Benefits and assets of the New Paradigm for Ethics

…continuing the theme of the original post…

Ethics, at its foundation indicates that we are to make things morally better. In fact, the New Paradigm has that as its axiom. [See the explanation for this in THE STRUCTURE booklet, a link to which is offered below.]

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?” Your goal would be to create value; and 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. You will have a will and a willingness to reach this goal you have set for yourself. To be a decent human being is now a norm to which you are dedicated. You intend to add value to the world in which you live; you want to make a difference, to live a life that is meaningful. 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 is not a madman, yet who seems most malicious, was aware of his true self-interest, consider what would logically-follow from that: If he 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 Ethical insight tends to directs one to do} then it is possible [and even likely that] 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” Your earlier study and re)search into the topic – a new paradigm for Ethics – gave you the answer to this question so there is no need to go into it here. [See the many earlier threads (as well as in the References below) written by yours truly on the definitions of “value,” on “goodness,” and on “a good character.”]

Comments? Questions? Discussion?

.

When we help each other, we all thrive !

In the words of Robert Ingersoll:

In a sense, giving and receiving are the same …if you interpret “giving” in a new way:
That is, you say to yourself, "“Ethics teaches me to be generous-hearted. And I want to be a decent human being who has some moral principles. Thus I know that due to the abundance with which I have been provided, I will not be harming myself if I give a big tip for a service I get, or if I contribute my gifts and talents voluntarily to the world, or if I volunteer to be of service. So in that sense I will give myself away freely, and I’ll feel good about it afterwards. …just as if I had been the recipient of someone’s generosity!!!”

And you have been: for example, the use of electricity by the brains of Volta, Tesla, and Edison; the invention of the telephone by Alexander G. Bell; etc., etc.

.

Every expression of one’s conduct flows from one’s core values.

If one cares to be moral, one needs a personal positive code.

Thus it is suggested that you articulate your code of conduct.

In that way you will be a conservator of your values.

A person’s responsibility is to be a keeper of his/her code.

What is in your personal code? Are values – such as for example, love, life, health, empathy, compassion, service, moral growth, helpfulness, generosity, serenity, optimism, value-creation, integrity – a part of it?

----Let’s hear from you! What do you say?

In a previous post there is a list of examples of values that are in my personal code. I omitted to mention one that is equally vital to the others. It is Truthfulness.

Truthfulness is necessary to gain trust. Without truthfulness there is no trust.

Trust is prerequisite for having a civilized society.

Recall the fate of the paranoid Dobu culture of Papua, New Guinea: the Dobu are no longer around. No one there could trust anyone else on the island. The culture soon died out.

Today the United States is a more–divided society than it was in 2015. Could incompetent leadership of a country have something to do with this? Could a President, who suffers from a Malignant Personality Disorder, have something to do with this? One of the traits in the cluster that comprises this condition is Compulsive Lying. Does this contribute to a lack of Truthfulness? And therefore to the breakdown of a society?

Do you agree that Truth and Ethics are highly correlated?

Isn’t honesty an ethical quality?

Do we need ethics?

Why doesn’t the U.S. have it? Could it be that many who live in the USA do not have clarity with regard to values? They don’t know “which way is up”?
[If you asked them today, they would say that “Donald Trump is doing a good job” Or “He is the strong leader we need. He is making America great again.”
This is where the life work of Philosopher Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) becomes relevant. He taught people to have a good sense of values. He taught us about S, E, and I. And the ethical formula: I > E > S. It is so important that everyone understand this! When translated it says that people are more valuable than things; and that things are more important than ideas. Alternatively, it can be read as saying that Empathy takes priority over Action; and thoughtful, reasoned Action is better than mere idle reflection, or thought-without-practice …which is something that Plato and Kant and Whitehead taught us long ago.

Your views on any of these matters?

My previous post offered the formula – derived from the work of the philosophical genius, Robert S. Hartman – which is I > E > S. It comes to us from Formal Axiology, informally known as value science. It is mainly Logic applied to values.

The formula can be understood, in one of its many applications, as People are more vital than Things. And the wish to accumulate things (to own property) tales priority over systems, ideologies, and so-called theories.
Note that many would agree that “Evil” is a topic relevant to Ethics.

What is the structure of Evil?

One is ready to do evil if one’s faulty thinking puts systemic-values above inndividual persons (or groups of them) {claiming in effect S > I}; or puts systems (or labels or prejudices based on simplistic viewpoints) above material and/or reasoned, ethical action. {This is the fallacy S > E.}
Also Evil arises when one puts the drive to own things and/or property [materialism] above Intrinsically-valuing people.
{This is the axiological fallacy E > I.}

The moral fallacies involved are E > I; S > E ; and S > I. The latter is the greater mistake, and thus leads to greater evils …such as, for example, burning ‘a witch’ - or any heretic - at the stake; or blowing up a passenger plane in mid-flight, or storming the U. S. Capital in the name of installing our “Dear Leader-with-the- orange-hair” as President for life. All of these are examples of Terrorism.

