends-in-view are thoroughly compatible with the Means we use to get to those Ends. It is good to empower the Individual, and provide opportunities for advancement and success for the Individual - and avoid violating the Autonomy of the individual, and encouraging self-management, self-leadership. All this will add value to situations, and even multiply value.
At the same time as we are minimizing disvalue we are optimizing positive value. Yet let us make sure our means are consonant with our ends. If we want love in our life, let’s employ loving means; let’s express love, and shower others with love. It’s elementary, yet hard for folks to grasp.
Acts of love are occurring continuously and constantly among human beings all the time. I defined “love” in chapter five, pp. 16-18, of my paper, ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: KEYS TO THE GOOD LIFE, which philosophers and philosophy students may care to google, and may find its concepts to be of interest.
If you love Peace, then be peaceful. Engage in nonviolent direct action against injustice; exercise truthforce. There is no peace without justice. So work to establish Justice. And remember that Lives Matter Each individual is to be Intrinsically valued.
Would you please identify in detail some of these people - who you claim are giving orders to President Obama, as well as to the other presidents and prime-ministers, and tell us how you learned who they are. [If they operate in secret, behind the scenes, then how did you find out their identity? Were you there at one of the secret meetings??]
Who is our enemy? How do we know our enemy? How do we inspire the enemy? And how do we avoid inspiring the enemy?
Now that I see you have applied Integral Calculus to ethics, I respect you more - [size=63]more than when I first read your views about “enemies” and got the wrong impression perhaps. I said to myself: that’s how an individual suffering from Paranoia speaks[/size]. It is still necessary to come up with a formal definition of “joy,” however; necessary for scientific purposes to tighten up that concept. It is also necessary to explain why “harmonious relations for as long as possible” is the ONLY way to achieve joy. Why not just (as a solitaire game) solving a logic puzzle, or doing a crossword puzzle being a source of joy for a person? What’s not ethical about that??
I think that we have leaped past that discussion, of which you would have gained very little, if anything. You and I come from vastly different worlds (think: space alien chatting with valley girl).
Let’s stick with the Science discussion for a while.
Science has a hard time with definitions, especially in psychology (not exactly a hard science despite their efforts). Philosophers (specifically logicians) form the best and most coherent definitions, not scientists.
All conscious beings are guided by their perception of hope and threat, “PHT”. You probably see that as a claim or assertion. But in reality, it is a declaration of definition:
“Whatever guides all conscious beings is to be called ‘Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT’.”
Now before you argue, consider what the “scientific definition” of “perception of hope” currently is.
Can you think of any? As far as I know, the world of science does not have such a definition. So they certainly cannot tell me that I am wrong. The real question is whether the definition that I am providing is of sufficient usefulness in building an ontology for psychology (to eventually define “joy” in a useful manner). All fields of Science choose their definitions for all things based upon their perception of usefulness.
In an analytical mechanistic science, an entity has hope if it can first perceive (so as to enable remote recognition - “consciousness”), then identify preference (whether rational or not), then intuit or predict a probability that the preference will actualize. The degree of hope is a combination of the degree of preference and the predicted probability. A simple multiplication of intuitively quantized amounts would suffice:
Perception of Hope = Preference * Perceived Probability
And again, this becomes an issue of definition, not merely an equation. Ontologically (in this scenario) it cannot be disputed other than to claim that such would be insufficiently useful and thus something else preferred. And the perception of threat is merely the opposite:
Perception of Threat = Disfavor * Perceived Probability
The concept of joy then becomes the conscious sensation of the experience of that hope being fulfilled or maintained; Probability = 100% (usually via perceived gradual progress toward the hopeful situation). Again, this becomes “scientific definition” if the science community so ordains.
Calculating simple Joy then becomes easy: Joy = Preference * 1 = Accomplished Preference
Of course the mind/psyche does not function so simplistically as to have merely a single hope or threat being considered. All kinds of body functions, unconscious tones and subtleties, as well as more conscious thoughts and even the effort to form thoughts are all being balanced simultaneously. And every effort is led by a hope or chased by a threat. The final conscious sensation of joy is the summation of the progress of all of those preferences weighed against the progress of the disfavored state.
Thus to get to a truly high state of joy, one must subconsciously be calculating that every effort being pursued through his mind and body are being accomplished. There can be no hope unsatisfied. And that leads to the wisdom of never wanting for what is not already within reach or never vesting hope in what is not clearly to be.
And so now we can equate the more realistic experience of joy as: Experienced Joy over time = ∑ Accomplished Preferences / time
Are you referring to this:
If one does not maintain a harmony with ones surroundings, one is constantly threatened and thus not achieving the highest hope that would be attained if one lived in harmony and thus could not experience the highest degree of joy (just as the equations above would indicate).
It is not a violation of ethics to play a solitaire game unless doing so creates a disharmonious situation (such as doing it on the job). In most cases, playing such games aids the inner efforts to harmonize internally (usually relieving anxiety/boredom). Keep in mind that Joy is about both inner and outer efforts that are always operating. Ethics comes into play only concerning the outer social effects of choices. MIJOT is the balance of all of it.
…and btw, MIJOT allows for a much more accurate (life fulfilling) economy and governance to replace money. Money is about power and influence. MIJOT currency is about joy and longevity (which innately includes power and influence but in the right proportions).
So, a man who habitually hurts his wife and children deserves love, deserves to be loved?
I wonder, if that IS the case, how do we begin to recognize true value, justice and fairness?
I think that in the case of the prodigal son, it has nothing to do with him being “deserving” of love, it simply has to do with the father’s loving, the paternal instinct. It was the father’s choice to welcome him back. In HIS eyes, both sons were equal but the reality of it is different.
Wouldn’t his uncountably (?) high value depend more on that individual himself?
I think that perspective may be more a part of christian ethics - which may have less basis in reality.
But I may be wrong.
When we come into the world, perhaps we are of high value, we are innocent creatures, though honestly even then abortion itself disputes that perspective of high value deserving to all - but at some point, true discerning and judgment will dictate that some have more “real” value and some less value.
I wonder if the voice of christian ethics booms loudly in the face of an unwanted pregnancy?
Aside from that, how can you honestly say that the callous, apathetic murderer, the rapist who rapes a child, the pedophile, the wife and child beater - they all are deserving of love?
There are only certain categories where “one size fits all” at least to me.
When you say that someone deserves something, what you are saying is that due to the service of that person, he should be allowed leeway, rights, or extra treatment. That is what “deserve” means. It is a term used by rationalists who have priorities in mind such as a particular social order or hierarchy. e.g. “higher ranking individuals deserve greater leeway … so as to serve society better”.
So when you are asking about what a criminal deserves, what you are actually asking is what action upon the criminal best serves … society, personal vengeance, or what?
As you know, it was HisTHOUGH7 who used such words as “deserve” or “deserving.”
In contrast, my argument is that by definition once you view an individual from the perspective that they are of Intrinsic Value (as it is defined in the system named Ethics (-- [size=87]see the selections referenced in the signature below to understand the usage[/size]–) then at that instant you are becoming ethical. From this elegant new theory a plethora of conclusions follow. One who is acquainted with the history-of-ideas in the areas of"moral philosophy, or the history of ethical thought, will recognize the concepts of this theory as congruent (or as matching) those earlier concepts. In the view of some readers, this contemporary theory says a lot with a little; it is relatively concise." I leave it up to you, after you have studied the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics, whether you find it to be clear, and yet have depth.
[size=50]
What I personally seek when I read philosophy is a body of thought that is deep and yet has clarity. …but maybe that’s just me…[/size]
Each individual is to be Intrinsically valued.