Moral Health

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Moral Health

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:32 am

thinkdr wrote:Have no fear, Artemus, I have no use for "health systems" either !!

Thiefdr, thanks for your response.

thinkdr wrote:... all the world's a stage, and we are all players.

The whole world is a quiz, and we are its candidates. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:39 am

I apologize, Arminius, for misspelling your name. My weak eyes are no excuse.

This is Version 2.0 of the topic; it includes what I learned from those respondents who were constructive in their comments:

[For background, see the o.p. here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185829&p=2472341#p2472341 - ] A further derivation from the axiom which reads "An ethical person approves of making things morally better" is this, (when put into the imperative mode): "Make things better !" This implies "Make yourself better," which in turn implies: "Continuously strive to raise up your MQ."

As you know, a version of The Golden Rule may be deduced from the "Do no harm :!:" principle (which itself follows directly from the very definition , in this new paradigm, of Ethics. [See the section "What is Ethics?" in BASIC ETHICS, a paper which is listed as the third selection below.]
Along with that traditional 'Rule' {viz., Don't do to anyone what you don't want done to yourself} is this further guide:

Don't do something you are tempted to do that is morally questionable, even if you think you can get away with it :!:

Have impulse-control in a case like this or your MQ will go down.

These are guidelines to living an ethical life. There is no coercion involved. The Ethical Theory offered here analyzes violence as having a tiny fraction of value - hardly any at all - although the use of force may at times be permissible, such as in saving the life of a drowning person. The Theory distinguishes between the concepts 'violence' and 'force' as being distinctly different from one another.

Comments? Questions?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:15 pm

thinkdr wrote:I apologize, Arminius, for misspelling your name. My weak eyes are no excuse.

Never mind, Thinkdr. :)

It was just a bit funny.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Moral Health

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:44 pm

All Q's are problematic, especially the EQ and the MQ or similar Q's, because they can be much more misused than the IQ.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:23 am

To a Philosopher what isn't problematic?

The rest of the Ethical Theory which contains the concept of the MQ would tend to militate against misuse of it, since the Theory emphasizes empathy, autonomy, creativity, integrity, morality and respect. The Intrinsic valuation of others is foremost by the very definition of "Ethics" itself. DO NO HARM is the first deduction, and as I understand it this rules out misuse.

Setting a good example by devoting oneself to developing a good character is fundamental and basic to the whole Theory, in its applied aspects. Thus the odds of misue are minimized.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:28 am

Arminius wrote:All Q's are problematic, especially the EQ and the MQ or similar Q's, because they can be much more misused than the IQ.
What is "Q" is always opened to improvements because their basis are very transparent to all. This was how the abuses of "IQ" was exposed and improved upon. These days "IQ" is still relied upon but it is well recognized IQ only measures 'language,' logical skill, basic level of mathematics and analytical thinking.

Are you saying because all "Q's" has limitations and open to abuses, that we should ignored them and relied on subjective, emotional and intuitive thinking?

I believe all subjective human elements must be quantified subject to qualifying its limitations, open to criticisms and continuous improvements.

The advantage we have at the present* is the extensive reach of information via IT.
In the past whatever Q or other knowledge are of lower quality and vulnerable to be abused because the IT then was limited and thus sharing of information was limited.

So No! all Q's are are not problematic per-se, but they must be promoted as a fundamental requirement to represent human values quantitatively, then open for criticisms to prevent abuse and subjected to continuous improvements.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Moral Health

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:27 pm

Arminius wrote:
thinkdr wrote:Have no fear, Artemus, I have no use for "health systems" either !!

Thiefdr, thanks for your response.

thinkdr wrote:... all the world's a stage, and we are all players.

The whole world is a quiz, and we are its candidates. :wink:


He stole my signature. :lol:
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:32 am

The Hartman/Katz model for Ethical Theory, when its analysis turns to Norms, as presented in BASIC ETHICS, p. 19 - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz
informs us that the Intrinsic norm is called by the scientists "the Obligatory Norm."

It arises when an individual takes a Facultative Norm [a material interpretation of the formal statement] seriously and very personally (when the particular facultative norm in question is: human beings ought to be sincere, truthful, empathic, of good will, cooperative, friendly.....) and one says to himself: "I intend to be that way!! I want with all my heart to be a person of good character, having those qualities mentioned. I want it intensely, and will do whatever it takes to achieve it !!!!!"

Ethics, the science, predicts that if an individual makes such a commitment he or she is more liable to be ethical than someone who does not.

Those with a high degree of Moral Health respect the findings of scientific Ethics, and keep posted on the latest research coming from its experimental branch, which is known as Morall Psychology. They like being aware.

Your views?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:40 am

Ethics asks such questions as: How shall I live? What is it to do the right thing? Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person? What should we do? What constitutes right and wrong? What is the "good life"?

Moral health includes flourishing, thriving, cooperating, being of service, empathy, compassion, good will, friendliness, etc. It emphasizes the personal decision to be a good person, and elucidates the value of making this a wholehearted decision.

Understanding what is entailed in being "a good person" eventually encompasses most of the topics raised in a study of ethics, theoretical and applied. Hence, from the above it is clear that character is central; developing a good character is necessary and sufficient to produce and ethical individual, one that will be a role model, exemplifying by his/her life what it means to be ethical. Keep in mind that it;s a matter of degree. Also keep in mind that the theory will only approximate reality; there is no claim to certainty. None of its derivations or its research findings are absolutes. Avove all, it is NOT moralistic. All of its statements are of the form: If you want a Quality Life, then, ----.......
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:06 pm

phyllo,

If you don't feel morally superior are you not undervaluing yourself compared to another person?