Your views? Can you comment? Was anything learned? How do evaluate or appreciate the knowledge, and/or the topics discussed?

ON UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

It is unethical to engage in character assassination.

Thus an ethical individual will not disparage, insult, nor debase or “put down” another person. [The exception to this is in describing a professional celebrity, or a politician. They may be ridiculed or satired if you believe they deserve it, and if your belief is based upon good reasons.]

To sum up, a person of good character – who is one who wants to create maximum value – will not disparage others. Ethics is about creating value in human interactions; it is about good human relations.

…………………When we help each other we all thrive!”

Comments? Questions? Discussion?

In an earlier thread, “Kindness is Not Enough,” I wrote that we also need, in addition to being kind, to develop morally. How does one do that? One way, we learned from the New Paradigm for eEthics is to add new standards to those we already live by. And then to put the new principle into practice …“practice what you preach” is itself a good standard with which to abide.

In keeping with this, I have added a new Moral Principle to the list of those I shall live by. It is this: — End a conflict as quickly as possible!! It comes from
Carl von Clausewitz He applied it to violent conflicts; he wrote on the subject of war.

I have generalized this advice: I apply it to conflicts in general. So here is my latest insight: The ethical procedure is to end every conflict as rapidly as one can.

This is a new principle I intend to live by. [And, of course, as pointed out in detail in the College Course booklet, one is to be fussy about the means used to reach that end-in-view. The means and methods are to be ethical – those that a person of good character would employ. This is clearly explained in that reference mentioned. See Ch. 12, the section on The Means-Ends Relationship.] wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf

Discussion?? Feedback? Ideas?..

Practical Examples?

Please refer to my livid / lived example in the creative writing forum with ’ identity’ title section for a very real example. Thanks.

It may help.

Greetings, Meno

Can you, please, give us a link to that example?

And many thinks for your offer to help!

thinkdr :

The link contains an overabundance of material , a a possible relevant portion of the text may do.

It is somewhat prosaic, but essentially definitive of actual problems faced by people here in the US. everywhere.

The criticality of such examples have never been more pressing then currently, to the best of my recollection.

Please relate , if having problems with inferring meaning.

Her culpa Her maximum culpa. That she had no clue of Sharia Law.

Even after told her stories of women buried alive , maids, who fought their masters rape them.

So here goes, her tearing hair, screaming and tears rivers.

.

And the story happened in the Big Apple, there were these respectable Middle Easterners, no problems prior, record.

But their fall from grace was notable, documented , and horrific.

Their only 15 year old daughter dared to date this equally nice black guy.

So they found out and threatened this virginal teenager. But she would 't budge.

So papa and mama were left neutralized, and hatched up the plan.

Next day in the door, while mamma held her down, papa repeatedly stabbed her near the kitchen so while she begged for life: even mamma was unmoved, pressing her into a manageable position.

Near the kitchen, cause they knew cleanup would be necessary to prevent discovery.

But it wasn’t.

Brought before the judge, they were defiant. He cursed the judged for interfering with Holy Shariah Law, .

The effect on the judge was minimal, not even mentioning that the laws of the old country may not apply here.

They were sentenced and executed a year after that.

They probably probably seen themselves guiltless and were presently transported to heaven.

How cruel can their god can get?"

Thank you, Meno, for relating those events, thus giving us a practical example of how conflict between parents and child, and between society and murderers, was ended quickly. Telling a story is an Intrinsic-value way of teaching and learning, in contrast with the Systemic approach often used in philosophic circles.

The opposite of conflict is harmony, inner joy, serenity.

If there is sufficient interest expressed, in a future post I will refocus away from conflict, and the negative. I will instead focus on the positive. I’ll give examples of what is in our real self-interest …acheiving harmony.

Hello again and I quote You:

“When we help each other we all thrive, provided what we do is truly helpful, i.e., it contributes toward a better world as well as a Quality Life for all”

This dilemma has at one time been appropriate for prisoners, who had more face to face contacts, and they were afforded that opportunity in a closed environment in which freed and the lack of were starkly contradictory.

Nowdays, such contrast has interwoven bounderies, in or outside Goffman, and the set standards leaves the question of freedom and responsibility more widely extrinsic to interpretation.

The need at this moment for some presumptive logic to support the contension that a solution to solve conflict is imminent and urgent , the example above showing the desperate diminution to lower bars of cultural and identifiable differences seeping into both sides of conflicting situations . So as to become viable, forming certain logical synapses out of that sense of urgency of extrinsic elements becomes necessary.

New standards forming such needed paradigm are at times fruitless to overcome the differences imputed by the needed connection implicit within and without the synaptic and the behavioral focii, which may change into illusive optical changes to be relied upon.

That said, reactive conscious behavior, will, under today’s emphatic inception, will bar instrumentation of needed quick ending of conflict resolution

The need to thin out the paradigm as a way to assure a cognitive assurance against fracturing it, is a felt need, and surely depend on the substance of such assurance.

The assurance for such need, has been going downhill. giving rise to thickening the center of such an asset, before benefits can be surmised to appear at those forming fractures.

The impending fractured causing the coming of the angst, is indicative of the need to intervene, for complete fractures may no longer be open to repair.

This may be less , or more ‘philosophical’ the implication warrants, but because of ‘fracturing’ being brought up time and again, within contexts that may relate to ethical/moral digression, just brought this in as an unexplored element.

For whatever reason You may add to this or, ignore it, without the slightest reservation, assuredly.

WHAT’S IN OUR SELF-INTEREST?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life …but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility – taking responsibility for one’s actions – which means being ready and willing to be held accountable. It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one’s “ethical radius” to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.

I agree.

No. For purely anthropological - human-evolutionary and especially human-historical - reasons, people are not able to do what you expect them to do. Whenever people have done that, there has been more injustice than before. Humans are not capable of embracing the whole humanity for anthropological reasons, but only those from their closer environment (family, kinship, maybe more, e.g. nation or cultural circle, but not humanity).

Communism also demanded what you demand and murdered 500 million people in the process. Great, isn’t it?

First of all, I don’t “demand” it. I don’t - with regard to ethics - demand anything I am just relating that The Inclusivity Principle of the new paradigm for Ethics recommends including more individuals that you consider to be your ‘in-group.’

When you say “historical reasons,” you are telling us it (the widespread adoption of the Inclusivity Principle) hasn’t happened yet: No kidding

While I admit that, so far, humans may not have evolved to the point recommended as being in their full self-interest; that does not mean that they cannot. As evolution proceeds, they can eventually reach this point. …Some of us go even farther and manage currently to identify with the planet Saturn. {Modesty forbids my informing you that I include it in my circle.}

What do the rest of you think about these topics? …Discussion? Ideas?

Humans have to become the so-called “transhumans” in order to change their anthropological structure. Transhumans are no longer humans, only partly humans. But the evolution of human beings is finished when humans have become transhumans. The word “trans” means “beyond”, so “transhuman” means “beyond human”. And that is how it should be understood. Unfortunately!

Greetings, Great Again

I have a question for you.

You write:

My question is:

Who do you think had a more-accurate view of human nature? Was it Thomas Hobbes, author of LEVIATHAN, a writer in the 1500s, to whom I devote a brief allusion in my booklet, BASIC ETHICS [see pp 42-45 here]:
myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

Or was it

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who in 1762 wrote both: The Social Contract as well as Émile; or, On Education.

Readers may wish ato forecast which one GA will choose…

A typo crept into my previous post. So this is an editorial correction:
Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588. He published the book Leviathan in 1651. He lived 91 years. See the Wikipedia entry on him for more details.

A belief in aspects of Hobbes’ views on humanity’s “state of nature” is likely held by those human beings who are predators on their own species …predators on other humans. They may hold that “life is brutish,” for they help make it so. Examples of predators are con-artists; slave-holders; malignant-minded power-seekers such as the one we endured in the last four years; manipulative exploiters; those with a criminal mind; etc.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau wrote about the concept of a Social Contract.

The answer to the question posed in the recent post, however, as to which philosophy of human nature to accept is: “neither.” Instead consult modern Brain Neurology, Moral , PsychologyDevelopmental Psychology, Behavioral Ethics, and related fields of science for the latest research on topics which have a bearing on “human nature.”

Comments? Discussion? Informational updates? Etc. …all are welcome.

Be sure to check out this site - especially section 4 - and you will better understand why I speak of Ethics as a science.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology

As the Unified Theory of Ethics (also known as ‘the new paradigm’ for Ethics) informs us, the field of Moral Psychology is the experimental branch of the Unified Theory. The Theory supplies the basic concepts that serve to organize the studies, and the research being done by the psychologists…in a discipline that was once known as Philosophy of Mind. Nowadays these devisers of creative tests and experiments focus on topics that enhance and fit in with the concerns of Ethics, concerns such as Moral Reasoning, Normative implications, and Stages of Moral Development.