What is SO moral about the person who feels Morally Superior to another? There seems to be more than a bit of ego and arrogance there and perhaps low self-esteem.
The way I look at it, someone who strives to be and to become more moral realizes how difficult it is based on how corruptible we have the capacity to be as humans.
Of course, as humans, we tend to judge BUT a self-proclaimed morally superior person is simply a narcissist at heart.
It makes us "feel good" and virtuous to feel morally superior.

How can one, in reality, be overvaluing one's self since one has no idea where the other person has been, his/her life's journey, all of the negative effects which he/her has experienced. How can you judge fairly and with balance?


I mean it's better to be morally healthy than to be morally unhealthy - right? If it isn't better then why try to be morally healthy?


I think that a better phrase than morally healthy would be ethical or ethically healthy.
Someone who is ethical for me would already be morally healthy since they would necessarily strive through their conscience, consciousness, self-awareness not to take pleasure or happiness at the expense of others by deliberately hurting others or depriving others of their own happiness or goods or optimal life by seeking an unfair advantage.
I think that it's an ongoing process. It has to be considering considering who we are as humans.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Moral Health

Postby phyllo » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:22 pm

What is SO moral about the person who feels Morally Superior to another?
If you introduce the concept of moral health then people are going to use it (and abuse it).
Is a morally unhealthy person going to be stigmatized? Maybe. It's common for both physically ill and mentally ill people to be looked down on. Why would moral health be immune to such problems?
I think that a better phrase than morally healthy would be ethical or ethically healthy.
Any time one talks about 'health', there is an associated idea of scientific objectivity.
But we don't have one objective ethical system here. Thinkdr is selecting his preferred system out of several potential systems. The moral health calculation is based on that ethical system. If another person adopts an alternative system, then he could be judged morally unhealthy. That's something that moral relativists can appreciate.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:29 am

phyllo wrote: Any time one talks about 'health', there is an associated idea of scientific objectivity.
But we don't have one objective ethical system here..



Yes, we do. It is a system that is a grand synthesis that absorbs every good ethical system into itself.


In order to round out the picture, and for a fuller understanding, see the posts this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=189426&p=2580357#p2580357

and, of course, see BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach - the 3rd reference in the signature below ....

and see also this paper, which does not mention the words "ethics' nor 'morality' wind it is written for the layperson to Philosophy:

SUCCESSFUL LIVING: How to have a quality life (2016)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Su ... 20life.pdf
.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:39 pm

Yes, we do. It is a system that is a grand synthesis that absorbs every good ethical system into itself.


In order to round out the picture, and for a fuller understanding, see the posts this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=189426&p=2580357#p2580357
I read those axioms and definitions and my impression is that they are vague and circular. They are not beyond dispute.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:33 am

phyllo wrote:
Yes, we do. It is a system that is a grand synthesis that absorbs every good ethical system into itself.


In order to round out the picture, and for a fuller understanding, see the posts this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=189426&p=2580357#p2580357
I read those axioms and definitions and my impression is that they are vague and circular. They are not beyond dispute.

Hi, Phyllo

What definition, stated in ordinary language or in a common tongue such as English, is not circular? You can't name one example. For it is always possible to chase around the dictionary. And - once the math is interpreted - it turns out that every finding in the physical sciences is vague or fuzzy to some degree.

How would you tighten up the axioms? Be constructive. I know you can be.

"Better," as you know, is a well-defined term in the system; it has been analyzed with the use of symbolic Logic. You learned that when you studied the ETHICS: A Co9llege Course manual. ...if you ever did.


When I hear a critic it calls to mind a scene from the movie, Amadeus. In that scene an Emperor {or was it a Baron?} is backstage after an original performance of a new composition by Mozart. The nobleman tells Mozart that the music was nice but something was wrong with it. Mozart asks "What?" The nobleman reflects a moment and responds:" Too many notes." Mozart asks him then: "Which notes would you leave out?" The nobleman can't answer - and the scene fades out.

When someone criticizes Robert Hartman, I am reminded of that scene.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Moral Health

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:06 pm

First you ask :
How would you tighten up the axioms? Be constructive. I know you can be.

Then you suggest that I have nothing to offer:
When I hear a critic it calls to mind a scene from the movie, Amadeus. In that scene an Emperor {or was it a Baron?} is backstage after an original performance of a new composition by Mozart. The nobleman tells Mozart that the music was nice but something was wrong with it. Mozart asks "What?" The nobleman reflects a moment and responds:" Too many notes." Mozart asks him then: "Which notes would you leave out?" The nobleman can't answer - and the scene fades out.

When someone criticizes Robert Hartman, I am reminded of that scene.


He is above criticism. (Or he is above criticism from us dimwits.)

Then why do you ask for comments on your posts? You only want praise?

:-k I glanced at your post yesterday and I was going to respond this afternoon but after rereading your post, I don't know why I should bother. :(
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Moral Health

Postby thinkdr » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:55 am

The name Robert S. Hartman has come up. It may be of interest to know that a bio is available on him here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman

and further details are to be found at the Institute for the study of Formal and Applied Axiology, a link to which is here:

https://www.hartmaninstitute.org/about/ ... s-hartman/
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users